Blog @ MoreWhat.com

NEWSWEEK Cover: Why Gaza Matters

The June 25 Issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, June 18), “Why Gaza Matters” explores the impact the Hamas-lead attacks have on the rest of the Middle East. Plus: An exclusive interview Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that despite pressure to make changes in Iraq, he needs time because the decisions he is making will be “written in stone”; Angelina Jolie on the making of “A Mighty Heart,” being an activist and a mother; and Fred Thompson’s Senate record. (PRNewsFoto/Newsweek)

NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 06/16/2007

The Most Chaotic, Violent and Fractionalized Countries in the Middle East
are the Ones U.S. Urged to Hold Elections
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki says, ‘The Timetables Given, Sometimes I Do Not
Find Them in President Bush’s Mind so Much as They are in the Minds of Some
People Who Make [Public] Statements’

NEW YORK, June 17 /PRNewswire/ — This has been a bad week for
President Bush’s freedom agenda in the Middle East. Between the continued
violence in Iraq and the Hamas-lead violence that has broken out in Gaza,
America’s hopes for bringing peace to the Middle East are waning.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070616/CLSA011 )
The violence that has rocked Gaza over the last week has left Hamas
fighters in control of the 140-square-mile strip and it may now become
Hamas’s private enclave and perhaps even an ungovernable font of terror. In
the June 25 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, June 18), Senior
Editor Michael Hirsh states that the defeat of the secular and more
moderate Fatah forces could, along with the insurgents’ success in Iraq,
inspire Islamist radicals in the region and around the world.
In his second Inaugural Address, the president embraced the promotion
of democracy as his top priority, declaring: “The survival of liberty in
our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”
Hirsh points out, however, that in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, as
in Russia, Pakistan and other places, liberty is retreating. Now citizens
of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy-Iran, say,
or Syria- have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In
Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself. In Iraq,
the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have
created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly
national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply
rejected the election results.
After Hamas’s wins, the United States and other Western countries cut
aid money to the Palestinian government, instead funneling resources
directly to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s office, reports Jerusalem
Bureau Chief Kevin Peraino. Some observers accuse Washington of baldly
encouraging rivalry between the two camps. In a confidential report leaked
last week, United Nations envoy Alvaro de Soto wrote that “the U.S. clearly
pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas.” De Soto recounts
listening to a U.S. official declare, “I like this violence,” twice at an
envoys’ meeting in Washington recently. “The U.S. fanned the flames of this
internal Palestinian conflict,” says Haim Malka of Washington’s Center for
Strategic and International Studies. State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack dismissed de Soto’s remarks as “the views of an individual.”
What seems certain is that Hamas-run Gaza is doomed to greater
isolation and misery. With the Islamists in control, Israel may intensify
its campaign of air strikes on Hamas rocket teams and other militants. Some
Israeli analysts point out that a strong Hamas leadership in Gaza could
have its advantages; at least someone would be in control there. But that
is a minority view. “There’s no common ground [with Hamas],” says Ephraim
Sneh, Israel’s deputy Defense minister. Dialogue, he says, is almost
certainly a nonstarter. “Listen to them, for God’s sake!” he says. “Gaza
will be worse than Mogadishu. Our Apache [helicopter gunships] will talk to
them.”
Peraino also reports that Gaza is likely to experience further troubles
once the chaos settles because of the exodus of the territory’s middle
class citizens. The Gazans most likely to escape are those with means and
connections–the ones Gaza can least afford to lose. In the past 12 months,
88,320 people have left Gaza for Egypt through the Rafah crossing, and only
76,176 have come in-a net loss of some 12,000 people. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that the vast majority of those who manage to escape are the
young, wealthy and well educated. Many of those who are leaving are
technocrat types who work for organizations like the United Nations and
foreign NGOs with global reach.
“The next American president will have to grapple with a Middle East
that is messier and quite possibly angrier than before 9/11.” Hirsh says.
“But also, in a larger sense, he or she will have to confront anew a harsh
lesson in the limits of power. America can only be, at best, a guiding hand
behind an international system that is disposed to democracy and open
markets.”
Meanwhile, in Iraq, patience with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is
running out. Maliki recently gave Newsweek an exclusive interview in which
he expressed optimism for the process of turning his country around. But
the slow pace is testing the patience of Iraqis and Americans, except
apparently, President George W. Bush. With mounting pressure from all sides
to speed up reconciliation among Iraq’s various parties and bringing an end
to the civil war, Maliki says he needs time in order to make long-term
decisions-ones that will be “written in stone”-and says he’s confident that
Bush understands. Maliki tells Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional
Editor Chris Dickey and Baghdad Correspondent Larry Kaplow, “The timetables
given, sometimes I do not find them in President Bush’s mind so much as
they are in the minds of some people who make [public] statements.”
Maliki says his close relationship with Bush has a lot to do with fate,
“Destiny wanted to bring together two people who strongly stick to their
principles.” But what the two of them see as resolve, however, many others
see as stubbornness (that has yet to bring an end to violence.)
(Read cover story at http://www.Newsweek.com)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263096/site/newsweek/

SOURCE Newsweek

Peres wins Israeli presidency

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

After five decades at the heart of Israeli politics, holding every major cabinet position, Shimon Peres was finally elected as the country’s president today. He won a secret ballot of MPs on the second round after his challengers, Reuven Rivlin of the Likud party and Colette Avital of Labour, dropped out.

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

The Associated Press
Published: May 31, 2007

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

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

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush’s ‘D’ list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter’s Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I’m getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country’s contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let’s review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq’s Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) — Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted “interference in Iraqi affairs.”

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in ‘dissin’ the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn’t want anything solved for it ups his value as a ’somebody’ in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice -
By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced …

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical ‘cowboy George’ routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks …

International Herald Tribune, France -
In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. …

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC -
In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an …

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren’t plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY -
To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and …

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that ‘body’ one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, ‘get her done’. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC -
At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. …

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world’s issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s something you never heard before. Someone claiming there is no link between terrorism and Islam. Have you ever heard a quote like this before? “Islam advocates tolerance, moderation and coexistence,” he pointed out. That was Zohair Al-Wazir from Palestine. And here’s a shocker. He says Israel’s state terrorism against Palestinians is the real deal. Can this guy even spell jihad? If the Sunnis and Shia’ are killing each other, where’s the tolerance, moderation and coexistence?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Palestinian diplomat raps attempt to link terrorism to Islam

Posted May 19th, 2007 by Indian-Muslim

VIENNA, AUSTRIA, May 19 (NNN-KUNA) — Palestine’s permanent envoy to the United Nations (UN) and Ambassador to Austria Zohair Al-Wazir condemned any attempts to link terrorism and Islam on Friday.
“The Palestinian people are a stark reminder of life under occupation and state terrorism as practiced by the Israeli against them, their sanctities and lands over long decades,” Al-Wazir told KUNA on the sidelines of the first anti-terrorism forum here.

Just a brief note to readers, the following excerpt is from Jihad Watch. I don’t mind admitting this was my first visit there. At least it was the only visit I remember and after being there today I am confident I would not have forgotten. The story at the top of the page when I was there is linked below. It is what compelled me to publish this tiny post as encouragement for those who have never been there to check it out.

The piece hits home with me. Like so many others I am weary of the treatment some stories get based on an impression of who should be presented sympathetically and who should not. Most of us suspect that is due to media bias. If that is the case it should be criminal to attempt to mislead people rather than share the facts and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Critics of this position will contend the viewer is always free to draw their own conclusions. But we all know the power of suggestion and the subtle influence of marketing techniques employed by advertisers, media outlets and politicians. So to put it simply, that boat don’t float.

Anyway, if you haven’t before we recommend you test drive Jihad Watch. If you have been there then you don’t need our recommendation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cue standard “Muslims fear backlash, deplore terrorism” story

This one is by Cydney Long for Philadelphia’s CBS3.com (thanks to all who sent this in). Let’s see — have we touched all the bases? Muslims shocked by terror charges? Check. The jihadists don’t represent all Muslims? Check. Islam is a religion of peace? Check. Qur’an good? Check. If you blame the religion you’re blaming all Muslims? Check. Good, Cydney! You get an A+ for this one!

(CBS 3) VORHEES, N.J. Muslims in the region are bracing themselves for a possible backlash in response to the terror plot arrests.

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.

Since politicians almost exclusively initiate or react to every condition or event in a purely political fashion, how can a reasonable person ever apply the benefit of the doubt to their statements. A report at one of the left leaning websites indicates Rep Tom Lantos, D-CA, claims Olmert’s denying he authored the message passed to the Syrian leader by Pelosi was prompted by the Whitehouse. Lantos further states that he heard both versions and they are the same.

This is a perfect example of why this trip was ill-conceived and harmful to this nation. It does not matter what side of this issue you find yourself on or who is correct on the Olmert message. The same can be said about the reported reaction from the countries visited. There is no reliable process for extracting truth from this situation. That is why laws like the Logan Act are important. Allowing the opinions of differing political agendas to act on foreign affairs and diplomacy is the typical recipe for disaster. That is why these matters are better served by the executive branch.

The same can be said of the claims that the President was informed of the trip and had no objection or the exchange resulting in a Pelosi statement that the President’s reaction after the trip was politically motivated. They are all outcomes of the same problem. That is, allowing legislators to introduce their political agendas to foreign affairs It would be difficult to mount a convincing argument that Speaker Pelosi was unaware of the history and potential damage or harm that could result from her choices. Is there any way to discourage a repeat performance by Pelosi or others in her self-designated delegation short of charging all with violating the Logan Act?

One last point about this sordid affair involves the word bipartisan. As indicated below, the list of persons involved are described as bipartisan. We only see Democrats listed. Is this a complete list? Are there members of both parties listed below? Is the use of the word bipartisan a reference to the 9/11 Commission? Why is anything about this described as bipartisan?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Delegation Statement on Middle East Trip

Washington, D.C. –
A senior bipartisan Congressional delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following their visit to Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to Pelosi, the delegation included Representatives David Hobson of Ohio, Tom Lantos of California, Henry Waxman of California, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Louise Slaughter of New York, and Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

“The purpose of the visit to the Middle East was to assess the impact of events in the region on the national security interests of the United States. There is no separation between this delegation, Congress, and President Bush on the commitment of the United States to fight terrorism, end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and pursue peace. We have no illusions about the complexity of the challenges facing this region, but hope that recent diplomatic activity will generate some momentum for progress.

Trackposted to , Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Amboy Times, Hollywood Gossip, Conservative Cat, , Pet’s Garden Blog, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Because of the following excerpt and source link to the full article below:

Israel responds to Arab Peace Initiative

Olmert answers the Arab League’s recapitulation of its peace initiative, offering a summit with moderate Arab states and experts discuss the prospects for the Saudi-drafted peace plan.
By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (04/04/07)
In their recent summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh the 22 member states of the Arab League voted unanimously to renew the pan-Arab body’s 2002 peace offer to Israel.

You get this from Blog @ MoreWhat.com:

We all know the Middle East has a lot of problems. Every country in the region seems to have a complaint about how things are and an opinion of who is responsible for the problems. It has been a mixture of ‘peace’ talks and terrorist violence for as long as I can remember. And it all appears to be centered on everyone else’s opinion of Israel but largely an argument over land and who has the right to it. As a matter of fact, the endless debate over the ’state’ of Israel and a ’state’ for Palestine or Palestinians gives the impression it is nothing more than a cover for the real problem that a lot of people in the Middle East simply don’t like each other. If you fix the land problem, perhaps you can work on the people problems. Like most conflicts, a solution requires some unpleasant concessions to work. So here is my ridiculously simple and never to be accepted solution to the land problem.

If you click on the map of the area, certain characteristics immediately stand out. The location of the ‘disputed’ land as defined by the map is situated in Israel. Let’s not argue about that last statement. Just accept it. Currently, Israel is bordered by, in alphabetical order so as not to unintentionally offend anyone’s ego, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Another obvious characteristic is that nearby Saudi Arabia is a comparatively large piece of real estate. If you look at the eastern border of Jordan you will notice a part of Saudi Arabia that makes a noticeable jagged shape along this eastern border. I suggest that Saudi Arabia donate the piece of land that is formed by drawing a line from the location where the borders of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia meet to the eastern most part of Jordan’s border south of this first location.

Next, where Jordan borders Israel adjacent to the ‘disputed’ area, Jordan then donates a piece of land which would be a mirror image to the eastern 2/3 of the ‘disputed’ land and Israel donates the eastern 1/3 of the ‘disputed’ land. Now you have a designated area the same size as the disputed land on which to create a Palestinian state. It certainly is simple. It certainly won’t work. But it is also a practical solution to the problem of space and a little give and take to provide that space. If it does not resolve all the philosophical, religious, political and personal preferences of everyone involved, guess what? It is unlikely that anything ever will. But you have to start somewhere if you are truly interested in finding peace rather than demand to have everything your own way.

If you ever got past the land issue, you could consider tolerating each other enough to allow unfettered access to all the places regarded as religiously significant. If it is religiously significant, it should be available to all who are sincerely interested for religious reasons.

And if you would quit blowing each other up, you might just find a profitable way to get along and save yourselves all this grief. And the only reason I submitted this post against my better judgment is that gnawing feeling that even though I am not really personally invested in this conflict I am really tired of no one finding a way to solve it without feeling superior in some way. Damn people, get over yourselves and fix it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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 

Palestinians say US to shun new coalition

USA Today
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The United States has informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that it will shun a future Hamas-Fatah coalition government because it will not explicitly recognize Israel, Abbas aides said Thursday.

“…Will not explicitly recognize Israel…”, so what’s new?
C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

In Exchange for Records, Fewer Immigration Raids

Over the past seven months, Bush administration officials have quietly toured the country, trying to persuade businesses that rely heavily on immigrant labor to join a little-known program that would spare them from embarrassing federal raids if they voluntarily handed over their workers’ documents so the government can scan them for fraudulent information….

The existence of the report above should be sufficient evidence that President Bush’s quiet tour is in the past tense. Raids are not the important part of the issue. The issue is the important part of the issue. It is called immigration. And every last politician can’t stop counting the money long enough to discharge their responsibility and correct border control and other national security problems including immigration.

If business wants to avoid raids by doing what they should in the first place, that is fine. Straighten out your obligation to protect this country and also stop violating laws. You forget that along with the need to have a profit in a busienss you have other obligations, not the least of which is to the country in which your business is located.

Stop the insanity and correct national security, including, but not limited to, defense, border control and immigration.

Staford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

There will not be a commentary here covering the entire State of the Union speech in one pass. This annual event is more significant than the importance most citizens place on it. But what is clear is that the media, some politicians and members of the public have made the Iraq War the primary issue. So that will be the topic of this post in brief.

Below is an interesting excerpt from a site that offered some stats on America at war. It is rather well written and more importantly, to the point. The point being the surprising lack of resolve in military matters that this country has been accused of and is quite simply guilty. Below is the excerpt.

The United States of America has a somewhat unique relationship with war. While America is considered to be the most militarily powerful country in the world today, Americans as a whole have never experienced war in the way that many other countries of the world have. There is a huge disparity between the American experience of war and the global experience. This may have an impact on American attitudes towards war

Which brings us to the subject of casualties. Follow the link above for the numbers if you like. The main point raised in opposition to the war is not on policy but casualties. Let’s just call it 3000 in three years. Of course, one death is unacceptable to most, but in war it is inevitable. Any way you slice it, the answer is the same. In terms of war, this nation’s casualties are extremely light. Granted, it is a different kind of war, but the numbers are still light.

I fear the opposition by elected officials is purely political. For those related to active duty service personnel, their opposition is understandable. But to increase the likelihood of bigger problems down the road with no guaranteed upside in leaving Iraq, the opposition makes no sense. It certainly makes no sense to leave without first trying one more (maybe the only) coherent proposal to date. That would include the initial decision.

MoreWhat.com urges those reading this and anyone they can tell, to contact your elected representatives to back the President’s Iraq strategy that was repeated tonight in the State of the Union address.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
( photos or other distractions were intentionally omitted from this post)