Blog @ MoreWhat.com

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)

By Kurt Achin
Seoul
06 November 2007

A senior U.S. envoy who spent this weekend in North Korea says authorities there are cooperating in the process of disabling the country’s nuclear facilities. As VOA’s Kurt Achin reports from Seoul, the shutdown is part of a wider diplomatic process aimed at ending Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons capabilities for good.

Senior State Department envoy Sung Kim, who oversaw the start of North Korea’s disabling of several major nuclear facilities, said the process is going well.

“I think we are off to a good start,” he said. “I hope to achieve all the disablement, at least this phase of disablement, by December 31.”

Kim says his team had supervised disabling activities at Yongbyon and several other facilities.

North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in October of last year, in defiance of international agreements and warnings from the global community.

Since then, however, North Korea has taken first steps in implementing a multinational diplomatic framework aimed at ending its nuclear weapons.

Earlier this year, Pyongyang halted operations at its main nuclear plant in Yongbyon in exchange for energy aid, as it had promised in talks with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.

Diplomats describe “disabling” as a process that would make any restarting of nuclear activity very costly and time-consuming. They say it is a prelude to dismantling the facilities altogether — a task expected to be discussed sometime next year.

Kim describes North Korean officials as “very cooperative”, but says he did not receive any details of the North’s planned nuclear declaration.

The second phase of the six-nation agreement offers impoverished North Korea even more energy assistance if it declares all of its nuclear facilities and then substantially disables them.

China is expected to convene another round of six-nation talks in Beijing soon to review the North’s declaration.

North Korea has much to gain from ending its nuclear programs including normalized relations with U.S.

A state department spokesman confirmed Washington has begun the lengthy process of removing North Korea from the list of states defined as sponsoring terrorism, a possible prelude to better relations with Pyongyang.

By Daniel Schearf
Beijing
30 October 2007

Schearf report - Download 445k
Listen to Schearf report
The U.S. envoy to talks on North Korea’s nuclear program says a team of experts will travel to Pyongyang this week to begin disabling the North’s nuclear program. Daniel Schearf reports from Beijing.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters Tuesday the experts will leave for North Korea on Thursday to begin the permanent disabling of Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities.

The shutdown is part of a six-nation agreement for North Korea to give up its nuclear programs in return for millions of dollars in energy and aid.

North Korea has agreed to declare and disable all its nuclear materials and programs by the end of the year.

Hill said the declaration process is also expected to begin in the coming weeks.

“It’s very important that we do it soon rather than wait until the end of the year, because probably it will be going back and forth,” he noted. “There’ll be a lot of discussion about it.”

The U.S. has accused North Korea of having a secret uranium enrichment program in addition to its publicly acknowledged facilities. But Hill said he did not think this will block progress.

“There was a commitment made by the DPRK that this issue would be resolved to mutual satisfaction, that is we would be able to resolve the concerns we have on this issue,” he added. “I’m confident that as we get to the end of the year we will be able to achieve this result.”

Hill made the comments after arriving in Beijing Tuesday for two days of consultations with other parties to the talks, including North Korea’s envoy Kim Kye Kwan.

Progress toward ending North Korea’s nuclear ambitions has already been made. North Korea shut down its main nuclear facilities in July in return for 50,000 tons of fuel from South Korea.

North Korea agreed Tuesday to receive about half of a promised one million tons of fuel oil aid, in the form of badly needed energy-related equipment.

The U.S. is now in the process of delivering another 50,000tons of fuel. Other parties to the six-nation talks - South Korea, Russia, China, and Japan - are also expected to provide further aid.

By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
31 August 2007

Schlein report (mp3) - Download 531k audio clip
Listen to Schlein report (mp3) audio clip

A senior United States envoy says he is hopeful progress will be made toward scrapping North Korea’s nuclear arsenal during bilateral U.S.-North Korean talks over the weekend. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA, the talks, which will take place in Geneva, will focus on normalizing relations as part of an international nuclear disarmament deal.

The bilateral meeting is in preparation of the six-party talks that are to resume later this month. The members include the North Korea and South Korea, China, Russia, the United States and Japan.

The chief U.S. negotiator, assistant secretary of state, Christopher Hill, says those talks are to figure out the next steps needed to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities. He says the six countries also will seek to obtain a full declaration of all nuclear programs and materials possessed by North Korea.

Hill notes that phase one of these nuclear talks resulted in North Korea shutting down its nuclear facilities in Yongbong. He says phase two of the talks will be a further step toward nuclear disarmament.

“We are hopeful that we can come up with an implementation arrangement for, the disablement and declaration of facilities,” he said. “That we could by the end of this year have accomplished this phase two. And, then in the opening of ‘08, we would begin, what I hope would be the final stage, which is the abandonment of the fissile material, that is the nuclear material already produced. The abandonment of weapons in which the fissile material is.”

If this is achieved, Hill says this is likely to lead to a peace conference on the Korean Peninsula that would result in a genuine peace agreement. The ultimate aim, he says, is to achieve a permanent security system in Northeast Asia.

Hill says there is no question North Korea must do away with its nuclear weapons.

“These are programs that are not helping the DPRK,” he added. “In fact, they are driving the DPRK into a deeper sense of isolation, which we are trying to reverse. And, I hope other countries who have aspirations in this regard would understand that nuclear weapons are not a security solution and they certainly do not help anyone’s future.”

During this weekend’s talks, Hill says the two parties will discuss normalizing bilateral diplomatic relations and removing North Korea from the U.S. State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

While Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Dems or Democratic party faithful admit the surge is working but claim the good news comes too late, those supporting US troops never view advances toward victory as ‘too late.’ Nor do they place political motives above matters of national defense, security or support of the US military.

There is no need to revisit the civilian and political interference that has presented the greatest obstacle to victory in Iraq as it has been thoroughly addressed by everyone to date. However, positive news has been sorely neglected and a few notes are worth repeating.

Just this week Iraqi government leaders reached an agreement to resolve sectarian differences. While agreement by the entire Iraqi parliament is required and not guaranteed, this event is a breakthrough in what has been the Iraqi obstacle in this war.

Not long ago tribal leaders in previous hot spots in the country have joined with US military forces to oust Al-Qaeda from Iraq. The senseless murder of civilians by the terrorist group has finally been recognized as unacceptable by influential regional leaders in various provinces.

Countering the influence of Iran in the Iraq war are efforts like General Odierno who says the US is attacking supply lines of those offering money, material and trainers for Iraqi sectarian extremists. In addition the case is being made to Iraqis that Iranian involvement is not in the long term interests of Iraq. However, the General adds the Iranian factor is still significant.

In a report from VOA, President Bush again expressed displeasure with Iran’s actions in the Iraq war in a speech to members of the American Legion.

Stearns report (mp3) - download 630K audio clip
Listen to Stearns report (mp3) audio clipPresident Bush says Iran must stop arming militants who are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

Other events concerning Iran include their own saber-rattling and defiance to international opposition on their various nuclear programs as described below.

Pace report (mp3) - Download 567k audio clip
Listen to Pace report (mp3) audio clip

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that, contrary to recent news reports, Tehran has not slowed its nuclear activity. In a lengthy news conference in the Iranian capital, the president also warned Iran would respond if the United States goes ahead with plans to label the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

Urging by political opponents of President Bush for the US to enter talks with regimes in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere may not be having the effect suggested by those same opponents. But overall, Us efforts in Iraq are showing much improved results since the beginning of the surge. Including this week’s surprise event which should probably not be taken at face value.

Iraqi cleric Sadr suspends militia activities

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
518pm BST 29/08/2007

The powerful Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr moved to rein in his increasingly murderous followers today, announcing his popular Shia militia would stand down for six months following the deaths of more than 50 pilgrims in the holy city of Karbala.

The Democratic party leadership, like Majority Whip James Clyburn, recently expressed concern that a positive report from General Patraeus in September may split the party. Shortly after that reports surfaced that no matter what the General reported, the left would view it as a lie. Further evidence that the political left is obstructing the war effort as alleged earlier.

In other words, ever since those in Congress who oppose victory in Iraq were defeated on continued funding for the war, limited obstruction from civilian authorities have allowed military efforts to turn the corner that has fostered positive outcomes in Iraq.

Other foreign affairs issues that have been the focus of most criticism of the Bush Administration’s performance include relations with Russia, Israel, Palestine and North Korea to mention a few. Events like Pelosi traveling to Syria or Dems urging talks with Iran or North Korea have been used to attack the Administration’s positions. So how are things working out so far.

Again from VOA news a report outlining Congressional efforts to advance nuclear arms control with an old nemesis from the Cold War.

Fedynsky report (mp3) - Download 639k audio clip
Listen to Fedynsky report (mp3) audio clipSenator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn, authors of U.S. legislation to reduce the post-Soviet nuclear arsenal, are in Russia in an effort to further tighten global controls on weapons of mass destruction.

If you are old enough to have been on the planet when US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin worked on the Camp David Accords, you may have experienced an optimistic expectation tempered with an objective pessimism over the chances for Mid-East peace.

The first discussion over critical issues between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in seven years may have given rise to similar optimism but by now few would have truly expected progress. The excerpts below document the endless travel over all too familiar posturing.

The Israeli mood is summed up by analyst Dan Schueftan:
“Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not even a remote option. We will have to learn to live with the idea that for generations the Palestinian people has decided that fighting us is more important than giving a better future for their children,” Schueftan said.

Those fears were reinforced after the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from Mr. Abbas’s more moderate Fatah faction in a civil war two months ago. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said negotiations with Israel are a waste of time.

He says the only way to liberate Palestine is through jihad or holy war.

Palestinian moderates, like former Cabinet minister Ziad abu Zayyad, said Israel’s failure to advance the peace process brought Hamas to power.
“There is no chance of a peace agreement,” Abu Zayyad told Israel Radio. He said Israel does not have the resolve to dismantle dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

So with that much skepticism, why are Israeli and Palestinian leaders reporting progress on a framework for a peace agreement? Schueftan, the Israeli analyst, says the answer lies in Washington.

Another topic related to the illusive pursuit of world peace on the world leaders ‘to do’ list is nuclear power wannabe North Korea.

According to the February 13 Agreement, North Korea must declare all nuclear programs but their effort in manipulating the term “nuclear programs”, excluding the nuclear weapons from the list, is causing much hubbub.

The report above suggests there is no reason to be especially optimistic about talks between the US and North Korea. While it is better than a daily reminder of increasing tension or some concern of an imminent showdown, current talks may be nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. From what has been characterized as the most unpredictable regime on the planet, a most predictable course of bad faith negotiating emerges. And many criticized the US for not talking to North Korea earlier.

Any accommodations made by President Bush to resolve issues with the Democratic party and a few GOP members in Congress may less effective than if he had maintained his rigid position with regard to certain countries. Softening the approach may be what led Iran to make the ridiculous offer to fill the power vacuum in Iraqi politics. In addition, talks with North Korea are showing symptoms of DPRK intentions to circumvent an effective agreement.

The upside is conditions in Iraq have improved enough to potentially torpedo the left antiwar strategy. Talks with Iran and North Korea have not yet disintegrated. Maybe the US and Russia will move away from a return to Cold War positions and at least Israel and Palestine have talked about things that were ignored for the last seven years. Other than Iraq, no improvements really, just more of a time out.

There is no proof that politics are necessary for international diplomacy. Although diplomats and politicians will argue that point ad infinitum. It may be the wrong approach to expect people to resolve differences equipped only with the idea we should all be adequately intelligent to do so. If we learn how to remove politics from negotiation the solution may find us.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Daniel Schearf
Beijing
16 August 2007

Schearf report (mp3) - download 450K audio clip
Listen to Schearf report (mp3) audio clip

The chief U.S. negotiator at the North Korean nuclear talks says negotiators are discussing the “technical procedures” that would eventually be used to shut down the North’s nuclear weapons programs. The talks in the Chinese city of Shenyang are in preparation for the next full round of six-nation talks on ending Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities. Daniel Schearf reports from Beijing.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters Thursday he expected the two days of meetings in Shenyang this week to be substantive. But he said they would not yet produce a schedule for Pyongyang’s nuclear disarmament.

“The purpose is not so much to negotiate an agreement today or this week, but rather to identify the technical procedures that can be used to affect disablement, and so we hope that if we can have an agreement on what type of technical procedures can be used, then we can put together an actual agreement,” Hill said.

In February, the six-nation talks produced a broad agreement on North Korea’s nuclear disarmament, and preliminary steps have already been taken. But the painstaking details of identifying and shutting down all of Pyongyang’s nuclear programs have yet to be worked out.

Hill says this week’s working group talks will lay the groundwork for the next full round of six-nation negotiations, which are expected to be held in Beijing in early September. China, South Korea, Japan and Russia are also involved in the talks.

The goal of the next round is a timetable for North Korea to reveal the full range of its nuclear programs, and details on how and when they will be disabled.

Pyongyang in July allowed international inspectors to verify the shutdown of its main plutonium nuclear reactor, the first step in what negotiators warn will be a lengthy process.

The February agreement calls for North Korea to eventually receive a total of one million tons of fuel, other types of aid, security guarantees and diplomatic concessions - as long as it follows its promise to declare and dismantle those nuclear programs.

North Korea’s economy is in tatters, and long-running food shortages have led to widespread malnourishment and death among the population. Those problems were aggravated in recent weeks by flooding that Pyongyang says has killed hundreds of people, and affected up to 300,000.

The United Nations, South Korea and the U.S. are all are considering what humanitarian aid they can offer North Korea.

By Daniel Schearf
Beijing
14 August 2007

Schearf report (mp3) - Download 440k audio clip
Listen to Schearf report (mp3) audio clip

The U.S. chief negotiator to talks on ending North Korea’s nuclear programs says he expects progress when negotiators meet Thursday in northeast China. Envoys from six nations will hold two days of working group discussions aimed at getting North Korea to declare its nuclear programs and then dismantle them. Daniel Schearf reports from Beijing.

The U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, says his discussions with diplomats from China and North Korea were business-like and useful. He said they will pave the way for substantive working group talks on Thursday.

“We have every reason to believe we can achieve the objectives of it, which was to set out some of the technical tasks involved in having a good declaration and in particular disablement,” he said.

Hill met in Beijing Tuesday with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei, and exchanged notes on talks they held separately with the North Korean envoy Kim Kye-Kwan earlier this week.

North Korea in February agreed to declare and dismantle its nuclear programs in exchange for energy aid, security guarantees, and promises of improved diplomatic relations.

Pyongyang completed the first step of that agreement in July when it shut down its main plutonium nuclear reactor, which it is believed to have used to make nuclear bombs, one of which it tested in October.

The next step, being discussed this week, is for North Korea to declare all its nuclear programs and materials and begin the process of dismantling them.

In working group talks that start Thursday, Hill and delegates from North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will try to decide on a schedule for that process and how it will be carried out.

A potential hurdle is that Washington says Pyongyang has secretly been running a uranium-based weapons program. North Korea has never publicly admitted such a program.

Hill says there have been “good discussions” on the uranium issue, but there is still no consensus on whether the program exists.

The U.S. envoy will meet with the South Korean and Japanese negotiators Wednesday in China’s northeast Shenyang city, before the working group talks begin Thursday.

North Korea this week has said that it has suffered severe flooding and needs aid to help recovery and to bring in emergency food. Hill says he expects the U.S. government to look into the reports and see what can be done to help.

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.

It is not as clearly defined as some would like to think. Disagreements, arguments, unpleasant incidents and all manner of behavior are represented in the issues related to the Iraq war. Military veterans express their favor with one side or the other. Common attributes among individuals that allow them to be categorized in groups, e.g., veterans, politicians, students, parents, wives, etc., have representation on both sides of these issues.

For those who choose an arbitrary withdrawal, aka surrender, a continuous stream of criticism directed solely at President Bush is the primary outlet for their anger. Any suggestion that mistakes were made by all those involved in the decision to authorize the use of military force in Iraq are ignored by those favoring surrender. To those who do not share that opinion a void is present in the debate. A debate that should never proceed during wartime but a debate nonetheless. While those who prefer the Reagan statement, ‘we win, they lose’, many have openly agreed the basis for proceeding with military action was flawed. A concession not reciprocated by those favoring surrender by admitting Congress shares responsibility for neglecting their duty of checks and balances.

The first reference in this post is from June 17th and outlines the fact that Americans are certainly not pleased with Congress. Based on polling data over many months, the President, the House and the Senate have record or near record low approval ratings from the public. Of course polls don’t tell the whole story and not all decisions should be made as a result of polling numbers. The importance of the polls here is a trend that applies to a long period of time. The statistical information can be significant as an indicator that all is not well. In addition to the midterm elections and the deluge of comments and demands communicated to the White House and Congress this year and last, one should be able to expect more appropriate response from elected officials. Not that they should be expected to find a perfect solution to satisfy all people but they should at least display the professionalism and intelligence in working together to solve issues.

Americans Clearly Upset with U.S. Congress

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
June 17, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Satisfaction with the performance of the House of Representatives and the Senate plummeted this month in the United States, according to four recent public opinion polls. 27 per cent of respondents to a survey by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times approve of the way Congress is handling its job, down seven points since April.

Although the next reference is considerably older than the rest it is still valid. The point made closer to the beginning of this post indicated those favoring surrender in Iraq refused to accept the fact that everyone involved in the decision to go to war share the responsibility with the President and he alone should not bare the burden. If you glanced ahead you understand the point. The flawed intel everyone likes to mention was neglected by Congress in their assessment of a vote on authorizing the US to go to war. So why then does the surrender crowd continue to disregard this fact? Could it be they view it as harmful to their interest in bashing the President? Could the bashing be mostly political? Does the surrender crowd have an understanding of how damaging their surrender speech is? There are many questions and not much in the way of answers from those favoring surrender.

Records: Senators who OK’d war didn’t read key report

POSTED: 7:25 a.m. EDT, May 29, 2007

• Hillary Clinton, John McCain and most others in Congress didn’t read document
• Newspaper: Six senators, a few House members logged as reading report
• Most in Congress were briefed several times, read summary of report
• Report was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

The articles referenced below are just a reminder of how central to all things MSM is the war in Iraq. The Dems have continued to make it a central theme of their campaigns. It is mentioned in nearly every speech, press release and news conference.

So the decision to discuss it on this blog was an unfortunate necessity. To omit arguments in opposition to the antiwar crowd merely concedes in their favor. That would be irresponsible. That the antiwar crowd cannot understand that no one wants war is also unfortunate. Humankind has not solved that age old problem. But when it does happen, to support surrender is near suicidal. The only thing worse than war is losing a war. And again, the really sad part is their missing support of the war effort surely would have shortened the duration and provided the desired outcome. Yet they complain and argue about how long or how well or how poorly is the status of the war.

There simply are not enough bananas to train the surrender monkeys for victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar “Movement”

Swans, CA - Jun 17, 2007 –1 hour ago
Of these 77 senators, 29 were Democrats — that is, a majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The House passed the Resolution by a vote of …

Russert on Presidential Race

RealClearPolitics, IL - Jun 14, 2007
HANNITY: Tim, one of the things, the most contentious issue of our time, obviously, is the war in Iraq. We had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid write this letter …

Pelosi, Reid and the Circular Firing Squad

TPMCafe, NY - Jun 13, 2007
Without those Republicans, not even an alliance between Reid and Bush could save the bill from defeat. Now comes the Iraq war, where Dubya and the GOP are …

Do-Nothing Congress

American Daily, OH - Jun 10, 2007
Now we hear that all out war between Israel and Syria is possible this summer. Did Pelosi’s humiliating wearing of a headscarf in difference to Islamic …

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, guerrilla radio, On the Horizon, DragonLady’s World, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Like you would expect anything of substance from a political debate. Maybe the Dems are so lame they can’t even get a debate choreographed well enough to hide their flaws. Maybe if they had gone on a Fox News debate things would have worked out better. So what are the high/low points?

The top priority each candidate gave for the first 100 days in office should be mentioned first. After all, look how well the new Democratic majority has done with their 100 hour agenda. The only item that may make it into law any time soon is the pork barrel addition of the minimum wage raise in the Iraq war funding legislation.

Go figure, Comrade Clinton chose as her first 100 days top priority to bring home the troops from Iraq. In other words, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first priority if elected President is to surrender.

Obamarama may be mathematically challenged. Rather than a top priority he named two. Probably in answer to Edwards criticism of his health care offering and not to be outdone by Comrade Clinton, Obama picked surrendering in Iraq like Clinton and added health care to stick his tongue out at Edwards.

Edwards is almost as ‘out there’ as Kucinich. Edwards wants to ‘travel the world’ and ‘re-establish America’s moral authority.’ Who told Edwards we ever had moral authority. So is this one priority or two? Does he feel the need to travel and do the morality thing at the same time? Or is he liking the thought of Air Force One and some vacation time? It was bound to happen what with Air Pelosi and the rest all getting their own planes.

Surprisingly enough, Chris Dodd is the only one whose sound bite doesn’t seem to pander. Restore constitutional rights in this country. It is not completely clear what that is about or why he chose it. Did he mean to say constitutional? Or did he mean civil rights? At least he didn’t jump on the surrender bandwagon but the benefit to him for saying this is probably not a big help.

Kucinich and Gravel were about the war. Kucinich added getting rid of nukes. Thanks Dennis, we never would have thought of that one. Why isn’t your Peace and Non-violence Dept up and running yet? That would be a good job for them. (Kucinich and Gravel not pictured)

Richardson wants to spend money and Biden is on the Iraq thing plus foreign affairs.

So they can’t count. They can’t select intelligent priorities. Children debate better. How anyone could vote for one of these incompetents is truly a puzzle. It is hard to believe there could be enough people voting for any one of these people for President that they would actually get elected. That is one scary thought. Ok, it’s two scary thoughts.

(source: This time, candidates don’t shy away from one another

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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.

It is often helpful to look back from time to time and view the opinions and positions as well as public statements of our elected officials. We offer a copy of a press release from about a year and a half ago. This is from Senator Chuck Schumer and includes a letter to President Bush regarding the Iraq war. Although Senator Schumer’s understanding of war hasn’t seemed to improve since then, the passages highlighted in red are certainly interesting and a contrast to Democratic leadership in 2007.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 11, 2005

Schumer Urges Bush To Appoint Distinguished Delegation Of Former Military Leaders To Examine Iraqi Troop Training/Deployment And Report To Public

Today Sen. Chuck Schumer will send a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately appoint a distinguished delegation of retired military leaders to go to Iraq, examine the failures in troop training and deployment, and make a public report to the Congress and American people quickly. Schumer suggested that former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should go to Iraq to make a first hand assessment about why the President’s troop training plan is not going well. From all reports there is only one single battalion out of 97 that are ready to fight on its own in Iraq - that is only 750 troops.

Schumer said, “The lynchpin in the President’s plan for victory is training enough Iraqi troops so that they can stand up and the U.S. forces can finally stand down – so it is critical to know what is going wrong. A distinguished delegation of former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should be sent by the President to report back to the American public as soon as possible so we can fix these serious problems.”

Schumer’s letter to the President follows:

December 11, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

As you know, the training and deployment of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) capable of defending Iraq from outside influences and policing against domestic insurgents is a key objective of our ongoing efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and one that must be completed before we can end our military presence. Like you, I recognize that America must succeed in Iraq and in order to accomplish that goal I steadfastly support the establishment of a competent and capable ISF.

I am troubled by recent reports that the establishment of such forces is not moving forward as well as was hoped, and by the continuing inability to obtain a definitive assessment of the current status and abilities of the ISF. These matters lie at the very heart of the length and success of American military involvement in Iraq, and it is important for the American people to fully understand how much progress we have made in helping to establish the ISF.

I am deeply concerned that the lack of this information will make it increasingly difficult to chart a proper course in Iraq and may ultimately serve to undermine our chances of success. In order to give America the best chance for lasting victory in Iraq, I urge you to appoint a senior delegation of distinguished retired military leaders to travel to Iraq, assess the situation for themselves, and issue a public report of their findings.

As you have often said yourself, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Unfortunately, information available on the training and readiness of the ISF makes it difficult to predict when this will occur. For instance, in October it was revealed that out of over ninety ISF battalions, the number of fully independent, or “Category One” ISF battalions was revised down from three to one. The fact that two battalions were apparently downgraded would appear to be a significant step backward. In order to prevent any further regressions, it is important to have full and clear accounting of the situation on the ground and an explanation as to how this occurred.

There are also important and unanswered questions as to the actual size and cohesiveness of the ISF. As of mid-November the Department of Defense indicated that there were 211,700 members of the ISF, only about 65% of the number hoped to be reached by August of 2007. If we are to be successful in Iraq, we must clearly understand whether it is possible to complete training those already enlisted, as well as recruit and train the remaining personnel before the deadline.

Similarly, information from the GAO would indicate that there is a significant chance that possibly tens of thousands of those in the police component of the ISF may have deserted. Concerns also abound that the ISF is still 18-24 months away from operational independence and lack a sufficient command structure, and are a target for insurgent infiltration. Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of whether or not the ranks of the ISF are stable and cohesive before we can certify that they have been fully trained and are ready to assume independent responsibility for Iraq’s security.

I agree with you that the stakes in Iraq and that the United States must succeed in its work there. By providing an unvarnished analysis of ISF numbers, capability, and cohesion the delegation I am asking you to appoint could provide the American people with an honest assessment of our progress, inform the Administration and Congress of the best path to take forward, and allow us to move toward the shared goal of bringing our troops home and out of harms way. I urge you to appoint this delegation as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate

It is refreshing to hear a local talk radio broadcaster comment on something we have been emphasizing here for some time. The fact that the claim of the Democratic majority’s leadership regarding their effectiveness is your basic load of fertilizer. And it does not matter whether you favor the GOP, the Dems, or like us, neither. The truth is available in the records of Congress. As of today, the number of the 100 hour agenda items that have been enacted into law, still remains at one. And that is only if you count the House Page Board scandal as part of their agenda. Or more correctly, if you count legislation that is intended to solve any future problems from that episode as part of the 100 hour agenda. Other than that, zip, butkis, or for the open borders crowd, nada is the amount of the 100 hour agenda that has made it into law. Which means that after 100 DAYS, nothing has changed. What are they doing with their slim majority?

The only recurring activity supported by the Democrats’ leadership is efforts to politicize everything in an attempt to oppose the President and any other members of the opposing party. No serious attempt to find common ground or do anything but pander to the anti-war, open borders, pro late-term abortion, anti-religion far left wing of their own party. All of this to focus on nothing but the 2008 elections and absolutely no concern for what happens to you or me in the next two years or longer. Any chance they had to convince the majority of Americans that they may have a better plan have all but evaporated with the antics of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and company. Thus far they have failed in their stated agenda and done nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy claiming that is what is best for the American people and what they want. That is not the case for this American. I want my country back. How about you?

In terms of their continuous babble like the press release below, a responsible end to the war is not cut and run.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate Democrats are Committed to a New Direction in Iraq

April 16, 2007 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. and retired Brig. General John H. Johns on Monday to call for a new direction in Iraq. Senate Democrats are committed to providing our troops with the resources they need, including a strategy to change the course in Iraq and responsibly end the war.
» Watch the video. (if you can stomach it)

I’ll go out a limb here and say if it has anything to do with Senator Diane Feinstein it is probably bad. And wouldn’t you know it has to be a discussion about nuclear warheads. Her stated concern is after checking with former Senator Sam Nunn, if this is a new nuke Iran and others may make noise about it. Ya, let’s worry about what Iran and North Korea think. Fortunately the Dems have not succeeded with cut and run, but already Feinstein is looking for the next prerogative to surrender to someone who might complain. You might not be so critical once Iran starts launching, but then you are a Democrat.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senators Question U.S. Nuclear Warhead Project

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS
The Reliable Replacement Warhead: Is it a sly gambit by President George W. Bush to create a new nuclear weapon despite congressional disapproval? Or is it the key to convincing the U.S. military to make do with a much smaller stockpile of nuclear weapons?
Senators on the Appropriations energy and water subcommittee asked the chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration on April 18 for a detailed classified hearing on the RRW to find out.
Thomas D’Agostino, NNSA administrator, tried to convince senators that the Bush administration is “not trying to develop warheads for new or different military missions.”