Blog @ MoreWhat.com

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.

International Herald Tribune
By Michael R. Gordon
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

BAGHDAD: For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.

On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: He never existed. READ MORE

Boehner: NIE Report Confirms America Must Stay Vigilant in Confronting al Qaeda and Worldwide Terrorist Threat

Washington, Jul 17 -

Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today released the following statement on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Terrorist Threats to the US Homeland, which outlines the threat to the United States over the next several years:

“Today’s NIE underscores the very serious terrorist threats facing America and the world as a whole, and should strengthen our resolve to protect the American people from a determined enemy bent on destroying our way of life. The NIE confirms that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 9/11, led by the United States, have ‘constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S.’ again. Our efforts have helped stop terror plots worldwide before they happen, saved American lives, and have made our country safer than on 9/11. The NIE also notes that al Qaeda has redoubled its efforts to hatch terrorist plots and kill Americans both in the U.S and abroad, and describes al Qaeda in Iraq as its ‘most visible and capable affiliate.’

“Retreat is not a ‘new way forward’ when the safety and security of future generations of Americans are at stake. The U.S. and our allies must remain vigilant in confronting the current and strategic terrorist threats posed by al Qaeda. It is critical for Congress to work together on strong national security policies that recognize these threats and keep America safe. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats continue to insist on meaningless Iraq legislation that is going nowhere. The Democratic majority has done nothing to close the terrorist loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by modernizing the law, for example. It’s time for Congress to act with urgency and do everything possible to detect and prevent potential attacks on the American people.”

#####

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.

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)

Paul Wolfowitz Credit Card Recalled by World Bank
Postcards from the Pug Bus (satire), PA
WASHINGTON, DC - A source at the World Bank has confirmed that the controversial Paul Wolfowitz credit card will be recalled. The announcement came after …
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz struggling to hold onto job as … FinFacts Ireland
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz Maligned For Hefty Pay Hike To … All Headline News
Paul Wolfowitz apologizes for giving his lover 10000 dollars a month Pravda

I really do feel bad. Not for Paul Wolfowitz, but for everyone else. Of all the people who get beat about the head and shoulders over the decision for the US to go into Iraq in 2003, this is the guy they let get away. And he was the prime mover in the whole scheme.

Don’t get me wrong, I never said the Iraq war was not predicated on something worse than inaccurate intelligence. I never said that Colin Powell served at the pleasure of the President and all the while at the UN was unaware of the fairy tale he was telling from a nutcase informant. I never said George Tenet should have had a bigger pair and I wish I had. I never said Paul Wolfowitz was primarily responsible for the whole thing and I wish I had done that, at least before now.

Because maybe now that he is back in the spotlight, someone may do what should have been done before. Help this creep get what he deserves. Perpetrating, introducing or simply putting the ducks in place for someone else to line up and provide a plausible scenario to justify war is beyond words.

Am I in favor of the war. No one should ever be in favor of war. Do I support the troops and want President Bush to be supported to finish the mission. Yes. Absolutely. To cut and run is never good. To stop now will serve no one. To finish the job and give the Iraqi people a country they can do something with is also good.

But when it is all done. All those involved in Mr Wolfowitz’ contrived scheme should be dealt with according to applicable law. The continued questionable practices of this man as described above are further proof of what he is and what should be done. Ya, tell me, when is the last time charges like this were leveled and later proven false. And no, the Duke LaCrosse team travesty is not this kind of story. If I’m wrong I’ll apologize in the back section of this blog.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

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.

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

from VOA
IN THE NEWS - March 8, 2003:

Arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

07 March 2003
This is Steve Ember with the VOA Special English program, In the News.

Last Saturday, Pakistani and American intelligence officials arrested a top al-Qaeda leader. They seized Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at a home in Rawalpindi, near Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

American officials took the al-Qaida operations chief for questioning somewhere outside Pakistan.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is third in the organization, behind Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. American officials have connected Mister Mohammed to al Qaeda groups in Asia, Europe and the United States.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is believed to have planned the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September eleventh, two-thousand-one. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killed three-thousand people. Mister Mohammed spent time with some of the September eleventh hijackers and has taken credit for organizing the attacks.

Officials also have linked him to other attacks and plots. One is the nineteen-ninety-three bombing of the World Trade Center. Another is a failed plot two years later to destroy eleven American passenger planes over the Pacific Ocean.

Mister Mohammed has also been linked to the bombing in Bali last year, and the bombing of a Jewish holy place in Tunisia. And experts on al Qaeda say he ordered the killing early last year of American reporter Daniel Pearl.

The American State Department offered twenty-five-million dollars for information leading to the arrest of Mister Mohammed.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had almost been captured last week in Quetta, Pakistan. Officials there arrested a suspected al-Qaeda member, but said Mister Mohammed had escaped. Officials say they used the captured suspect to locate him. They found Mister Mohammed at the home of Ahmed Abdul Qadoos. Mister Qadoos is a member of Jamaat Islami, Pakistan’s largest religious political party.

Officials identified a third man arrested as a Saudi named Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi. He is believed to have paid some of the September eleventh hijackers.

The United States made attempts to seize Mister Mohammed after the September eleventh attacks. Intelligence officials said they continued to receive information about him from his ongoing communication with al-Qaeda members around the world.

In recent weeks, officials are said to have gotten useful information about his activities from captured suspects. Intelligence officials said they learned that Mister Mohammed was planning attacks on bridges, fuel stations and hotels in New York and Washington.

That information led the Bush administration to raise the terrorism danger level in the United States last month. The danger level was reduced last week, the day before the arrest of Mister Mohammed.

American officials said the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could lead to others, possibly including Osama bin Laden. But they said they are concerned that the arrest could also lead to more al Qaeda violence.

This VOA Special English program, In the News, was written by Cynthia Kirk. This is Steve Ember.

AND THEN FAST FORWARD TO MARCH 14, 2007…………FROM VOA

Alleged Terror Plotter Confesses to Planning Attacks

By VOA News
15 March 2007The U.S. Defense Department has released the transcript of a military hearing in which the alleged mastermind of the September 11th, 2001, attacks on the United States confesses to the attack.

In the transcript released Wednesday, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he is “responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z.” He also confessed, during his closed-door hearing at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to planning 29 other major al-Qaida attacks.

A military officer representing Mohammed read his confession at the hearing, but the transcript indicated Mohammed was present.

The Pakistani national said he was involved in a 1993 attack on New York’s World Trade Center, the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, and an attempt to down American airplanes using shoe bombs.

The hearing is to determine whether Mohammed and 13 other prisoners meet U.S. authorities’ definition of an enemy combatant, and can be kept in custody for another year.

Citing security concerns, the Defense Department has barred reporters from covering the tribunals for Mohammed and several others who were transferred to Guantanamo Bay last year from secret U.S. prisons elsewhere.

Human rights and civil liberty groups, foreign governments and some U.S. politicians have condemned the secrecy of the tribunals and the legal process at Guantanamo, saying detainees are not provided with sufficient rights or legal representation.

Some information for this report provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.

Report on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at Wizbang

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 

How does H Con Res 63 affect real security, protecting America and
restoring our leadership in the world? It doesn’t. (Stanford Matthews)
Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in Voting Yes on H Con Res 63
The names link to their information on Project Vote Smart (more on this later)

Representative Michael N. Castle District At-Large - US-House (R-DE)
Representative Howard Coble District 6 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Thomas M. ‘Tom’ Davis District 11 - US-House (R-VA)
Representative John J. Duncan District 2 - US-House (R-TN)
Representative Philip ‘Phil’ English District 3 - US-House (R-PA)
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest District 1 - US-House (R-MD)
Representative Bob Inglis District 4 - US-House (R-SC)
Representative Timothy V. ‘Tim’ Johnson District 15 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Walter Beaman Jones District 3 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Ric Keller District 8 - US-House (R-FL)
Representative Mark Steven Kirk District 10 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Steven C. LaTourette District 14 - US-House (R-OH)
Representative Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul District 14 - US-House (R-TX)
Representative Thomas E. ‘Tom’ Petri District 6 - US-House (R-WI)
Representative James M. ‘Jim’ Ramstad District 3 - US-House (R-MN)
Representative Frederick Stephen ‘Fred’ Upton District 6 - US-House (R-MI)
Representative James T. ‘Jim’ Walsh District 25 - US-House (R-NY)

Church and State OTA weekend Feb 16-18, 2007 

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