Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Okay, what’s the deal with Sarkozy? Is it time for some conspiracy theories? Okay, let’s say that it is true Sarkozy is a fan of President Bush. And let’s further say that Speaker Socialist Pelosi’s trip to Syria in defiance of the Bush Administration got George thinking. Do you suppose President Bush asked Sarkozy to hook up with Syria to hedge his bets without looking like he agrees with Pelosi? That’s too sick to even consider while having fun with conspiracy theories.

How about this? Sarkozy is willing to try anything to find solutions in the Middle East even if it is a mistake. And let’s not forget that leading up to the Iraq War France was in the group of those opposing armed intervention in Iraq along with Russia and Germany largely due to all the money owed them by Saddam Hussein.

This latest move by Sarkozy could fuel the criticism that France never saw a conflict in which they weren’t willing to surrender. Occasionally France is involved as a third party negotiator between nations in conflict. Does that suggest they try to get one or the other to surrender?

About the only thing this blog likes about France is with Sarkozy in charge there it provides an excuse to post pics of his wife. Another gratuitous display is offered at the bottom of this post. It’s about the only good that comes out of the story below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

French President Visits Syria

By Lisa Bryant
Paris

Bryant report - Download (MP3)
Bryant report - Listen (MP3)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy arrives in Damascus Wednesday, in the first visit to Syria by a Western head of state in five years. From Paris, Lisa Bryant reports the visit marks a change in French foreign policy and an effort to bring Syria back into the international fold.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy gestures while speaking during a media conference after an EU summit in Brussels, 01 Sep 2008

Nicolas Sarkozy said he would break from the past, when he was elected French president last year. He is making good on his word when it comes to Middle East policy. He is more favorable toward Israel than his predecessor Jacques Chirac and willing to invite controversial leaders to France, such as Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Middle East Analyst Judith Cahen, a Middle East analyst for the French Institute of International Relations, in Paris, says Mr. Sarkozy wants to send a clear message with his visit.

“The message is that France is back in the Middle East and with a new policy. And, Nicolas Sarkozy wants to say that the former politics of France are now over. That means Jacques Chirac’s policy is now over,” said Cahen.

Mr. Chirac would have nothing to do with Syria, particularly after the 2005 assassination
on of his close friend, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria denies any involvement in his killing.

And, less than a year ago, Mr. Sakozy said France would break contact with Syria if it did not allow Lebanon to hold free presidential elections.

Now, Mr. Sarkozy is breaking new ground, with a two-day visit to Syria that includes indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel with two other Middle East nations. The United States considers Damascus a sponsor of terrorism. But French analyst Philippe Moreau Defarges says it is impossible today not to include Syria in the Middle East equation.

“Today, the Syrian geopolitical situation has really changed. Syria is considered as one of the key partners to make peace with Israel. At a certain time, you must have dinner with the Devil. Even if Syria is a dangerous regime, a non-democratic regime, it is clear that it is one of the most reliable partners in the Middle East,” said Defarges.

Mr. Sarkozy invited his Syrian counterpart to Paris in July, as part of a larger summit between European Union countries and Middle Eastern and North African states. There, Syria and Lebanon agreed to establish embassies after years in which Syria was considered the unwanted, behind-the-scenes power in Lebanon.

Analyst Cahen believes Mr. Sarkozy’s trip this week primarily aims to boost France’s role in the Middle East.

“Especially now, with Russia also trying to get back into the Middle East policy. I didn’t know if it’s realistic, but we’ll know in the next few months,” added Cahen.

Mr. Sarkozy has already been criticized at home for hosting Mr. Ghaddafi and Mr. Assad. Human Rights Watch has urged the French President to bring up rights violations by Damascus, when he is in Syria.

But Cahen, for one, believes Mr. Sarkozy’s visit is unlikely to generate much controversy here, where French are more concerned about the economy and other issues closer to home.

McDonough report - Download MP3 (482k) audio clip
Listen to McDonough report audio clip

The secretary general of the Arab League says he is heading for Beirut this week for talks on a new plan to end the Lebanese political crisis. VOA Middle East Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.

Arab League foreign ministers have approved a new proposal to end the political stalemate that has left Lebanon without a president for more than six weeks.

At a special session in Cairo, they endorsed the choice of army chief General Michel Suleiman as Lebanese president, and called for his immediate election.

The two feuding political factions in Lebanon have agreed that Michel should be the next president, but the parliamentary vote to elect him has been repeatedly delayed as factions continue fighting over other political issues, including the shape of the next government.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the league’s proposal to end the standoff is based on three points.

He said it calls for election of a president, agreement on a national unity government, and other measures including a new electoral law to be passed after the government is formed.

The plan says the national unity government should be structured so that no one faction can impose or block a decision. It also strengthens the powers of the president, giving him the role of settling contested cabinet decisions.

Secretary General Moussa said he would be going to Beirut in the next few days for talks on the proposal.

He said the Arab League will move seriously, and will not allow the matter to drag on from week to week, from delay to delay, or from tension to tension.

The plan has wide support among Arab states and was welcomed by a number of key factions in Lebanon.

Moussa said it is supported by Syria, which is a main backer of the Lebanese opposition.

In Beirut, the ruling March 14 coalition’s leader, Saad Hariri, said it gives Lebanon a new chance to elect a consensus president.

Lebanese media quoted the parliamentary speaker and key opposition figure Nabih Berri as also approving of the plan. But reports said the opposition group Hezbollah was responding more cautiously, and asking for clarification on some points.
By Challiss McDonough
Cairo, Egypt
06 January 2008

Syria Halts Contacts With France on Lebanon

By VOA News
12 August 2007

Iraq’s prime minister has called a meeting of Iraqi political leaders to try to resolve the crisis facing his unity government.

Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday the leaders of Iraq’s sectarian factions will begin meeting on Monday or Tuesday. His government has been in crisis since the country’s main Sunni Arab bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front, pulled its ministers out of the cabinet on August 1.

Mr. Maliki formed a unity government of Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions in 2006 to try to reduce Iraq’s sectarian violence. But the government has been paralyzed by boycotts and infighting along ethnic and sectarian lines.

U.S. officials have expressed growing frustration with Iraq’s slow progress in passing laws on national reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military says coalition forces detained 30 suspected terrorists Sunday across Iraq in operations against bombing networks and leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Earlier, the military said five American soldiers were killed Saturday in fighting south of Baghdad. Four soldiers were killed when they entered a house rigged with explosives in the district of Arab Jabour, while a fifth soldier was shot and killed during a foot patrol.

All five soldiers were members of Task Force Marne, a unit which deployed to the southern outskirts of Baghdad four months ago as part of the U.S. counter-insurgency troop surge.

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

crossposted at:

Reject the UN

Screw the UN

.

In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks. The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States military.

That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would not have been left for President Bush.

News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer discussion with the UN rather than with American or British leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its members. The recent defections from the government and its members’ summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.

Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.

The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party’s political agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.

If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may develop into an Achilles heel for victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(SOURCES)

UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, diplomats said.

U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.

U.N. to have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution planned for Friday.

Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a 47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night’s vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.

Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James Clyburn said “a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq” by Gen. David Petraeus “likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.” Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, “said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next steps.” Clyburn noted that Petraeus “carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats,” and “without their support…Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.”

Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.

The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.

Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge’s doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.

For the Iraq war’s opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts–Democrats, no less!–reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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

Matthew Continetti offers a spectacular view of the debate on the Iraq war. While you will have no trouble finding reports that are critical of General Petraeus and US military success in recent months, the Continetti opinion piece from the Weekly Standard is a refreshing look at more than one side of the discussion. Imagine that. And there is mention of some positive reports even from the left. Of course those ‘defections’ are rarely allowed to see daylight and often come with some sort of qualifier. As if it is only an attempt to not look biased by at least mentioning something positive like a backhanded compliment.

Why those opposed to the war find it necessary to publicly campaign immediately and continuously from the beginning of any conflict is at least disappointing. One might expect all citizens could restrain their personal opinions if expressing them would be damaging to the very troops they claim to be concerned about. It is difficult to define such protest as anything but unAmerican as it poses direct obstruction to a military mission. Exercising one’s claim of a right to free speech by opposing one’s own country in time of war again ignores responsibility in favor of personal preference. The argument from protesters is often expressed as a patriotic and necessary exercise of free speech when at odds with governmental authority. Since there are a variety of effective methods for accomplishing the same goal without harming those actively engaged in performing their duties, aka, military troops, protest arguments to justify action are not very convincing. Public protest only serves to disrupt the chosen target of those organizing such activity. Attaching any noble characteristics to antiwar public protest is nonsense. While claiming to be patriotic and necessary in exercising free speech, the reality is the goal of antiwar protest is to deny other’s rights in favor of their own.

What would compound the questionable motives of those opposing this particular war in Iraq is actions described in the accompanying reference to the Coninetti piece at the Weekly Standard. To discount the current military success in Iraq by the means described below is pathetic.

….. Antiwar Democrats immediately started dancing the Iraq shuffle, in which you ignore your opponent’s arguments, shift the terms of the debate, and attack his motivation and character. Witness the left’s reaction to a recent interview Petraeus gave to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Rather than rebutting Petraeus’s findings, lefty bloggers accused the general of being a partisan political actor. Or consider the liberal, antiwar Center for American Progress’s “Progress Report” of July 31, entitled “Bush’s Enablers.” The email newsletter is sent to left-wing political operatives, activists, and journalists throughout the country and is a reliable barometer of progressive opinion.

Maintaining an opposing viewpoint on an issue is a position anyone should be allowed to take. When circumstances change and the effect weakens the opposing viewpoint, a reasonable person would acknowledge the event. To ignore the event and continue to defend the position with purely political tactics exposes the real motive behind the position. It would not be the first time that left wing opposition to the war in Iraq has been suggested as the one issue Democrats have selected to use for political objectives. That would mean the one problem for the left would be victory in Iraq. So what is really driving opposition to the war?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Barack Obama of being ‘naive and irresponsible’ for his position on Iran and that he would open talks with them. She said she would not talk with them in the first year of being President but suggested ‘low level’ talks from State. She added Obama would know those things if he had the experience she did. This contradicts the calls by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, including other Democratic party candidates Senator Joe Biden and Senator Chris Dodd as reported here yesterday. But Clinton did not extend her criticism to anyone but Obama.

A new report from the Washington Post indicates Clinton’s campaign advisers thought they won the argument while this blog indicated they may have exposed their campaign’s first flaws. And the Obama camp is not letting this go yet. They returned fire with Clinton’s vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq as ‘naive and irresponsible’. Whether you support the troops and victory in Iraq or don’t support the troops and favor surrender, it has been mentioned here often that most in Congress did not review the available information on the resolution before voting. Obama’s appraisal has merit for those who did not perform due diligence for an informed vote. Supporting victory or surrender does not change the fact that there were mistakes made before going to war but an obligation to Iraq exists regardless of that fact. The point is, being poorly informed and therefore making an uninformed decision does not relieve the parties from the obligation produced by the decision. That is why the decision should be made more carefully.

That said, in the report from the Washington Post, Biden and Dodd weigh in and essentially echoed the point from this blog yesterday. That in calling Obama ‘naive and irresponsible’ she was including the rest of the Democratic leadership and specifically, Biden and Dodd. It is fair to say that Biden and Dodd were not impressed. So much for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim of superior experience. This latest flap is a rookie mistake by Clinton. Yesterday this blog characterized Clinton’s manipulation of the debate question as bush league. It was and she is.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For Clinton and Obama, A Debate Point Won’t Die

By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 27, 2007; A08

A debate moment that might have quickly come and gone has erupted into the sharpest battle of the Democratic nominating contest, with Sen. Barack Obama yesterday comparing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on meeting with the leaders of hostile states to the adamant refusal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, 4 Time Father?, Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

ABC news calling Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ‘naive and irresponsible’ criticism of Barack Obama her campaign’s first attack on her closest rival may also indicate the first flaws in her campaign. In November 2006 the House and Senate Democratic leadership called for the Bush Administration to hold direct talks with Iran. Both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd, two current Presidential candidates, are quoted as favoring talks with Iran. While the debate discussion between Obama and Clinton specifically addressed whether the talks should be a first year task and Clinton expressed her belief that lower level diplomacy was the initial smart move, calling Obama out for not specifying this proves nothing. Clinton may have sent mixed messages on this topic as the transcript indicates with this quote, ‘And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.’ High level, low level, direct or indirect talks are all components of the diplomatic game but the majority of discussions in the press over many months have focused on the Bush Administration’s earlier refusal to talk to ‘evil’ nations on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Generally the argument against that refusal to talk was one of talk versus no talk and the details were largely ignored.

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton also calling the House and Senate Democratic leadership naive and irresponsible? There seems to be little difference in Barack Obama’s take on talking to Iran and those of Biden and Dodd. Senator Dodd offered this assessment on talking to Iran, “When it comes to protecting our security, we must be as willing to wage diplomacy as we have been willing to wage war,” said Mr. Dodd. “Robust, muscular and direct negotiations are not gifts to our enemies. These are essential tools of avoiding conflict and securing peace and security.” Senator Biden favored the talk approach as well while the Bush Administration held that ceasing development of the nuclear program in Iran was a condition of opening talks. For Clinton to specify a detail not in the original question and then criticize Obama’s answer is bush league. And it represents the suggestion some flaws may be appearing in the Democratic front runner’s armor.

From a NYT’s interview in March 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton is less specific on Iran. ‘ Certainly, the willingness to engage Iran and Syria could possibly lead to some changes that would be beneficial to the overall structure of the situation we confront. ‘ How’s that for saying nothing? Holding your opponents to higher standards than you do for yourself is not simply unfair but misleading. Is it is okay for Clinton to be vague while criticizing her opponents on details?

More Clinton vagueness was displayed in the March interview. ‘And we’re more than happy to continue to support them. As I said, I wouldn’t do away with a support role for us, I would be more than willing to do that. I certainly, if they are moving in the right direction, I would continue aid, and I would try to get the neighbors to behave and support them.

And if we have a track with Syria and a track with Iran, we might be able to create some momentum for some more stability.’

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed a diplomatic approach similar to the one for which she criticizes Obama. ‘ We need to return to patient diplomacy, backed by military strength and informed by American values.’ ……… ‘ The Administration tells Iran and Syria they’re responsible for helping keep the peace but won’t talk with them about how to do it. We continue to deny evident reality, proceeding with few or no allies and precious little direct communication with people who matter. No wonder the American people think that we are adrift.’

And also in the speech Clinton abandons the signature mantra of the Democratic party. ‘ In Iran as well, this Administration outsourced its policy to the British, the French and the Germans. Meanwhile, the Iranian so-called moderates we ignored were pushed out of power and the extremists went merrily forward; now we are left hoping that those same moderates we wouldn’t talk to can regain control. Hope is not a policy. ‘

Clinton had more to say about talking to Iran. ‘ We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who’s making the decisions — what their stated and unstated goals might be. ‘

The text of the speech above was found at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s website. So who is naive and irresponsible now? She calls out Obama on foreign relations and diplomacy citing herself as the candidate with the goods to do the job. She also draws attention to her own inconsistencies from previous statements. And she includes nearly her entire party in her criticism based on positions held by Congressional leadership and others. What does this say about the Democratic party and the candidate advertised as the front runner in their offerings for President in 2008? And how does this apply to Pelosi and the trip to Syria, speaking of naive and irresponsible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, The Pet Haven, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

A review of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press releases so far in the month of July shed some light on why the Democratic majority has the record it does since the midterms. A July 2nd PR puts Pelosi on the record as finding the 9/11 Commission recommendations as something worthy of a press release. She claims passing HR1 in the House in January has not ended in passage in the Senate because of the GOP. Thin as it is Nancy, you have a majority in the Senate and if there is as much bipartisan support for the commission as you say, this should not have been a problem. Quit whining and do something.

Can you recall the last time so much has been made of a Presidential commutation? They are always controversial and they are also a Presidential prerogative. So get over it and move on. The only reason this blog presented a list of President Clinton’s pardons was for all the Dhimmi, Demmi, Democrats crying over Scooter Libby’s commutation of sentence. Let this stand as Pelosi’s 2nd July press release that is nothing more than political whining aimed at the opposition party. No wonder Congress has nothing done and approval ratings below those of the President.

On July 5th, one day after the remembrance of our nation’s battle for independence, surrender monkey Nancy Pelosi could not wait to speak of defeat and aid the enemy with antiwar rhetoric. She feeds on the RINO defections of four GOP Senators. Two who are worried about re-election. One will probably never run again. And the other is just not real bright. That would be, in order, Warner and Domenici, Lugar, and last but certainly least, Voinovich. Again, Pelosi is discussing the GOP as the Dems cannot do anything by themselves. The lack of support for the troops in Congress is a national disgrace. But from Pelosi’s renegade trip to Syria, she has led the surrender antiwar crowd. Can’t determine what to do about the war in Iraq, so again, blame your deficiencies on the GOP.

Then on July 6th a PR about another lame liberal cause, Live Earth. With such inane events the Dems wonder why crazed fringe liberals and Hollywood types are the only ones they can enlist for their nonsense. What self-respecting individuals with any intelligence would associate themselves with such childish antics? If you want serious results for your programs consider addressing them in a serious, calm manner and perhaps someone will listen. Reports indicate this promotion known as ‘Live Earth’ was a major flop. A fine match for the Democratic majority in Congress.

With the exception of one salute to Lady Bird Johnson and a recent housing matter not worth reading, Pelosi’s remaining July press releases all contain antiwar sentiment which is the mainstay of Democrat politics. It is all they know and all they have done. It may rank as the most damaging six months in political history. The only action the GOP can hang their collective hat on is defeating the Democrats other only ‘new direction’ for America. The amnesty bills are dead for now and most accounts expect no action until after the 2008 elections. Yet fortunately, the only GOP member focused on national security and illegal immigration has or will introduce ‘no amnesty’ legislation. His name of course is Rep Tom Tancredo. Thank you again, Congressman Tancredo.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Was this hostage incident with British journalist Alan Johnston simply a plot between associated terrorists attempting to obtain positive press for releasing a hostage? C’mon, the Army of Islam, sounds like a quickly conjured name to accommodate the plot. It is tough enough to accept names like Hezbollah and Hamas let alone the Popular Resistance Committees and the Executive Force. The point is this all seems rather fabricated by a group of rank amateurs. Ok, they are violent, have weapons and engage in terrorist activities but their intentions, credentials and importance are largely self-defined. And a lot of paid consultants, journalists or reporters seem to be the only people outside these groups judging their validity. So they are just a bunch of punks with weapons. How do they expect that to solve their problems? They may have had a chance to become legitimate players on the world stage engaging in the political process but opted to return to weapons and being stupid.

Sometimes it almost seems more prudent for all the major countries of the world to simply withdraw from any interactions with the Middle East and similar zones of insanity. Y’all wanna kill each other, fine. You want to keep blaming each other for the problems you face and not help each other out, fine. From the major powers on the planet to all lesser influences and organizations like the UN, most of the violence and problems faced by the Middle East only seem to be exacerbated by the rest of the world’s involvement. At one time or another all countries in the Middle East seem to be ‘playing’ other countries in the world to get what they want. And the arrangements keep rotating around the region shifting advantage from country to country. All the while the richest nations in the world are pouring billions into the mix and only a few ranking members of failing governments appear to receive the benefit.

That is why it would be nice if the US could finish the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prepare them to take care of themselves and when ready call it a day. Every country foreign to the Middle East should then remove themselves and let the cards fall where they may. But there is a big flaw with this suggestion. It will never happen. Because the people in the Middle East countries are partly right. All the foreign countries involved in the Middle East have a stake in them but not for the right reasons. Other countries in the world will stay involved in the Middle East for their own selfish reasons. The centuries old conflicts in the region will continue and be complicated by outside interference. And the whole mess will never end.

Maybe this is a pessimistic or cynical interpretation of the problem. But it is a reflection of the historic trends in that region of the world.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hamas closes in on BBC hostage stronghold

From correspondents in Baghdad
July 04, 2007 03:33am
HAMAS gunmen today took up positions around the stronghold of the kidnappers of BBC journalist Alan Johnston, as the Islamist movement hinted it could use force to secure the newsman’s release.

Members of Hamas’s armed wing and its self-styled police set up checkpoints at the entrance to the southern Sabra neighbourhood in Gaza City, searching vehicles and fanning out around a compound, an AFP correspondent said.

Hamas, Islamic group swap prisoners in Gaza

Wed Jul 4, 2007 5:54 AM IST
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas and another militant Islamic group swapped prisoners on Tuesday in the Gaza Strip as mediators negotiated to free an abducted BBC reporter, a spokesman for a group of Palestinian mediators said.

Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella militant group in Gaza, said the “Army of Islam has released nine students and Hamas has released detained members of the Army of Islam.”

Kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston released

Last update - 08:11 04/07/2007
By News Agencies
Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist held hostage in the Gaza Strip since March, was handed over by his Islamist captors to Hamas officials on Wednesday.

The 45-year-old Briton was taken into the care of officials from the Hamas movement, which seized full control of Gaza three weeks ago.

“I was released a couple of hours ago. It was an appalling experience as you can imagine. Occasionally quite terrifying… Now it really is over,” Johnston told BBC World from the home of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City.

NEWSWEEK Cover: Why Gaza Matters

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

NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 06/16/2007

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

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

SOURCE Newsweek

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.

Peres wins Israeli presidency

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

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

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