. November 30, 2006 SouthAmerica: American politicians and American senior Military people look pathetic today on television when they discuss a solution for the war in Iraq. PATHETIC is the only word that I can find in the English language to describe all these people â Starting at the top with George W. Bush and down the line with no exceptions. Pathetic, Pathetic, and Pathetic. It is amazing that all these people canât figure out that reinstating Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq it is the only way out and the best option available at this time for the United States and also for the entire Middle East. At this point only Saddam Hussein has a chance of bringing back some kind of order to the current chaos in Iraq. Maybe it is a little too late and we might have passed the point of no return even for this last Hail Mary. At this point even Israel would be happy to see Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq, since Saddam Hussein would keep Iran in check. Saddam Hussein, with his political structure, and his army are the last chance for the United States to leave behind at least a small possibility of stability inside Iraq. The United States would look foolish when they reinstate Saddam Hussein into power, but that is the only option available to the US that makes any sense â and the other options that are being considered right now by the US politicians and the US military can be qualified as ideas that range: From very bad ideas - To real catastrophic ideas. It is ironic, but Saddam Hussein being reinstated into power in Iraq it is the only option that makes sense at this point. *********** âOne War, No Answersâ By Dana Milbank The Washington Post Thursday, November 30, 2006; Page A02 Does anybody have a good plan for Iraq? Not President Bush. He arrived in Jordan yesterday for a crucial meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, only for the White House to discover that the Iraqi was a no-show. "It was going to be more of a social meeting anyways," Bush aide Dan Bartlett told reporters at the Raghadan Palace in Amman. Neither does the Pentagon appear to have a solution. Gen. Pete Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called a news conference yesterday to advise the American public not to expect big conclusions from a major Iraq study he ordered. "There's not an end product," he announced. Nor, apparently, do the Democrats have the answer. Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), a Democratic point man on Iraq, called his own press briefing in the Capitol yesterday to call for (drum roll, please) "a high-ranking special envoy to work with the Iraqi government." And what of the congressionally appointed Iraq Study Group? After nearly nine months of studying, the commission will finally give some recommendations next week. Its deliberations are so relaxed that its co-chairmen, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, found time on Monday to pose for an Annie Leibovitz photo shoot for Men's Vogue. (The current issue has features on "the new Bond temptress," the "Alpha Suit" and "power" wristwatches.) Political Washington is in a state of suspended animation these days: waiting for Bob Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, waiting for the Baker-Hamilton commission, waiting to see whether Bush will raise or lower troop levels. But with good ideas in short supply, and hopes falling that the Men's Vogue Study Group will produce a magic solution, leaders of both parties seem unable to do much more than heap blame on Maliki and argue about whether or not to call the Iraq carnage a civil war. Yesterday's installment began when Reed, a former Army Ranger from the 82nd Airborne, hopped onto the stage in the Senate press gallery. Demanding "immediate and tangible" actions by Maliki, the senator stipulated that "the critical issue is what the Iraqi government is going to do to keep their government together, quell the violence and provide the services to the people that a government should and must provide." Having established that, Reed made his entry into the great nomenclature debate. What's happening in Iraq, he said, "is a working definition of a civil war." Other than his envoy suggestion, Reed had little in the way of fresh ideas for Iraq. But he made it clear that he didn't expect ideas from the Baker-Hamilton group or the Pentagon either. "I don't think we can afford to wait for the Iraqi Study Group report," Reed advised, questioning "how much detail and specific guidance they can give and still reach a consensus." His hopes were not much higher for the Pentagon. Asked about Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Reed smiled. "I think he's been extremely loyal to the secretary and the administration." Previewing the general's news conference, the senator said it "will probably be the best sort of indication of whether there is a new sense of candor or whether his position remains the same." Pace opted for the latter. Under the watchful eye of Bryan Whitman, Rumsfeld's spokesman, he energetically offered his view that Iraq is not in a civil war but provided little other information, because "we need to be circumspect about what we say in public." How about current efforts to increase troops in Baghdad? "That is a province of General Casey," he demurred. Gen. John Abizaid's warning that violence must be controlled within six months? "I doubt that General Abizaid meant to pick a particular point on the calendar," Pace said. Abizaid's caution that the military couldn't sustain a big increase of troops in Iraq? "The United States military can today and tomorrow handle any additional challenge." Over in Amman, White House aide Bartlett was delivering the less-cheerful tidings that Maliki would be skipping the meeting that Bush had rearranged his schedule to attend -- and that the postponement to today had nothing to do with a leaked White House memo saying Maliki was either ignorant or incompetent. "Since the king of Jordan and Prime Minister Maliki had a bilateral themselves, earlier today, everybody believed that negated the purpose for the three of them to meet tonight," Bartlett argued. He continued this line of logic: "They had a very good conversation, and afterwards they felt, well, since we had good conversations, we addressed issues, there was not an agenda for the three for a trilateral that they felt was necessary." No agenda? It was an odd way to characterize the Iraq war, civil or otherwise. But Bartlett and his colleagues were not the only ones feeling unhurried. NBC's Andrea Mitchell discovered that the Baker-Hamilton commission had taken time from its deliberations for "a class photo . . . shot by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz." The Washington Post's Robin Wright learned yesterday that Men's Vogue would be publishing the spread. "Through coverage of art and architecture, travel and food, politics and finance, books and sports, custom tailoring and fine watches," the magazine's mission statement says, it "will define a new male sensibility -- smart, worldly, mature, and ready to discover more." Such as how to fix Iraq. .
. December 9, 2006 SouthAmerica: Pakistan â the land of Osama Bin Ladden and Al Qaeda - has successfully test-fired a short-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. ******* âPakistan tests ballistic missileâ BBC News â December 9, 2006 Pakistan has successfully test-fired a short-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the Pakistani military has said. The Hatf III (Ghaznavi) is the third ballistic missile to have been test-fired by Pakistan in three weeks. The missile has a range of 290km (181 miles). Pakistan and rival India have been regularly testing missiles since 1998, when both countries carried out nuclear detonations in close succession. Pakistan, a US ally, has not officially commented on a US law, approved this week, to help India with its civilian nuclear programme. Critics of the law said the nuclear deal between Washington and New Delhi could trigger an arms race in South Asia. Commenting on the latest missile test, Pakistan's Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed, said his country could be "justifiably proud of its defence capability and the reliability of its nuclear deterrence". The country also recently tested its medium-range Ghauri and Shaheen-1 missiles. India and Pakistan announced last month they would prepare a deal to limit the risk of an inadvertent nuclear conflict. Tension between Pakistan and India - also a nuclear power - has decreased in recent months. The two sides met in the Indian capital, Delhi, in November - the first talks between the South Asian neighbours since July's train bombings in Mumbai (Bombay). .
Drudge running with a story that Loser is looking at a high ranking Muslim to replace Bolton. He should do it. Then tap George Mitchell off the baseball probe, also mentioned in Drudge, as a special mid east envoy and turn him lose. Mitchell is a seasoned fixer. His last job was Northern Ireland. Plus he's Lebanese and Daddy and Baker like him - - may even be talking to him if this is a trial baloon. If Loser doesn't do it, I could see Congress making a move on it's own. Rice is done. She'll be gone in a month imo unless she gets paired up with a pro -- somebody like Mitchell. Something is about to happen out of the US.
Why do people in our highest positions continue to believe that appeasing to Islam will neutralize its aggression against us?
Perhaps someone can answer the following question. When the Jews went to Palestine from 1920s to independence did they buy the land off the Palestinians and move in or take it by force ? This surely is relevent as to legal and moral ownership ?
The Jews in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940. 28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
. December 11, 2006 SouthAmerica: The nuclear weapons genie is already out of the bottle. Saudi Arabia has about 6 or 8 nuclear weapons that they have acquired from Pakistan (another government controlled by Sunnis) a few years ago. ****** Y Net News â Israel. âGulf states also want to go nuclearâ Representatives from Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf aspire to join forces, develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes out of concern about Iranian nuclear program. Council's six member states call Lebanese nation to unite, bring assassination perpetrators to justice By: Roee Nahmias Published: 12/11/06 Six member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf announced Sunday that they want to obtain the capability to produce nuclear energy "for peaceful purposes." Representatives of the six states announced that they were instructed to examine the possibility of initiating a joint nuclear energy project. Such was written in an announcement sealing a two-day gathering on the issue in Riyadh. Representatives from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Secretary General of the council Abdul Rahman al-Attiya said, "It is the right of the states in the region to obtain nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." During the council meeting, concern was raised about the nuclear aspirations of Iran. In addition, the countries announced that they will advance the plan for developing an economic union between them on the example of the European Union. The closing statements of the gathering come as no surprise since analysts have recently been projecting that Saudi Arabia and Egypt will ask to develop nuclear capability after the Iranians in order not to be left in the dust behind the rising power in the Middle East. A few months ago, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced that his country plans to establish a nuclear power plant and to obtain nuclear power for peaceful purposes in order to solve the energy crisis in his country "for the coming generations." After this announcement, Saudi Arabia was also expected to declare a similar step. he Gulf states are worried by a strengthening Iran and by the implications for the Shi'ite communities among them. Worried by events in Lebanon State representatives in the council meeting expressed concern about the intensifying tension in Lebanon and a series of political assassinations in the country. At the end of the meeting, they called the Lebanese to unite, to rise about the political controversies, and to return to the negotiation table: "The continuation of these terrorist acts (the assassinations) are likely to intensify the political tension and to give opportunities to those who wish to harm Lebanon." In addition, council members expressed their hope that those responsible for the assassinations in Lebanon will be revealed and will be brought to justice. They called all the sides to cooperate on this issue. The six states even committed themselves to continue aiding Lebanon's rehabilitation in the political and economic realms. .
Thanks Interesting to know the facts. Not easy to see the facts when obscured by the propaganda. What an insoluble MESS !!
. December 12, 2006 SouthAmerica: The BBC News it did broadcasted today the interview of the Israeli PM were he implied that Israel has nuclear weapons. The Israeli PM said something that is not accurate â that Israel is the only country armed with nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That is pure misinformation, since the Israelis must know that Saudi Arabia is also armed with nukes â it is estimated that Saudi Arabia has at least 8 nuclear warheads or more that they got from Pakistan. By the way, I just saw an interesting program on the New York Times television channel about Pakistanâs nuclear weapons program. At least The New York Times program were able to make the connections between Osama Bin Ladden (A Sunni), the Al Qaeda (a Sunni organization), and Pakistan (a country controlled by Sunnis.) Saudi Arabia was able to get its nukes from Pakistan, because both countries are controlled by Sunnis, and that is the main connection between both countries. *********** âOlmert's apparent nuclear admissionâ Aljazeera.net â December 12, 2006 Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, appeared to acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons or aspirations to acquire them in an interview on German television. He was discussing Iran's nuclear programme and drew comparisons between Iran and America, France, Israel and Russia. A spokeswoman denied that this was an admission by Olmert. Israel has long declined to confirm or deny having nuclear weapons as part of a âstrategic ambiguityâ policy that it says fends off numerically superior enemies. However, Israel is widely believed to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East. Olmert said in the interview that was shown on Israeli television: "The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to be able to live without terror. But we never threatened any nation with annihilation. "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" Miri Eisen, Olmert's spokeswoman, who accompanied the prime minister on a trip to Germany on Monday, said he did not mean to say that Israel possessed or aspired to acquire nuclear weapons. She said: "No he wasn't saying anything like that." Mark Regev, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said that Olmert had meant to categorise the four nations as democracies to set them apart from Iran, and was not referring to their potential nuclear capabilities or aspirations. Olmert's office said the quote was taken out of context and noted that in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused several times to confirm that Israel has nuclear weapons. The subject of Israel's nuclear capability was raised last week by Robert Gates, the incoming US defence secretary, who told a Senate confirmation hearing that Israel had atomic weapons. Gates on Tuesday said that Iran might want an atomic bomb because it is "surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us [the US] in the Persian Gulf". The remark led Israeli news bulletins with Israeli state-run radio suggesting that Gates may have breached a US "don't ask, don't tell" policy that dates back to the late 1960s. Middle East diplomacy Olmert arrived in Berlin on Monday at the start of a two day visit to Germany and Italy aimed at rallying European support for Israel and censure against Iran. On his first official trip to both countries since taking office in May, Olmert is to hold talks on Tuesday with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and with Romano Prodi, the Italian prime minister, on Wednesday. He is expected to press both leaders for economic sanctions against Iran, should Tehran refuse to abandon its nuclear programme. Olmert and Merkel are also expected to discuss the Middle East peace process, Israeli officials said. Eisin said: "Germany, Italy and Europe in general have a role to play to advance the peace process. "But there cannot be any recognition of the [Palestinian] Hamas government as long as this movement does not recognise Israel and does not give up its mission to destroy it." .