Full Version: Snuffymith's Blog-Sept. 17 - Nov. 29, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
NEWS MIDDLE EAST Leaders targeted in Iraq bombing
Diyala province has been the scene of recent US and Iraqi offensives against al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters At least 18 people have died and at least 30 injured in a suicide bomb attack on a gathering of tribal leaders and provincial officials near the Iraqi city of Baquba. Seven policemen, three of them senior officers, were among those killed in Monday's attack at Shifta, west of Baquba, said Khaider al-Timimi, a police brigadier. bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
The attack occurred at 8:30pm (1730 GMT) as the leaders met in the mosque for the evening meal that breaks the daytime fast observed by Muslims during Ramadan, a security official said.
The negotiations were aimed at easing tensions in the city, which lies 65km north of Baghdad.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
Baquba is the capital of Diyala province, where recent US and Iraqi offensives targeted fighters from al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Possible target
Police named one of the dead police officers as Brigadier-General Ali Dulayyan. Two other police brigadier-generals were also killed.
Salah al-Jurani, a police major who was in the mosque, said the bomber appeared to target Raad Mullah Jawad, the provincial governor.
Al-Jurani said the bomber blew himself up as Jawad's guards tried to stop the attacker.
Also on Monday, a suicide truck bomber killed six people on the road between northwestern Tal Afar and Mosul, police said.
Why is the U.S. arming its Arab allies?
0
Bush seems to prefer to let the weapons do the talking, even when he claims to be engaging in diplomacy
Why does the Bush administration persist in thinking that Middle East stability can be promoted with arms? It can't - any more than democracy can be imposed through the barrel of a gun.
0
Bush seems to prefer to let the weapons do the talking, even when he claims to be engaging in diplomacy Why does the Bush administration persist in thinking that Middle East stability can be promoted with arms? It can't - any more than democracy can be imposed through the barrel of a gun.
By William Hartung
As is so often the case, team Bush seems to prefer to let the weapons do the talking, even when it claims to be engaging in diplomacy. The foundation of the deal is a pledge to sell $20 billion worth of high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing states in the Gulf. Items in the package reportedly include upgrades to Riyadh's U.S.-supplied fighter planes, satellite-guided bombs and combat ships. To ease any concerns about the Gulf buildup, the plan calls for increasing military aid to Israel and Egypt to $3 billion and $1.3 billion per year, respectively. That's $43 billion in U.S. taxpayer support over the next decade.
Why pour more weapons into the region now? The principal rationale appears to be to send a message to Iran that it must bend to U.S. pressure to end its nuclear program, stop the alleged flow of Iranian weapons to Iraqi insurgents and cease its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Otherwise, the argument goes, not only will Tehran face the prospect of U.S. military action but it will also be surrounded by neighbors armed with top-of-the-line U.S. weaponry. The arms package will be seen as even more provocative by Iran in light of the latest move in the Bush Administration's campaign to turn up the pressure on the regime: the recent decision to label its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.
Threatening Iran with military strikes and arms sales to potential adversaries is more likely to spur Tehran to add to its own arsenal while being less open to talks on its nuclear program. If the Bush Administration is looking for a new designated enemy to stand in for the late Saddam Hussein, this approach will work just fine. But if it wants to solve the security problems of the region, it would be hard to come up with a more counterproductive policy.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have tried to paper over the real intent of the deal by arguing that it will promote "stability" by bolstering moderate regimes. This is a strange assertion, especially as regards Saudi Arabia. The most recent Human Rights Watch Saudi report points out that "the government undertook no major human rights reforms in 2006, and there were signs of backsliding in issues of human rights defenders, freedom of association, and freedom of expression." Sending more weapons will not reverse these trends, which does not bode well for long-term stability in the Saudi kingdom.
In Egypt, decades of U.S. aid have had no positive impact on human rights or democracy. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak runs a quasi-Stalinist regime that won 88 percent of the vote in the last national elections while jailing numerous democracy advocates. As the U.S. State Department has acknowledged, torture is still widely practiced in Egyptian prisons, while Cairo's overall human rights record is described as "poor." Rewarding the Egyptian government with an increase in U.S. military aid is tantamount to condoning these repressive practices -- practices that are producing a popular backlash that could eventually lead to the end of the regime. If that happens, whatever government comes to power next will inherit huge stockpiles of U.S.-supplied weaponry.
As for Israel, more military aid is the last thing it needs. In recent times Tel Aviv has used its military in ways that have undermined its own security as well as that of its neighbors. From the ongoing attacks on Gaza to last summer's invasion of Lebanon, the Israeli government has unintentionally offered aid and comfort to hard-line forces, both among the Palestinians and in Lebanon. Israel has plenty of weapons; what it needs is a return to genuine diplomacy, ideally prodded by its closest ally, Washington.
Sixty years of arms racing has repeatedly undermined prospects for Middle East peace. Why should this latest round be any different? The only clear beneficiaries of this mega-deal will be U.S. arms makers. Already gorging on expenditures for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, companies like Boeing, General Electric and General Dynamics can anticipate ten years of lucrative foreign sales if the deal goes forward. The arms lobby can be expected to vigorously support the deal if it is challenged on Capitol Hill.
Thankfully, there has been early opposition in the U.S. Congress. Representative Anthony Weiner has pulled together a group of 114 House members opposed to the deal. Now the foreign affairs committee chairs in the House and Senate, Representative Tom Lantos and Senator Joe Biden, need to move from skepticism to opposition. They should hold hearings as soon as Congress comes back in September. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to join their rival John Edwards in roundly denouncing the deal. If there is a significant public debate about its likely impacts, it won't withstand even minimal scrutiny.
Mideast stability can't be promoted with arms, any more than democracy can be imposed through the barrel of a gun. Stopping or scaling back the Bush Administration's Mideast arms package would be a step toward learning this lesson.
-- William D. Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, is the author of How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?--A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books) and a contributor to Sean Costigan and David Gold, editors, Terrornomics (Ashgate Press).
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
- Exporting instability
As is so often the case, team Bush seems to prefer to let the weapons do the talking, even when it claims to be engaging in diplomacy. The foundation of the deal is a pledge to sell $20 billion worth of high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing states in the Gulf. Items in the package reportedly include upgrades to Riyadh's U.S.-supplied fighter planes, satellite-guided bombs and combat ships. To ease any concerns about the Gulf buildup, the plan calls for increasing military aid to Israel and Egypt to $3 billion and $1.3 billion per year, respectively. That's $43 billion in U.S. taxpayer support over the next decade.
Why pour more weapons into the region now? The principal rationale appears to be to send a message to Iran that it must bend to U.S. pressure to end its nuclear program, stop the alleged flow of Iranian weapons to Iraqi insurgents and cease its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Otherwise, the argument goes, not only will Tehran face the prospect of U.S. military action but it will also be surrounded by neighbors armed with top-of-the-line U.S. weaponry. The arms package will be seen as even more provocative by Iran in light of the latest move in the Bush Administration's campaign to turn up the pressure on the regime: the recent decision to label its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.
Threatening Iran with military strikes and arms sales to potential adversaries is more likely to spur Tehran to add to its own arsenal while being less open to talks on its nuclear program. If the Bush Administration is looking for a new designated enemy to stand in for the late Saddam Hussein, this approach will work just fine. But if it wants to solve the security problems of the region, it would be hard to come up with a more counterproductive policy.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have tried to paper over the real intent of the deal by arguing that it will promote "stability" by bolstering moderate regimes. This is a strange assertion, especially as regards Saudi Arabia. The most recent Human Rights Watch Saudi report points out that "the government undertook no major human rights reforms in 2006, and there were signs of backsliding in issues of human rights defenders, freedom of association, and freedom of expression." Sending more weapons will not reverse these trends, which does not bode well for long-term stability in the Saudi kingdom.
In Egypt, decades of U.S. aid have had no positive impact on human rights or democracy. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak runs a quasi-Stalinist regime that won 88 percent of the vote in the last national elections while jailing numerous democracy advocates. As the U.S. State Department has acknowledged, torture is still widely practiced in Egyptian prisons, while Cairo's overall human rights record is described as "poor." Rewarding the Egyptian government with an increase in U.S. military aid is tantamount to condoning these repressive practices -- practices that are producing a popular backlash that could eventually lead to the end of the regime. If that happens, whatever government comes to power next will inherit huge stockpiles of U.S.-supplied weaponry.
As for Israel, more military aid is the last thing it needs. In recent times Tel Aviv has used its military in ways that have undermined its own security as well as that of its neighbors. From the ongoing attacks on Gaza to last summer's invasion of Lebanon, the Israeli government has unintentionally offered aid and comfort to hard-line forces, both among the Palestinians and in Lebanon. Israel has plenty of weapons; what it needs is a return to genuine diplomacy, ideally prodded by its closest ally, Washington.
Sixty years of arms racing has repeatedly undermined prospects for Middle East peace. Why should this latest round be any different? The only clear beneficiaries of this mega-deal will be U.S. arms makers. Already gorging on expenditures for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, companies like Boeing, General Electric and General Dynamics can anticipate ten years of lucrative foreign sales if the deal goes forward. The arms lobby can be expected to vigorously support the deal if it is challenged on Capitol Hill.
Thankfully, there has been early opposition in the U.S. Congress. Representative Anthony Weiner has pulled together a group of 114 House members opposed to the deal. Now the foreign affairs committee chairs in the House and Senate, Representative Tom Lantos and Senator Joe Biden, need to move from skepticism to opposition. They should hold hearings as soon as Congress comes back in September. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to join their rival John Edwards in roundly denouncing the deal. If there is a significant public debate about its likely impacts, it won't withstand even minimal scrutiny.
Mideast stability can't be promoted with arms, any more than democracy can be imposed through the barrel of a gun. Stopping or scaling back the Bush Administration's Mideast arms package would be a step toward learning this lesson.
-- William D. Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, is the author of How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?--A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books) and a contributor to Sean Costigan and David Gold, editors, Terrornomics (Ashgate Press).
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
The Lighthouse
“Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy”
Volume 9, Issue 39: September 24, 2007
In this week’s issue:
1) The Independent Review—Fall 2007 Issue Now Available
2) American Realism and Engaging Syria
3) “Civilizing Women”: Flawed Book Defends Mutilation and Relativism
4) The Rise of Hugo Chavez
The Independent Review—Fall 2007 Issue Now Available
We are pleased to announce the publication of the Fall 2007 issue of The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy. Edited by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, this 160-page issue of our peer-reviewed quarterly addresses a broad range of issues in political thought, economic history, and public policy. Here are some of the questions examined in our latest issue:
* Why have virtually all scholars across the spectrum gotten Alexis de Tocqueville wrong? Download article.
* If neither U.S. entry into World War II nor a growing money supply ended the Great Depression, what did?
* Why have local governments exercised greater and greater control over ostensibly private urban real estate?
* How did western advisors contribute to the failure of reformers in Serbia to privatize state-owned enterprises effectively?
* How have post-Katrina government policies and redevelopment initiatives hampered the recovery of much of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast? Download article.
* Why did the Postal Reform Act of 2006 do so little to genuinely reform the U.S. Postal Service? Download article.
* How well is Germany’s “social-market” economy working?
* What are the root causes of the continual scandals in U.S. defense contracting?
Books reviewed:
* Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the Twenty-first Century, by Deepak Lal. Read review.
* On Classical Economics, by Thomas Sowell. Read review.
* Celebrating Irving Fisher: The Legacy of a Great Economist, edited by Robert W. Dimand and John Geanakoplos. Read review.
Contributors:
Daniel Choi, Frank G. Steindl, Edwin S. Mills, Milic Milovanovic, Emily Chamlee-Wright, James A. Montanye, Antony P. Mueller, Suri Ratnapala, James C. W. Ahiakpor, Robert Formaini, and Robert Higgs
Table of Contents
Purchase this issue.
Subscribe.
Recommend The Independent Review to your library!
American Realism and Engaging Syria
U.S. foreign policy should seek to engage Syria diplomatically, rather than shun it, because doing so could advance important strategic interests that Washington shares with Damascus, according to Independent Institute Research Fellow Leon T. Hadar.
One interest shared by both governments is in thwarting Sunni radicalism, Hadar explains in an op-ed published last week on TheGlobalist.com, a website whose tag-line is “dedicated to global understanding.” The Syrian government brutally fought a Sunni fundamentalist revolt from 1976 to 1982, but the threat to Ba’athist rule could return if Assad’s regime, under economic duress from U.S. sanctions, moves closer to Shiite Iran and thereby radicalizes Syria’s Sunni majority.
A U.S.-Syria rapprochement could even foster stability elsewhere in the strife-worn Middle East, according to Hadar. “Ending Syria’s political and economic isolation could create conditions for the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria, as well as between Israelis and Palestinians, that could eventually lead to peace and security for Israel,” Hadar writes. “What has been surprising is the failure of Washington to comprehend that reality, instead taking steps that made it more likely that Syria would work with Iran to secure its interests in the region while at the same time helping to strengthen the Syrian Islamist opposition force that want to oust the Ba’athists from power.”
“American Realism and Engaging Syria,” by Leon T. Hadar (The Globalist, 9/18/07) Spanish Translation (forthcoming)
Also see:
“A Diplomatic Road to Damascus: The Benefits of U.S. Engagement with Syria,” by Leon T. Hadar
Center on Peace & Liberty
“Civilizing Women”: Flawed Book Defends Mutilation and Relativism
Sometimes a book reveals more about the state of scholarship regarding its subject matter than its author intended. University of Toronto anthropologist Janice Boddy’s Civilizing Women attempts to explain the relationship between the British occupation in Sudan (circa 1920 to 1946) and one of that society’s most perplexing (certainly to Westerners) practices: female genital circumcision (FGC), the surgical removal of parts of the female genitalia for non-medical purposes.
Boddy should be applauded for her meticulous archival and field research, but, ultimately, she should be taken to task for her “blurring of political advocacy with anthropological research,” according to Independent Institute Research Fellow Wendy McElroy, editor of Liberty for Women. Boddy makes unsupported claims about the British campaign to discourage the practice (or, more accurately, practices, since FGC can take several forms that vary in their invasiveness). Moreover, McElroy argues, Boddy defends FGC, downplaying its coercive element and even claiming it is medically benign, despite the extreme pain, shock and death that it can cause.
Despite her profound opposition to FGC, McElroy concludes her review by noting her own disagreement with the eventual British ban of the practice in Sudan. Presumably, Boddy does too, if for different reasons. For McElroy, one problem that opponents of FGC must reckon with is that the ban created a backlash of support for the practice. “Indeed, outlawing the procedure acted to enshrine it within the culture as a symbol of resisting British authority,” writes McElroy.
“Review of Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan,” by Wendy McElroy (9/24/07) Spanish Translation (forthcoming)
Also see:
“The Condition of Women in Developing and Developed Countries,” by Michelle Fram Cohen (The Independent Review, Fall 2006)
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Wendy McElroy
The Rise of Hugo Chavez
How is it that a coup leader who tried to topple a democratically elected government is now on the verge of becoming, through a constitutional amendment, Venezuela’s president-for-life?
The rise of Hugo Chavez is perplexing but not unique. Latin America’s “populist strongmen keep appearing with astonishing frequency,” explains Alvaro Vargas Llosa. But one thing about Venezuela’s political culture is especially notable: Before the 1960s, Venezuela had a relatively free economy, with a low marginal tax rate (12%), an autonomous central bank, a small public sector, and a fiscally responsible government.
What went wrong? Venezuelan scholar Hugo Faria blames much of it on democracy, which came to the country in 1958 and enabled the political elite to pander to people’s instincts for dependency rather than hard work. Vargas Llosa adds another factor to the mix: growing nationalism, including economic nationalism, among the era’s political elites. By the time Hugo Chavez came around a decade ago, the people had forgotten the rising prosperity and republican institutions of a bygone era. “It was not liberal democracy as such but leaders acting under its mantle that made Chavez the man who is seeking ‘indefinite’ re-election today,” writes Vargas Llosa. “What a sad story.”
“The Rise of Hugo Chavez,” by Alvaro Vargas Llosa (9/21/07) Spanish Translation
Liberty for Latin America: How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression, by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
The Che Guevara Myth, by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Center on Global Prosperity (Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Director)
Visit our Spanish-language website.
Visit our Spanish-language blog.
THE LIGHTHOUSE, edited by Carl P. Close, is made possible by the generous contributions of supporters of the Independent Institute. If you enjoy THE LIGHTHOUSE, please consider making a donation to the Independent Institute.
THE LIGHTHOUSE
ISSN 1526-173X
Copyright © 2007 The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428
(510) 632-1366 phone
(510) 568-6040 fax
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1 By Juan Cole Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18453.htm
Tough US welcome for Iran's Ahmadinejad By NAHAL TOOSI
Associated Press Writer Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University on Monday to a blistering reception from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like "a petty and cruel dictator."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18454.htm ===
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18453.htm
Tough US welcome for Iran's Ahmadinejad By NAHAL TOOSI
Associated Press Writer Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University on Monday to a blistering reception from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like "a petty and cruel dictator."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18454.htm ===
Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran: U.S. says Iran sending missiles to Iraq: The U.S. military accused Iran on Sunday of smuggling surface-to-air missiles and other advanced weapons into Iraq for use against American troops. The new allegations came as Iraqi leaders condemned the latest U.S. detention of an Iranian in northern Iraq, saying the man was in their country on official business.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq === Ahmadinejad denies sending weapons into Iraq: 'The military should seek an answer to its defeat in Iraq elsewhere, in the misguided policies that it has led, in the wrong perspective that it has had toward Iraq and its people,' Ahmadinejad said.
http://snipurl.com/1r6sg === Video: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University:
http://snipurl.com/1r6sd === Columbia President's Propaganda speech and introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://snipurl.com/1r6sd
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq === Ahmadinejad denies sending weapons into Iraq: 'The military should seek an answer to its defeat in Iraq elsewhere, in the misguided policies that it has led, in the wrong perspective that it has had toward Iraq and its people,' Ahmadinejad said.
http://snipurl.com/1r6sg === Video: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University:
http://snipurl.com/1r6sd === Columbia President's Propaganda speech and introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://snipurl.com/1r6sd
Only Cheney Knows for Sure: Just How Powerful is the Israel Lobby?: How large a role does the "Israeli Lobby" play in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East?
http://www.counterpunch.org/ross09242007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/ross09242007.html
In case you missed it:
enator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "We Stand With Israel Now and Forever" : Make no mistake about it, the attack on the United States here in New York and at the Pentagon on September 11th comes from the same well of hatred and evil that stalks Israel. It is not possible for us to imagine confronting and winning the war against terrorism here and abroad, without our helping Israel win it at home.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...s.cfm?id=264774
enator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "We Stand With Israel Now and Forever" : Make no mistake about it, the attack on the United States here in New York and at the Pentagon on September 11th comes from the same well of hatred and evil that stalks Israel. It is not possible for us to imagine confronting and winning the war against terrorism here and abroad, without our helping Israel win it at home.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...s.cfm?id=264774
Curiouser and curiouser...
Syria's 'Smoking Gun'
"The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t."
By Trish Schuh
Written for 'Syria Comment'
9-20-7
DEIR EZ ZOR, Syria -- On a bridge over the Euphrates River atsundown, neighboring mosques weave a chorus calling Muslims to prayer. This destitute, ramshackle oil town on Iraq's desert frontier seems calm, despite Israel's recent raid on a military base outside the city to destroy "Syria's nuclear program.
The Qamishli-Deir Ez Zor highway, alleged by Israel to be a weapons route for Iraqi insurgents, was also quiet, and there were no heavy construction machinery or building cranes visible in the opposite direction on the road from Deir Ez Zor to Iraq.
At the Syria-Qusayba checkpoint near the Iraq border, I was stopped by the Syrian military. Across the road on the Iraqi side, sounds of American military operations puttered as blackhawk helicopters flew overhead. "No photos," said the Syrian military captain. Cameras could draw US sniper fire.
The surrounding terrain is flat barren desert, with visibility extending for miles. It is difficult to see how smugglers, insurgents or anything thatmoves could penetrate here. This is also where CNN claimed Israelpunched "a big hole in the desert" by attacking North Korean nuclear materials. But the big hole could be in CNN's story.
As far back as 2002, Charles Duelfer of the United Nations Iraq Survey Group called then Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton's nuclear claims against Syria "exaggerated." It was also the assessment of the CIA. In 2004, Muhammad El Baradei chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reiterated that there was no evidence Syria had a nuclear program.
After the invasion of Iraq, former US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner identified charges against Syria as one of 50 false news stories created by Israel and the White House to justify war. "Saddam's nuclear WMDs moved to Syria" was propaganda he said.
Several days ago, after the attack on Syria's "nuclear program", I spoke to western oil company officials in Deir Ez Zor. One technician told me they routinely monitor radiation as part of the refining process. They registered no heightened levels of nuclear residue in the area as there would have been if the Israelis had hit a North Korean atomic stockpile. Operations and technical foremen put it this way: "The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t."
The Syrian smoking gun is the complete lack of any mushroom cloud.
_______________________________________________
Salon mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/salon
Syria's 'Smoking Gun'
"The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t."
By Trish Schuh
Written for 'Syria Comment'
9-20-7
DEIR EZ ZOR, Syria -- On a bridge over the Euphrates River atsundown, neighboring mosques weave a chorus calling Muslims to prayer. This destitute, ramshackle oil town on Iraq's desert frontier seems calm, despite Israel's recent raid on a military base outside the city to destroy "Syria's nuclear program.
The Qamishli-Deir Ez Zor highway, alleged by Israel to be a weapons route for Iraqi insurgents, was also quiet, and there were no heavy construction machinery or building cranes visible in the opposite direction on the road from Deir Ez Zor to Iraq.
At the Syria-Qusayba checkpoint near the Iraq border, I was stopped by the Syrian military. Across the road on the Iraqi side, sounds of American military operations puttered as blackhawk helicopters flew overhead. "No photos," said the Syrian military captain. Cameras could draw US sniper fire.
The surrounding terrain is flat barren desert, with visibility extending for miles. It is difficult to see how smugglers, insurgents or anything thatmoves could penetrate here. This is also where CNN claimed Israelpunched "a big hole in the desert" by attacking North Korean nuclear materials. But the big hole could be in CNN's story.
As far back as 2002, Charles Duelfer of the United Nations Iraq Survey Group called then Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton's nuclear claims against Syria "exaggerated." It was also the assessment of the CIA. In 2004, Muhammad El Baradei chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reiterated that there was no evidence Syria had a nuclear program.
After the invasion of Iraq, former US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner identified charges against Syria as one of 50 false news stories created by Israel and the White House to justify war. "Saddam's nuclear WMDs moved to Syria" was propaganda he said.
Several days ago, after the attack on Syria's "nuclear program", I spoke to western oil company officials in Deir Ez Zor. One technician told me they routinely monitor radiation as part of the refining process. They registered no heightened levels of nuclear residue in the area as there would have been if the Israelis had hit a North Korean atomic stockpile. Operations and technical foremen put it this way: "The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t."
The Syrian smoking gun is the complete lack of any mushroom cloud.
[See the attached file]
The Israeli raid managed to stir up public passion in Syria. Face Book's most popular new group for Syria is: Syrians Are Ready To Defend Against Israel 486 members (189 new)
:: Article nr. 36439 sent on 19-sep-2007 22:30 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=36439
Link: joshualandis.com/blog/?p=371
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
:: Article nr. 36439 sent on 19-sep-2007 22:30 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=36439
Link: joshualandis.com/blog/?p=371
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
_______________________________________________
Salon mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/salon
Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update September 24, 2007
THE PETRAEUS PROPAGANDA WAR (KEVIN SCHOFIELD'S WEBLOG, SEPTEMBER 21): "The
Bush Administration and their lapdogs realize (as I and others blogged recently)
that their remaining shreds of credibility on Iraq depend entirely on the
personal credibility of Gen. Petraeus. So they are starting an all-out
propaganda offensive to try to sell him, beginning with a Fox one-hour special
on him."
http://kschofield.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns...!1217.entry
THE PENTAGON RIVALS HOLLYWOOD AT TELLING WAR STORIES - TOM ENGELHARDT
(ALTERNET.COM, SEPTEMBER 22): Born in part of technological necessity, the idea
of embedding reporters also reflected how confident the administration was of
victory over Saddam Hussein's punchless army -- confident enough to take a
chance on a steady flow of images in real time from the once hated, dreaded
media. Movie-making and war-making would now be intertwined. The location of
this production would be Iraq. The director would be the Pentagon. But In our
noisy cultural universe, amid what Todd Gitlin has called "the torrent" of the
media, sooner or later (usually sooner) just about everything, wars and
administrations included, is swept away.
http://www.alternet.org/story/62951/
PENTAGON REPORT GIVES LIE TO SURGE SUCCESS - JUAN COLE (INFORMED COMMENT:
THOUGHTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST, HISTORY, AND RELIGION, SEPTEMBER 22): The Pentagon
tells us that violence in Baghdad is back down to the levels of summer, 2006.
But whether that is true or not, the generalization cannot be made for Iraq, by
the Pentagon's own statistics.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/shiites-st...r-killings.html
U.S. AIMS TO LURE INSURGENTS WITH 'BAIT': SNIPERS DESCRIBE CLASSIFIED
PROGRAM - JOSH WHITE AND JOSHUA PARTLOW (WASHINGTON POST, SEPTEMBER 24): A
Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target
suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords,
plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the
items, according to military court documents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews
NONE DARE CALL IT GENOCIDE - LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL, JR. (LEWROCKWELL.COM,
SEPTEMBER 18): Here is the grisly bottom line: more than one million people have
been murdered in Iraq since the US invasion, according to Opinion Research
Business, a highly reputable polling firm in the UK.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/none-d...l-genocide.html
BUSH'S FREE WORLD AND WELCOME TO IT: FREEDOM AS THEFT -- HONORING AMERICAN
LIBERATORS - TOM ENGELHARDT (TOMDISPATCH, SEPTEMBER 23): Stuff just happened
again in a square in the Iraqi capital on Bloody Sunday; it also happened in
Haditha and at Abu Ghraib; it happened in neighborhoods being ethnically
cleansed; it happens every day as roadside bombs go off and death squads and
mercenaries and U.S. soldiers kill, and normal Iraqis flee for their lives. This
is George Bush's Free World and welcome to it.
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174840/bush_s_...d_welcome_to_it
ALTERMAN: IRAQ REFUGEES (AND MY THOUGHTS) MARC LYNCH (ABU ARDVAAK): Lynch:
"The Iraqi refugee problem isn't just about American moral obligations -- it
needs to be understood as a deep strategic problem shaping both internal Iraqi
and regional political outcomes."
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...man-iraq-r.html
HIRSH: BLACKWATER AND THE BUSH LEGACY: HOW BUSH HAS CREATED A MORAL VACUUM
IN IRAQ IN WHICH AMERICANS CAN KILL FOR FREE - MICHAEL HIRSH (NEWSWEEK,
SEPTEMBER 20): And now we have the awful absurdity of US diplomats going out to
make allies among Iraqis and build civil society -- winning ?the battlefield of
the mind,? Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone told The Washington Post -- surrounded
by security guards who operate in an amoral universe and are hated by Iraqis.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/page/0/
IRAQ'S 'DIRTY HARRYS': THE SWAGGER AND TACTICS OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS
ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD - DAVID DEVOSS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
U.S. CONVOYS RESUME IN IRAQ - ASSOCIATED PRESS (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER
22): US Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo in Baghdad said the decision to
resume land travel outside the heavily fortified Green Zone was made after
consultations with the Iraqi government. She said the convoys will be limited to
essential missions.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
U.S. WILL SPEED ENTRY OF REFUGEES FROM IRAQ: OFFICIALS SAY NEW MEASURES WILL
ALLOW 12,000 TO BE ADMITTED IN THE NEXT YEAR - PAUL LEWIS (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 22)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7092101333.html
UN PLANS TO OPEN NEW BAGHDAD OFFICE - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES,
SEPTEMBER 23): The U.N. secretary-general said Saturday the world body plans to
open a new office in Baghdad to encourage cooperation between Iraq and its
neighbors, but voiced strong concerns about the continuing security problems in
the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-U...agewanted=print
N.Y. SITE TRANSCENDS BOUNDARIES - JAMES CARROLL (BOSTON GLOBE, SEPTEMBER
24): Iran's president is to address the United Nations tomorrow, and while in
New York, he had hoped to go to the World Trade Center site, as so many visitors
do. New York authorities, together with the US State Department, said no. It was
George W. Bush who transformed Ground Zero from a site toward which the world
looked with empathy for American pain into a hypernationalistic symbol of a
singularly American victimhood.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ndaries?mode=PF
TURNING AHMADINEJAD INTO PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1: DEMONIZING THE IRANIAN
PRESIDENT AND MAKING HIS VISIT TO NEW YORK SEEM CONTROVERSIAL ARE ALL PART OF
THE NEOCONSERVATIVE PUSH FOR YET ANOTHER WAR - JUAN COLE (SALON, SEPTEMBER 24)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...ejad/print.html
AHMADINEJAD IN AMERICA EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER 24): it is
difficult to see how the United States would benefit from having a "dialogue"
with a jihadist despot who denies the Holocaust and is arming to the teeth.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
THE POWER OF PROPAGANDA VIDIOTSPEAK (SEPTEMBER 21): Ahmadinejad wanted to
lay a wreath at Ground Zero while he was here in New York but the powers that be
said, "No. That's OUR propaganda tool, not yours." (In so many words.)
http://vidiotspeak.blogspot.com/2007/09/po...propaganda.html
BUSH'S TOP 10 REASONS FOR BOMBING IRAN - SCOTT MACLEOD (TIME, SEPTEMBER 21)
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/09/b...or_bombi_1.html
FORSAKING THE EGYPTIAN FREE PRESS - JACKSON DIEHL (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 24): Egyptian editors' conviction and courage are impressive. Too bad
the air cover from Washington is gone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300690_pf.html
THE BIG LIE ABOUT THE 'GREAT SILENCER' - JEFF JACOBY (BOSTON GLOBE,
SEPTEMBER 23): When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt embarked on "The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy," which argues that a mighty pro-Israel machine
controls America's dealings in the Middle East and crushes those who get in its
way, they expected to be condemned as anti-Semites. Mearsheimer and Walt are
more than welcome to peddle their anti-Israel message. But when all is said and
done, most Americans just don't buy it.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ilencer?mode=PF
THE MIDEAST CORE: CONDOLEEZZA RICE NUDGES ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS INTO
TALKING ABOUT THE TERMS OF A FINAL SETTLEMENT - EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 23): Having set the stage for an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, Ms.
Rice and President Bush now must spare no effort to make it happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7092201171.html
AMERICA'S OIL LUST MEANS LONG MIDDLE EAST INVOLVEMENT - CYNTHIA TUCKER
(COMMON DREAMS, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, SEPTEMBER 24)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/24/4068/
PAKISTAN QUICKSAND? - RICHARD HALLORAN (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23): The
Pew Research Center found 7 in 10 Pakistanis worried that the United States
would attack their country; 64 percent said the U.S. was more of a threat than
India, with whom Pakistan has fought three wars and continues to detest. What
Pakistanis perceive to be longstanding contradictions in American policy has not
helped.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BURMA STIRS: WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD STAND BY? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON
POST, SEPTEMBER 22): President Bush, who has spoken eloquently of Burma's
struggle for freedom, needs to engage in strenuous diplomacy -- above all with
China -- to make clear that this is a U.S. priority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2101951_pf.html
PUTIN'S 11TH-HOUR DILEMMA: IN CHOOSING HIS SUCCESSOR, THE RUSSIAN LEADER
MUST DECIDE WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT: HIS POWER OR HIS NATION - CLIFFORD KUPCHAN
(LOS ANGELES TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23): A Russia with a weak president trying to
govern while Putin pulls the strings backstage would reduce internal stability
and increase the security risk for the U.S. and the international community.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday...1,1473224.story
SHOULD THERE BE A "WAR ON TERROR"? A TNR ONLINE DEBATE PHILIP H. GORDON (TNR
ONLINE, SEPTEMBER 24): Today we present the first of a four-part debate between
Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Brookings
Institution and the author of Winning the Right War, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a
resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the war on terror.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=w07092...chtgordon092407
WHAT DOES OSAMA WANT? - VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER
22): The United States alone ensures that bin Laden stays a sick man babbling in
a cave -- and not a Muslim caliph in flowing robes, with billions of dollars in
oil under his feet and weapons merchants lined up at his palace door. Sound
absurd? So once did the notion of a crater in Manhattan and $80 a barrel oil.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
CONSPIRACIES OF DUNCES - DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF (ARTHUR, SEPTEMBER 22): 'Yes, I
believe that 9-11 theorizing debilitates the counterculture. It robs us of some
potentially creative thinkers. It replaces truly important questions with
trivial ones. It marginalizes more constructive investigation of American
participation in the development of Al Qaeda as well as its subsequent
aggravation. And perhaps worst of all, it is precisely the sort of activity that
government disinformation specialists would want us to be involved with. 9-11
theorists are unwittingly performing as the unpaid minions of the
administration's propaganda wing.'
http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=2275
DEFENSE CHIEF KEEPS IT REAL EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, SEPTEMBER 23): When
Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke Monday at William and Mary College in
Virginia, he was saying that democracy and human rights are all well and good,
but they should be promoted abroad only when they do not interfere with the
defense of US national interests. The Pentagon chief's case for a realist
approach has a valuable implication: policy makers need to know when to make a
stand on principle and when the best option is a deal with the devil.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...it_real?mode=PF
THE PETRAEUS PROPAGANDA WAR (KEVIN SCHOFIELD'S WEBLOG, SEPTEMBER 21): "The
Bush Administration and their lapdogs realize (as I and others blogged recently)
that their remaining shreds of credibility on Iraq depend entirely on the
personal credibility of Gen. Petraeus. So they are starting an all-out
propaganda offensive to try to sell him, beginning with a Fox one-hour special
on him."
http://kschofield.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns...!1217.entry
THE PENTAGON RIVALS HOLLYWOOD AT TELLING WAR STORIES - TOM ENGELHARDT
(ALTERNET.COM, SEPTEMBER 22): Born in part of technological necessity, the idea
of embedding reporters also reflected how confident the administration was of
victory over Saddam Hussein's punchless army -- confident enough to take a
chance on a steady flow of images in real time from the once hated, dreaded
media. Movie-making and war-making would now be intertwined. The location of
this production would be Iraq. The director would be the Pentagon. But In our
noisy cultural universe, amid what Todd Gitlin has called "the torrent" of the
media, sooner or later (usually sooner) just about everything, wars and
administrations included, is swept away.
http://www.alternet.org/story/62951/
PENTAGON REPORT GIVES LIE TO SURGE SUCCESS - JUAN COLE (INFORMED COMMENT:
THOUGHTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST, HISTORY, AND RELIGION, SEPTEMBER 22): The Pentagon
tells us that violence in Baghdad is back down to the levels of summer, 2006.
But whether that is true or not, the generalization cannot be made for Iraq, by
the Pentagon's own statistics.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/shiites-st...r-killings.html
U.S. AIMS TO LURE INSURGENTS WITH 'BAIT': SNIPERS DESCRIBE CLASSIFIED
PROGRAM - JOSH WHITE AND JOSHUA PARTLOW (WASHINGTON POST, SEPTEMBER 24): A
Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target
suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords,
plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the
items, according to military court documents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews
NONE DARE CALL IT GENOCIDE - LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL, JR. (LEWROCKWELL.COM,
SEPTEMBER 18): Here is the grisly bottom line: more than one million people have
been murdered in Iraq since the US invasion, according to Opinion Research
Business, a highly reputable polling firm in the UK.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/none-d...l-genocide.html
BUSH'S FREE WORLD AND WELCOME TO IT: FREEDOM AS THEFT -- HONORING AMERICAN
LIBERATORS - TOM ENGELHARDT (TOMDISPATCH, SEPTEMBER 23): Stuff just happened
again in a square in the Iraqi capital on Bloody Sunday; it also happened in
Haditha and at Abu Ghraib; it happened in neighborhoods being ethnically
cleansed; it happens every day as roadside bombs go off and death squads and
mercenaries and U.S. soldiers kill, and normal Iraqis flee for their lives. This
is George Bush's Free World and welcome to it.
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174840/bush_s_...d_welcome_to_it
ALTERMAN: IRAQ REFUGEES (AND MY THOUGHTS) MARC LYNCH (ABU ARDVAAK): Lynch:
"The Iraqi refugee problem isn't just about American moral obligations -- it
needs to be understood as a deep strategic problem shaping both internal Iraqi
and regional political outcomes."
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...man-iraq-r.html
HIRSH: BLACKWATER AND THE BUSH LEGACY: HOW BUSH HAS CREATED A MORAL VACUUM
IN IRAQ IN WHICH AMERICANS CAN KILL FOR FREE - MICHAEL HIRSH (NEWSWEEK,
SEPTEMBER 20): And now we have the awful absurdity of US diplomats going out to
make allies among Iraqis and build civil society -- winning ?the battlefield of
the mind,? Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone told The Washington Post -- surrounded
by security guards who operate in an amoral universe and are hated by Iraqis.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/page/0/
IRAQ'S 'DIRTY HARRYS': THE SWAGGER AND TACTICS OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS
ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD - DAVID DEVOSS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
U.S. CONVOYS RESUME IN IRAQ - ASSOCIATED PRESS (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER
22): US Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo in Baghdad said the decision to
resume land travel outside the heavily fortified Green Zone was made after
consultations with the Iraqi government. She said the convoys will be limited to
essential missions.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
U.S. WILL SPEED ENTRY OF REFUGEES FROM IRAQ: OFFICIALS SAY NEW MEASURES WILL
ALLOW 12,000 TO BE ADMITTED IN THE NEXT YEAR - PAUL LEWIS (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 22)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7092101333.html
UN PLANS TO OPEN NEW BAGHDAD OFFICE - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES,
SEPTEMBER 23): The U.N. secretary-general said Saturday the world body plans to
open a new office in Baghdad to encourage cooperation between Iraq and its
neighbors, but voiced strong concerns about the continuing security problems in
the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-U...agewanted=print
N.Y. SITE TRANSCENDS BOUNDARIES - JAMES CARROLL (BOSTON GLOBE, SEPTEMBER
24): Iran's president is to address the United Nations tomorrow, and while in
New York, he had hoped to go to the World Trade Center site, as so many visitors
do. New York authorities, together with the US State Department, said no. It was
George W. Bush who transformed Ground Zero from a site toward which the world
looked with empathy for American pain into a hypernationalistic symbol of a
singularly American victimhood.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ndaries?mode=PF
TURNING AHMADINEJAD INTO PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1: DEMONIZING THE IRANIAN
PRESIDENT AND MAKING HIS VISIT TO NEW YORK SEEM CONTROVERSIAL ARE ALL PART OF
THE NEOCONSERVATIVE PUSH FOR YET ANOTHER WAR - JUAN COLE (SALON, SEPTEMBER 24)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...ejad/print.html
AHMADINEJAD IN AMERICA EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER 24): it is
difficult to see how the United States would benefit from having a "dialogue"
with a jihadist despot who denies the Holocaust and is arming to the teeth.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
THE POWER OF PROPAGANDA VIDIOTSPEAK (SEPTEMBER 21): Ahmadinejad wanted to
lay a wreath at Ground Zero while he was here in New York but the powers that be
said, "No. That's OUR propaganda tool, not yours." (In so many words.)
http://vidiotspeak.blogspot.com/2007/09/po...propaganda.html
BUSH'S TOP 10 REASONS FOR BOMBING IRAN - SCOTT MACLEOD (TIME, SEPTEMBER 21)
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/09/b...or_bombi_1.html
FORSAKING THE EGYPTIAN FREE PRESS - JACKSON DIEHL (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 24): Egyptian editors' conviction and courage are impressive. Too bad
the air cover from Washington is gone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300690_pf.html
THE BIG LIE ABOUT THE 'GREAT SILENCER' - JEFF JACOBY (BOSTON GLOBE,
SEPTEMBER 23): When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt embarked on "The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy," which argues that a mighty pro-Israel machine
controls America's dealings in the Middle East and crushes those who get in its
way, they expected to be condemned as anti-Semites. Mearsheimer and Walt are
more than welcome to peddle their anti-Israel message. But when all is said and
done, most Americans just don't buy it.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ilencer?mode=PF
THE MIDEAST CORE: CONDOLEEZZA RICE NUDGES ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS INTO
TALKING ABOUT THE TERMS OF A FINAL SETTLEMENT - EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST,
SEPTEMBER 23): Having set the stage for an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, Ms.
Rice and President Bush now must spare no effort to make it happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7092201171.html
AMERICA'S OIL LUST MEANS LONG MIDDLE EAST INVOLVEMENT - CYNTHIA TUCKER
(COMMON DREAMS, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, SEPTEMBER 24)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/24/4068/
PAKISTAN QUICKSAND? - RICHARD HALLORAN (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23): The
Pew Research Center found 7 in 10 Pakistanis worried that the United States
would attack their country; 64 percent said the U.S. was more of a threat than
India, with whom Pakistan has fought three wars and continues to detest. What
Pakistanis perceive to be longstanding contradictions in American policy has not
helped.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BURMA STIRS: WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD STAND BY? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON
POST, SEPTEMBER 22): President Bush, who has spoken eloquently of Burma's
struggle for freedom, needs to engage in strenuous diplomacy -- above all with
China -- to make clear that this is a U.S. priority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2101951_pf.html
PUTIN'S 11TH-HOUR DILEMMA: IN CHOOSING HIS SUCCESSOR, THE RUSSIAN LEADER
MUST DECIDE WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT: HIS POWER OR HIS NATION - CLIFFORD KUPCHAN
(LOS ANGELES TIMES, SEPTEMBER 23): A Russia with a weak president trying to
govern while Putin pulls the strings backstage would reduce internal stability
and increase the security risk for the U.S. and the international community.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday...1,1473224.story
SHOULD THERE BE A "WAR ON TERROR"? A TNR ONLINE DEBATE PHILIP H. GORDON (TNR
ONLINE, SEPTEMBER 24): Today we present the first of a four-part debate between
Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Brookings
Institution and the author of Winning the Right War, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a
resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the war on terror.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=w07092...chtgordon092407
WHAT DOES OSAMA WANT? - VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (WASHINGTON TIMES, SEPTEMBER
22): The United States alone ensures that bin Laden stays a sick man babbling in
a cave -- and not a Muslim caliph in flowing robes, with billions of dollars in
oil under his feet and weapons merchants lined up at his palace door. Sound
absurd? So once did the notion of a crater in Manhattan and $80 a barrel oil.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
CONSPIRACIES OF DUNCES - DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF (ARTHUR, SEPTEMBER 22): 'Yes, I
believe that 9-11 theorizing debilitates the counterculture. It robs us of some
potentially creative thinkers. It replaces truly important questions with
trivial ones. It marginalizes more constructive investigation of American
participation in the development of Al Qaeda as well as its subsequent
aggravation. And perhaps worst of all, it is precisely the sort of activity that
government disinformation specialists would want us to be involved with. 9-11
theorists are unwittingly performing as the unpaid minions of the
administration's propaganda wing.'
http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=2275
DEFENSE CHIEF KEEPS IT REAL EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, SEPTEMBER 23): When
Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke Monday at William and Mary College in
Virginia, he was saying that democracy and human rights are all well and good,
but they should be promoted abroad only when they do not interfere with the
defense of US national interests. The Pentagon chief's case for a realist
approach has a valuable implication: policy makers need to know when to make a
stand on principle and when the best option is a deal with the devil.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...it_real?mode=PF
Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say.
NYT Says MoveOn Ad Was `mistake'
4 hours ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times' ombudsman says the newspaper violated its standards when it gave the liberal activist group MoveOn.org a $77,508 price break on a full-page advertisement targeting Gen. David Petraeus.
The organization paid $64,575, instead of the standard $142,083, for the ad questioning the war in Iraq, public editor Clark Hoyt wrote in a column published Sunday.
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told Hoyt that an advertising sales representative should have agreed either to the lower price or the date the group requested the ad would run, but not both. Buying an ad with a guaranteed publication date costs more than buying one that might run any day within a given range, she told The Associated Press.
"We made a mistake," she told Hoyt.
The ad also seemed to disregard internal advertising standards that ban ads involving attacks of a personal nature, Hoyt wrote.
Mathis told the AP the newspaper does not disclose prices or arrangements offered to specific advertisers.
MoveOn.org said in a news release it would wire the difference in the ad rates to the Times.
"While we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad," said Eli Pariser, MoveOn's political action executive director.
Pariser added that MoveOn negotiated a price it thought was the Times' normal rate. "There is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its sponsor," Pariser said.
The full-page ad was printed in the Sept. 10 editions, the day Petraeus appeared before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. The ad's headline — "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" — questioned his honesty and said he was "constantly at war with the facts" in giving positive assessments of the war.
"The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message," Hoyt wrote.
Hoyt said he was asked to investigate the ad rate by FreedomsWatch.org, which advocates a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terrorism, because it said it wasn't offered a similar rate.
Pariser told Hoyt his group had called three days before the ad ran and asked to place it. He said MoveOn was told the ad would cost $65,000 and that the ad would run on Sept. 10 as it had requested.
"We paid this rate before, so we recognized it," Pariser told the Times.
Mathis told Hoyt the newspaper's advertising representative failed to make clear that the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement for the reduced rate but left MoveOn with the understanding that the ad would run then.
"That was contrary to our policies," she said.
Freedom's Watch president Bradley A. Blakeman praised Hoyt for criticizing the paper's ad policy, and said it had paid a similar, reduced rate for an ad blasting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance Monday at Columbia University.
That full-page ad, headlined "Ahmadinejad is a terrorist," appeared in Monday's editions. Blakeman said his group did not receive a guarantee that it would run on the date it had sought.
Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel: report
Washington (AFP) Sept 23, 2007 - US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue. But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war. One official ... more
+ Analysis: Israel plans Gaza crackdown
Jerusalem (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - As military action failed to stop Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government moved to pressure the Gaza Strip's residents, hoping they will demand their government halt the fire. Following long deliberations, Israel's Security Cabinet last week declared the Gaza Strip a "hostile territory." It said it would "restrict the passage of various ... more
Washington (AFP) Sept 23, 2007 - US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue. But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war. One official ... more+ Analysis: Israel plans Gaza crackdown
Jerusalem (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - As military action failed to stop Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government moved to pressure the Gaza Strip's residents, hoping they will demand their government halt the fire. Following long deliberations, Israel's Security Cabinet last week declared the Gaza Strip a "hostile territory." It said it would "restrict the passage of various ... more
Commentary: Al-Qaida on the run
Washington (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - Osama Bin Laden "is a man on the run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than the tapes" he releases from time to time. That was the mid-September assessment of Frances Fragos Townsend, top adviser to President Bush on homeland security, terrorism and counter-terrorism. A former assistant commandant of the Coast Guard for intelligence, Townsend was also a counsel to the attorney gener ... more
Washington (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - Osama Bin Laden "is a man on the run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than the tapes" he releases from time to time. That was the mid-September assessment of Frances Fragos Townsend, top adviser to President Bush on homeland security, terrorism and counter-terrorism. A former assistant commandant of the Coast Guard for intelligence, Townsend was also a counsel to the attorney gener ... more
Analysis: New sanctions may bust Iran LNG
Washington (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - Potential European and U.N. sanctions, and an Iranian energy policy unfavorable to foreign investment, may spell disaster as Tehran struggles to develop its liquefied natural gas potential in the massive South Pars fields. With the major powers considering a third set of U.N. sanctions against Iran over worries it is using a civilian nuclear program to cover up attempts to develop nucle ... more
+ Bangladesh plans nuclear power plant
Dhaka (AFP) Sept 24, 2007 - Bangladesh plans to set up its first nuclear power plant at a cost of over one billion dollars to ease economically damaging electricity shortages which have sparked riots, an official said Monday. "The government has in principle agreed to set up a 600-1,000 megawatt power plant in the northern district of Pabna," the head of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Shafiqul Islam Bhuiyan, ... more
Washington (UPI) Sep 24, 2007 - Potential European and U.N. sanctions, and an Iranian energy policy unfavorable to foreign investment, may spell disaster as Tehran struggles to develop its liquefied natural gas potential in the massive South Pars fields. With the major powers considering a third set of U.N. sanctions against Iran over worries it is using a civilian nuclear program to cover up attempts to develop nucle ... more+ Bangladesh plans nuclear power plant
Dhaka (AFP) Sept 24, 2007 - Bangladesh plans to set up its first nuclear power plant at a cost of over one billion dollars to ease economically damaging electricity shortages which have sparked riots, an official said Monday. "The government has in principle agreed to set up a 600-1,000 megawatt power plant in the northern district of Pabna," the head of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Shafiqul Islam Bhuiyan, ... more
September 24, 2007, 2:10 PM<h3 style="margin: 4px 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 85); font-weight: normal;" class="blog_big">Them's Fighting Words</h3>Posted by Matthew Felling| 
4
(iStockphoto)
It’s been two weeks now since General Petraeus offered his assessment of the success of the “surge” in Iraq. And have we been discussing his testimony? Ehhhhh, not so much. Well, maybe a little, but with nowhere near the volume or depth that we’ve discussed that MoveOn ad. In this writer’s eyes, the debate hit its pinnacle when President Bush took the time to assail the ad in his Thursday press conference, conflating the ad’s message with insulting America’s soldiers on the ground in Iraq, saying “"I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the U.S. military.” And yesterday the New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt came out with a stinging rebuke of the Times accepting the MoveOn ad – as well as the discounted rate the interest group received:
For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.One of the freshest perspectives on this debate came from Time’s Michael Kinsley – in one of his best writings in years – who discussed how our media culture allows outrage to be a substitute for actual debate:
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to…
By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”
It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue … These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.Have we hit such a Kabuki Theater rock bottom point in American debate where everything matter-of-factly stated is underreported and everything strident is reported ad infinitum, ad nauseum? Where does that leave us when we’re looking for reasoned discourse? (In this case, an educated guess about Iraq.)
In a hypercompetitive ratings-starved environment – Ahmadinejad! Lesbian Brady Girls! -- we’ve hit a point of Media Darwinism, where only the loud and outrageous and strident are heard. Let's call it the Eminem Approach, and it's kept Ann Coulter in business.
The inherent problem is that media consumers see those on the angry extremes as representing a one-or-the-other choice of views: Should I go with screaming conservative or screaming liberal? Well, dear readers, I’m here to tell you to that the reality nearly always exists between the two. Just remember the immortal words of Stealers Wheel:
Trying to make some sense of it all,Read More Posts In In The News
But I can see that it makes no sense at all …
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER September 23, 2007 
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: "The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media. But this administration is immune to good advice."
Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste: "I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back." The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq. What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.
When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
Eaton has two sons serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; his father, an Air Force pilot, was shot down and killed over Laos in 1969. He said his frustration began festering in 2003, when he was assigned to build the Iraqi army from scratch. His internal requests for more equipment and properly trained instructors went unheeded, he said.
While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses – almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that. But he was candid in media interviews. Building an Iraqi army, he warned, would take years, and the effort might never succeed.
In 2004, he was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus – now the military commander in Iraq – and reassigned stateside. Sensing his once-promising Army career had foundered, Eaton retired Jan. 1, 2006.
SPEAKING OUT Military historians say that before the Iraq conflict, only a handful of active or retired U.S. military officers had publicly criticized civilian leaders' conduct of a war. Some examples:
In 1864, former Union Army Gen. George McClellan declared the Civil War a failure, called for a peace convention that would leave slavery intact, and ran for president against President Lincoln.
In the 1930s, retired Gen. Smedley Butler – who had spent 33 years in the Marine Corps – wrote a book calling war “a racket” and toured the country labeling civilian leaders who prosecute wars “capitalistic gangsters.”
In 1951, President Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur for openly challenging U.S. civilian leadership.
In May 1966, retired Gen. David Shoup, former commandant of the Marine Corps, said this about the escalating war in Vietnam: “I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... not one crammed down their throats by the Americans.”
Retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme NATO commander during President Clinton's Kosovo campaign, criticized President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq and ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
Two months later, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion, Eaton criticized the administration in an opinion piece in The New York Times.
“I didn't think my op-ed would be a big deal,” he said. “It certainly turned out to be otherwise.”
Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:
The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.
“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview.
Some of Eaton's colleagues, both active and retired, endorsed his decision to speak out. Others thought he had stepped out of bounds. He became persona non grata with ethics instructors at the U.S. Military Academy, his alma mater.
Eaton said he has no regrets.
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.
Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.
The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the “gut-wrenching” decision to end his 31-year military career in order to “speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families.”
“I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so,” Batiste wrote. “I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.”
Code of silence
It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation's civilian leaders.
That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said several generals who served in Vietnam now regret they didn't go public when it might have done the nation some good.
“That has encouraged generals today to voice their unhappiness,” Bacevich said.
“But that war was brief, it seemed to go very well and the generals' comments were almost uniformly positive,” he said. “This war is very long, it has not gone well and that's a main reason we're hearing the voices we're hearing.”
For retired Brig. Gen. John Johns, the decision to finally stand up against the administration was a deeply personal one.
“My wife lost her first husband in Vietnam,” said Johns, who taught leadership and ethics at West Point.
“To learn later that President Lyndon Johnson and (then-Secretary of Defense) Robert McNamara knew as early as 1965 that we could not win there, that hurts her deeply to this day.”
Six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Johns, who retired in 1978, agonized over whether to go public with a paper calling the impending war “one of the great blunders of history.”
He sent it to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and to Pete McCloskey, the moderate-Republican former congressman from California who had opposed the Vietnam War.
“At that time, they did not want to go public,” Johns said. Zinni has since become one of the most war's most vociferous critics, and McClosky now calls for bringing the troops home.
“And I was not convinced that the invasion would not be stopped internally,” Johns said. “Zinni was close to (then-Secretary of State) Colin Powell; I believed sane heads would prevail.”
But Powell's notoriously inaccurate speech to the United Nations in February 2003 “sealed the deal,” Johns said, and he knew the war was unstoppable. “I was very disappointed he did that. Powell was used.”
Many sleepless nights, long talks with his wife and solitary walks followed, said the veteran combat officer.
But Johns didn't reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.
“Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise,” Johns said. “The time was right.”
The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats' call to get the United States out of Iraq.
“I appreciate those who hold to the old school of not speaking out,” said Johns, 79. “I hope they will appreciate my deeply held feelings that led to my decision to do so.”
Reaction mixed
One of those who falls into that old-school camp is Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson.
A one-time adviser to Pentagon chiefs, Richardson, who retired in 1972, said that while retired generals are “entirely within their rights under the First Amendment,” he was quite surprised to see so many speaking out against the Iraq war.
“They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that,” said Richardson, 93, who served in World War II, Korea, and commanded an aircraft-carrier task force during the Vietnam War. He now lives in North Park and remains active in military circles.
“When we are at war, voices that may give aid and comfort to the enemy can cost American blood,” Richardson said. “I would not want what I said to in any way affect our troops' morale and effectiveness.”
Gard, who retired from the military in 1981, displayed a stoicism typical of old soldiers when asked about his decision to publicly criticize the conduct of an ongoing war.
“I did some serious soul-searching,” Gard said simply.
A West Point graduate with a doctorate in politics and government from Harvard, Gard saw combat in Korea and Vietnam.
Gard's introspection ultimately led him to conclude that patriotism means more than following orders and keeping complaints inside the military.
“When you feel the country – to its extreme detriment – is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out,” he said.
It may not have been that way during the Vietnam era, Gard added. “But times have changed.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/militar...23generals.html
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: "The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media. But this administration is immune to good advice."
Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste: "I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back." The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq. What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.
When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
Eaton has two sons serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; his father, an Air Force pilot, was shot down and killed over Laos in 1969. He said his frustration began festering in 2003, when he was assigned to build the Iraqi army from scratch. His internal requests for more equipment and properly trained instructors went unheeded, he said.
While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses – almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that. But he was candid in media interviews. Building an Iraqi army, he warned, would take years, and the effort might never succeed.
In 2004, he was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus – now the military commander in Iraq – and reassigned stateside. Sensing his once-promising Army career had foundered, Eaton retired Jan. 1, 2006.
SPEAKING OUT Military historians say that before the Iraq conflict, only a handful of active or retired U.S. military officers had publicly criticized civilian leaders' conduct of a war. Some examples:
In 1864, former Union Army Gen. George McClellan declared the Civil War a failure, called for a peace convention that would leave slavery intact, and ran for president against President Lincoln. In the 1930s, retired Gen. Smedley Butler – who had spent 33 years in the Marine Corps – wrote a book calling war “a racket” and toured the country labeling civilian leaders who prosecute wars “capitalistic gangsters.” In 1951, President Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur for openly challenging U.S. civilian leadership. In May 1966, retired Gen. David Shoup, former commandant of the Marine Corps, said this about the escalating war in Vietnam: “I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... not one crammed down their throats by the Americans.” Retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme NATO commander during President Clinton's Kosovo campaign, criticized President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq and ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Two months later, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion, Eaton criticized the administration in an opinion piece in The New York Times.
“I didn't think my op-ed would be a big deal,” he said. “It certainly turned out to be otherwise.”
Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:
The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.
“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview.
Some of Eaton's colleagues, both active and retired, endorsed his decision to speak out. Others thought he had stepped out of bounds. He became persona non grata with ethics instructors at the U.S. Military Academy, his alma mater.
Eaton said he has no regrets.
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.
Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.
The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the “gut-wrenching” decision to end his 31-year military career in order to “speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families.”
“I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so,” Batiste wrote. “I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.”
Code of silence
It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation's civilian leaders.
That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said several generals who served in Vietnam now regret they didn't go public when it might have done the nation some good.
“That has encouraged generals today to voice their unhappiness,” Bacevich said.
LAURA EMBRY / Union-Tribune
Retired Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson said he was surprised that so many retired generals have spoken out against the Iraq war. "They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that," said Richardson, 93, who lives in North Park. The once-sacred line between private and public opinion began to blur during the 1991 Gulf War, Bacevich said, when retired generals appeared for the first time as TV network analysts. “But that war was brief, it seemed to go very well and the generals' comments were almost uniformly positive,” he said. “This war is very long, it has not gone well and that's a main reason we're hearing the voices we're hearing.”
For retired Brig. Gen. John Johns, the decision to finally stand up against the administration was a deeply personal one.
“My wife lost her first husband in Vietnam,” said Johns, who taught leadership and ethics at West Point.
“To learn later that President Lyndon Johnson and (then-Secretary of Defense) Robert McNamara knew as early as 1965 that we could not win there, that hurts her deeply to this day.”
Six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Johns, who retired in 1978, agonized over whether to go public with a paper calling the impending war “one of the great blunders of history.”
He sent it to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and to Pete McCloskey, the moderate-Republican former congressman from California who had opposed the Vietnam War.
“At that time, they did not want to go public,” Johns said. Zinni has since become one of the most war's most vociferous critics, and McClosky now calls for bringing the troops home. “And I was not convinced that the invasion would not be stopped internally,” Johns said. “Zinni was close to (then-Secretary of State) Colin Powell; I believed sane heads would prevail.”
But Powell's notoriously inaccurate speech to the United Nations in February 2003 “sealed the deal,” Johns said, and he knew the war was unstoppable. “I was very disappointed he did that. Powell was used.”
Many sleepless nights, long talks with his wife and solitary walks followed, said the veteran combat officer.
But Johns didn't reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.
“Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise,” Johns said. “The time was right.”
The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats' call to get the United States out of Iraq.
“I appreciate those who hold to the old school of not speaking out,” said Johns, 79. “I hope they will appreciate my deeply held feelings that led to my decision to do so.”
Reaction mixed
One of those who falls into that old-school camp is Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson.
A one-time adviser to Pentagon chiefs, Richardson, who retired in 1972, said that while retired generals are “entirely within their rights under the First Amendment,” he was quite surprised to see so many speaking out against the Iraq war.
“They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that,” said Richardson, 93, who served in World War II, Korea, and commanded an aircraft-carrier task force during the Vietnam War. He now lives in North Park and remains active in military circles.
“When we are at war, voices that may give aid and comfort to the enemy can cost American blood,” Richardson said. “I would not want what I said to in any way affect our troops' morale and effectiveness.”
Gard, who retired from the military in 1981, displayed a stoicism typical of old soldiers when asked about his decision to publicly criticize the conduct of an ongoing war.
“I did some serious soul-searching,” Gard said simply.
A West Point graduate with a doctorate in politics and government from Harvard, Gard saw combat in Korea and Vietnam.
Gard's introspection ultimately led him to conclude that patriotism means more than following orders and keeping complaints inside the military.
“When you feel the country – to its extreme detriment – is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out,” he said.
It may not have been that way during the Vietnam era, Gard added. “But times have changed.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/militar...23generals.html
<h4 class="entryDate">September 22, 2007 1:52 </h4> <h1 class="entryTitle">News Flash: Muslim Denounces Terrorism!</h1> Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (21) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This Among the unfortunate examples of Muslim bashing in the U.S. are Op-Eds of Thomas Friedman, who has sometimes used his very influential platform as a best-selling pop author, prestigious Middle East maven and New York Times pundit to accuse Muslims of some sort of collective responsibility for extremism and terrorism. One of his recurring points, as he wrote two months ago after the latest terrorism episode in Britain, is that "hundreds of Muslims have committed suicide amid innocent civilians...without generating any vigorous, sustained condemnation in the Muslim world."Maybe it hasn't been up to Friedman's standards of being vigorous and sustained. But Muslim leaders and ordinary Muslims have consistently condemned extremism and terrorism. I agree if he is saying that the Muslim world can and must do more to advance unambiguous moral imperatives. On the other hand, many could (and do) turn around and say that Americans, including the U.S. government and Friedman too, are at fault for not making a vigorous and sustained criticisim of Israel's occupation policies.
So, some folks including Friedman might want to take a look at the latest Muslim denunciation, not only of extremism and terrorism, but of Osama bin Laden himself. The interesting twist this time is that the critic is Saudi preacher Salman al-Audah, a leader of Saudi Arabia's important movement of politicized Wahhabis known as Sahwa Islamiya. Al-Audah is a major influence on Bin Laden, who often cited Audah's political views and condemned the Saudi government for imprisoning him for them. When one of Bin Laden's men gave me a copy of Bin Laden's letter to King Fahd in 1996, I noticed that it was dedicated to Audah and another Sahwa scholar.
Audah chose to issue his attack on Bin Laden on the Cornerstone program of Middle East Broadcasting, one of the prominent Arab satellite channels seen throughout the Arab world, on Sept. 14, coinciding with the sixth anniversary of 9/11 as well as the start of the holy month of Ramadan. That qualifies as pretty vigorous. He also has posted the letter on his website, in Arabic as well as English, which I reckon qualifies as a form of sustainment.
Here it is in full (and bold-faced, so nobody has any trouble reading it):
Brother Osama: How much blood has been spilled? How many innocent children, women, and old people have been killed, maimed, and expelled from their homes in the name of "al-Qaeda"?
Are you happy to meet Allah with this heavy burden on your shoulders? It is a weighty burden indeed – at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people, if not millions.
How could you wish for that? – after knowing that Allah's Messenger said: "Whoever as much as kills a sparrow in vain will find it crying before Allah on the Day of Judgment: 'My Lord! That person killed me in vain. He did not kill me for needful sustenance."
This religion of ours comes to defense of the life of a sparrow. It can never accept the murder of innocent people, regardless of what supposed justification is given for it.
Didn't you read where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "One of the prophets once sat under a tree and was bitten by an ant. Because of this, he burnt the ant's nest. Thereupon, Allah inspired to him: 'Why not only the one ant?' " [Sahîh Muslim]
Allah revealed to that prophet: "What? Just because one ant had bitten you, you have set fire to an entire nation that extols Allah's glory!" [Sahîh Muslim (2241)]
If this is the case for a nest of ants, consider how much worse it must be to visit harm upon human beings.
Who is responsible for all of those young Muslim, who are still in the bloom of their youth, with all the zeal of their age, who have strayed down a path they have no idea where it is headed?
The image of Islam today is tarnished. People around the world are saying how Islam teaches that those who do not accept it must be killed. They are also saying that the adherents of Salafi teachings kill Muslims who do not share their views.
However, the reality of Islam is that our Prophet (peace be upon him) did not kill the treacherous hypocrites in his midst, even though Allah had revealed to him who they were and informed him that they were destined for the deepest depths of Hell. Why did he stay his hand? He gave the following reason: "I will not have people saying that Muhammad kills his companions."
Brother Osama, what happened on September 11 – crimes that we have condemned vociferously since that very day – was the murder of a few thousand people, possible a little less than three thousand. This is the number that dies in the airplanes as well as in the towers. By contrast, Muslim preachers – who remain unknown and unsung – have succeeded in guiding hundreds of thousands of people to Islam, people who have ever since been guided by the light of faith and whose hearts are filled with the love of Allah. Isn't the difference between one who kills and one who guides obvious?
Our Lord tells us: "Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the Earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the lives of all mankind." [Sûrah al-Mâ'idah: 32]
Guiding one soul to knowledge and faith is a momentous achievement. It is what will earn us great blessings.
Brother Osama, what is to be gained from the destruction of entire nations – which is what we are witnessing in Afghanistan and Iraq – seeing them torn them with plague and famine? What is to be gained from undermining their stability and every hope of a normal life? Three million refugees are packing into Syria and Jordan alone, not to mention those who are fleeing to the East and the West.
The nightmare of civil war which now reigns supreme in Afghanistan and Iraq brings no joy to the Muslims. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) heard about a man named Harb (meaning "war" in Arabic), he promptly changed his name to something else, because the Prophet hated war.
Allah says: "Fighting is prescribed for you, though you detest it." [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 216]
War is something hateful that must only be resorted to under the most dire and compelling of circumstances when no other way is found.
Who stands to benefit from turning a country like Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia – or any other country for that matter – into a battlefield where no one feels safe? Is the goal to obstruct the government? Is that, then, the solution for anything?
Is this the plan – even if it is achieved by marching over the corpses of hundreds of thousands of people – police, soldiers, and civilians, even the common Muslims? Are their deaths to be shrugged off, saying: "They will be resurrected in the Hereafter based on the state of their hearts."
Indeed, all of those who are slain will be resurrected based on the state of their hearts. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is in what state are we going to be resurrected? How are we going to find ourselves when we meet our Lord? How will it be for someone who has all those countless deaths weighing down upon him, whether he wants to own up to them or not?
The concern for conveying Islam's message to humanity is one that can influence others and convince them. This is a far greater and far weightier concern than that of using brute force and violence to bend others to one's will. "Allah sent His Messenger (peace be upon him) as a guide for humanity, not as a tax collector." as `Umar b. `Abd al-`Azîz used to say.
Who is responsible – brother Osama – for promoting the culture of excommunication which has torn families asunder and has led to sons calling their fathers infidels? Who is responsible for fostering a culture of violence and murder that has led to people to shed the blood of their relatives in cold blood, rather than nurturing the spirit of love and tranquility that a Muslim family is supposed to have?
Who is responsible for the young men who leave their mothers crying; who abandon their wives; whose small children wake up every day asking when daddy is coming home? What answer can be given, when that father may very well be dead, or missing with no one knowing of his fate?
Who is responsible for Western governments pursuing every charitable project in the world, so that the orphans, the poor, and the needy throughout the globe are deprived of food, education, and other essential needs? Who is responsible – brother Osama – for filling the prisons of the Muslim world with our youth, a situation which will only breed more extremism, violence, and murder in our societies?
Muhammad (peace be upon him) – my source of guidance as well as yours – is what he came with not enough for you? He was sent as a mercy for all humanity. Allah says: "And We sent you merely as a mercy for all humanity." [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ': 107]
The word "mercy" is not to be found in the lexicon of war. Where is the mercy in murdering people? Where is the mercy in bombing places? Where is the mercy in making people and places into targets? Where is the mercy in turning many Muslim countries into battlefields?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) brought all of Arabia under his sway without a single slaughter, despite all of the battles that were waged against him. The number of people who were killed during the twenty-three years of his mission were less than two hundred people. The Muslims who were killed during that time by their enemies were many times in excess of that number.
What do a hundred people in Algeria, or double that number in Lebanon, or likewise in Saudi Arabia hope to achieve by carrying out acts of violence – or as they say, suicide attacks? These acts are futile.
Let us say – purely hypothetically – that these people manage to take power somewhere in the world. What then? What can people who have no life experience hope to achieve in the sphere of good governance? People who have no knowledge of Islamic law to support them and no understanding of domestic and foreign relations?
Is Islam only about guns and ammunition? Have your means become the ends themselves?
That ideology that so many young people have embraced in many parts of the world, is it revelation from Allah that cannot be questioned or reconsidered? Or is it merely a product of human effort that is subject to error and to being corrected?
Many of your brethren in Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere have come to see the end of the road for that ideology. They realize how destructive and dangerous it is. They have also found the courage to proclaim in their writings and on the air that they were mistaken and that the path they had been on was the path of error. They admit that it cannot lead to anything good. They have sought Allah's forgiveness for what has passed and have expressed their sincere regrets for what they had done.
Those with brave hearts need just as much to have courageous minds.
Do you not hear the voices of the pious scholars, those who worship Allah day and night and are truly heedful of Allah – don't you hear them crying out with the very same words that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used when Khâlid b. al-Walîd, the commander-in-chief of his army, acted in error: "O Allah! I plead my innocence to You from what Khâlid has done."
These same words still echo after 1400 years in the cries of the scholars of Islam: "O Allah! I plead my innocence to You from what Osama is doing, and from those who affiliate themselves to his name or work under his banner."
Life, Osama, should not be a single lesson. We must face numerous lessons throughout our lives, and these lessons are of a great variety.
I am no different than that of a lot of other people who are concerned with Muslim affairs. My heart pains me when I think of the number of young people who had so much potential – who would have made such great and original contributions to society, who had so much to offer that was constructive and positive – who have been turned into living bombs.
Here is the vital question that you need to ask yourself and that others have the right to demand and answer for: What have all these long years of suffering, tragedy, tears, and sacrifice actually achieved?
I ask Allah to bring everyone together upon the truth and right guidance. I pray that he guides us all to what pleases Him.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
From "Sic Semper Tyrannis" [Col. Pat Lang], an account of what the man actually said (not reported in the mainstream press), for those interested.
What Ahmadinajad said at Columbia
I listened to it all.
His remarks were "bracketed" for me by those of Bollinger (the Columbia president) who sought to distance himself from any possible accusation of hospitality and Nora O'Donnell (MSNBC anchor) who sought to distance herself from any possible accusation of neutrality.
Ahmadinajad said:
- Scholars should seek the truth.
- That he does not dispute the facts of the Holocaust, but that he thinks that scholarship should continue on the details and on the effect on his part of the world. He particularly stressed the innocence of the Palestinian people in the matter of the Holocaust. Since scholarship continues on the matter of this subject (the Holocaust) under the sponsorship of the US Holocaust Museum, this was an interesting point.
- He said that the nature of Palestine/Israel should be determined by referendum among "Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians." This is a variation on the long standing Arab desire for either a bi-national state or a state that is not specifically a Jewish state. He did not specify whether his referendum would include Palestinians of the diaspora. That, of course, would make a difference in the outcome.
- He said that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was forced on them by foreign defaults on agreements for nuclear electric assistance. He said that the Iranian sites are all under IAEA inspection and will remain that way. He also said that the concentration level of their enrichment did not meet the requirement for weapons production.
- He abjured the idea of nuclear weapons and said they do not want any. Presumably the IAEA inspection regime applies.
- When challenged on Iranian government support of international terrorist groups, he said that Iran herself is the victim of extensive terrorist attack sponsored by foreign governments. He clearly had in mind the MEK. He said that all parties should stop this kind of activity. There may have been an implied offer in that. The Persians are subtle people. Perhaps they are too subtle for his audience
- He accepted the idea of wide negotiations with the US to resolve all differences..
- In response to a challenge by Bollinger, he invited Columbia to send delegations of faculty and students to any or all of Iran's 400 universities.
- He insisted that Iranian women are free.
- He made a lame joke out of Iranian capital punishments for homosexual behavior. The esoteric gist was, "we don't care what you think about it."
- He made some goofy reference to "the real story on 9/11." This was at the end and I guess he just couldn't "hold it together" any longer.
It was quite a performance. If this were a presidential debate, I would judge him the winner based on rhetorical skill and coolness under fire. The student audience got quieter and quieter as he spoke. There was no booing at the end.
On the whole I think this event was meaningless. I think that the die is cast and that this will have no effect on the international game.
24 September 2007
What Ahmadinajad said at Columbia
I listened to it all. His remarks were "bracketed" for me by those of Bollinger (the Columbia president) who sought to distance himself from any possible accusation of hospitality and Nora O'Donnell (MSNBC anchor) who sought to distance herself from any possible accusation of neutrality.
Ahmadinajad said:
- Scholars should seek the truth.
- That he does not dispute the facts of the Holocaust, but that he thinks that scholarship should continue on the details and on the effect on his part of the world. He particularly stressed the innocence of the Palestinian people in the matter of the Holocaust. Since scholarship continues on the matter of this subject (the Holocaust) under the sponsorship of the US Holocaust Museum, this was an interesting point.
- He said that the nature of Palestine/Israel should be determined by referendum among "Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians." This is a variation on the long standing Arab desire for either a bi-national state or a state that is not specifically a Jewish state. He did not specify whether his referendum would include Palestinians of the diaspora. That, of course, would make a difference in the outcome.
- He said that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was forced on them by foreign defaults on agreements for nuclear electric assistance. He said that the Iranian sites are all under IAEA inspection and will remain that way. He also said that the concentration level of their enrichment did not meet the requirement for weapons production.
- He abjured the idea of nuclear weapons and said they do not want any. Presumably the IAEA inspection regime applies.
- When challenged on Iranian government support of international terrorist groups, he said that Iran herself is the victim of extensive terrorist attack sponsored by foreign governments. He clearly had in mind the MEK. He said that all parties should stop this kind of activity. There may have been an implied offer in that. The Persians are subtle people. Perhaps they are too subtle for his audience
- He accepted the idea of wide negotiations with the US to resolve all differences..
- In response to a challenge by Bollinger, he invited Columbia to send delegations of faculty and students to any or all of Iran's 400 universities.
- He insisted that Iranian women are free.
- He made a lame joke out of Iranian capital punishments for homosexual behavior. The esoteric gist was, "we don't care what you think about it."
- He made some goofy reference to "the real story on 9/11." This was at the end and I guess he just couldn't "hold it together" any longer.
It was quite a performance. If this were a presidential debate, I would judge him the winner based on rhetorical skill and coolness under fire. The student audience got quieter and quieter as he spoke. There was no booing at the end.
On the whole I think this event was meaningless. I think that the die is cast and that this will have no effect on the international game.
24 September 2007
Exactly what would it have accomplished to "engage in a debate" with Hitler? Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Meanwhile, in Iran ... Eli Lake, New York Sun
Post-modern professors seek publicity, not knowledge. Ralph Peters, New York Post
Instead of debating freedom of speech in Iran, we are talking about freedom of speech in America. Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
Demonstrators and the media avoid the stubborn truths of black social breakdown. Heather Mac Donald, City Journal
The center holds. David Brooks, New York Times
Will Al Gore run if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Christopher Hitchens, Slate
Iranian News Roundup. Michael Rubin, The Corner
Iranian Free Speech: Only in America; and Learning From the World That Failsby Newt GingrichI don't know if you saw it, but the decision of Columbia University to invite Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak in their "distinguished" lecturer series took a truly bizarre turn last week
Academia’s Failure is Ahmedinejad’s Successby Walid PharesIn forty eight hours, the executive head of one of the most repressive regimes in the world was able to score points from the podium of one of the most prestigious universities in the US and later on – today -- from the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Academia’s Failure is Ahmedinejad’s Successby Walid PharesIn forty eight hours, the executive head of one of the most repressive regimes in the world was able to score points from the podium of one of the most prestigious universities in the US and later on – today -- from the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Brendan Cooney
Ahmadinejad on Broadway: Free Speech? Arrest Him!
Marjorie Cohn
The Drift Toward War with Iran
Ahmadinejad on Broadway: Free Speech? Arrest Him!
Marjorie Cohn
The Drift Toward War with Iran
