MAYBE they don't want to tell you (which would indicate they support the candidate the media may not wish).
MAYBE they have decided but do not wish to say, because then they would be confronted with - but why won't you vote for the other guy.
Maybe the 5-10% will fall, mostly, for McCain, as I believe they will.
(AND THEY DIDN'T)
That will be enough.
(CLEARLY IT WASN'T)
Undecided Voters Probably Have Decided
Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
Thu Oct 30, 2008.
Many voters who say they haven't decided between the two presidential candidates actually have decided. They just don't know it, finds a new study.
With the race to the White House being fiercely fought as ever, the undecided voters could make all the difference, and so while polls can give current trends in voter choice for one candidate over another, albeit possibly inaccurately, they don't tell us where the undecideds stand. Still, if they could cough up their true opinions, a different picture might emerge. "Undecided voters may have decided implicitly before they know that they have explicitly," said researcher Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
Hidden preferences
Nosek and his colleagues analyzed survey data collected on a research and educate Web site called Project Implicit in which visitors can complete a test that measures their implicit associations on a variety of topics. In this survey, more than 25,000 participants completed a computer task that measured their unexpressed views regarding presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.
Elections
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Terrorists, Muslims, and Bad People
Today I was asked what we should do about the war on terror.
My response - kill them all.
Response: But you can't kill them all.
****************************************
The above statements are quite significant, indicating where we are, what we think, and our worldview.
The implication of 'but you can't kill them all' is, there are too many, that if you kill one, another five will pop up - I believe is inaccurate, and the result of facile arguments by unquestioned fools on a subject they are clearly clueless about - spewing this nonsense out into the public square for inquiring minds who have few ideas about what to believe or not to believe.
They raise the point that for every terrorist in Iraq killed, more pop up.
It simply is not true.
The answers are much more complicated than the question, and when multiple voices agitate for attention, no one is well served.
In Iraq we fought more than al-qaida (terrorists), more than insurgents, more than bad people - we fought everyone and from everywhere and few of them were operating with the same agenda.
I have already caused at least one person to become confused. Now imagine if I tried to explain this with 30 other voices offering their input!
We invaded Iraq and toppled a government in a couple weeks. We were met with sweets and flowers. We were met with joy, happiness, and the overwhelming appreciation of a nation. Contrary to the simplistic statements of press and fool, we were received VERY WELL.
However, in toppling the regime of Saddam, his government, his army, and the Sunni lost everything they had secured over 30 years. Their path to privilege was taken away in two weeks. The army was without a purpose. The intelligence agencies were dissolved and unemployed. Sunni had lost their power base, their wealth, their connection to the past and they were not pleased.
The army went underground and fought for little reason other than they had no other purpose, and were led to believe that that was what they should do, perhaps drive the invaders out using guerrilla tactics.
The Sunni became insurgents because they had nothing, all was taken away and joining an insurgency movement was something more than nothing which is literally all they had when Saddam was gone. When I say they had nothing, I do mean nothing. All electrical, water, food, medical - stopped or turned off. The shi'a would begin to retaliate against the Sunni rule by executing and destroying any vestige of Sunni power.
The Sunni of both the former army/intelligence, and the wider Sunni body killed Americans not for religious reasons, but because we were the invaders. They may have acted badly, killed people who were trying to change their country for the better, but they could be negotiated with - and after a couple years, they were slowly brought back into the political process and the former army / intelligence and opposition Sunni elements have given up their attacks.
But what of those who lost family and are angry - who struck out and killed Americans. Absolutely true. That reason - honor, restoring honor, or revenge - does not require nor did it often happen that the person would fight on for years. They sought revenge and when, in their mind, they had killed someone they deemed responsible, their need for revenge or honor was satisfied, and they went home. Could they or did they pick up the gun again - quite possible, depending upon whether they lost another family member.
All of these groups - Sunni generally, army and intelligence more specifically were manageable - they fought against the US, but were given choices that offered hope and opportunity and they chose that path. We still faced violence when the Shi'a sought revenge for 30 years of repression by the Sunni. Hundreds and thousands of Sunni would die, and any American in the way would die, or be forced to kill a Shi'a, which in turn would raise the possibility of a revenge attack by the family of the Shi'a killed.
As never-ending as it may seem, it does end. These characters do not want to die. they are not terrorists. They do not wish to spend eternity in a shit hole. They want a better life, and we offered them that choice.
These groups have given up, and rejoined the political process.
The Shi'a have never finished their 30 year revenge tour, and will engage in the political process given their superiority of numbers.
There will be violence as Sunni and Shi'a settle decades of hatred and animosity, and if Americans are in the way, they may be killed. This in no ways means the Americans are the target, simply by-standers.
Then come the NON-IRAQIs who walk/fly/drive to Iraq because they have been fed the poison - go and jihad, kill Americans. The majority of these insurgents believe they are doing what is best for Iraq. When they began secretly entering Iraq, no one stopped them, and they killed at will. Today, the Sunni work against the insurgents, and have very nearly stopped their incursions into Iraq. They have convinced them, based upon their amicable working relationships in and with the government, that no one wants them in Iraq. They are being killed off by the Sunni tribal militias, or they have simply stopped trying to enter Iraq.
That leaves the final group - terrorists or al qaida. They do not have Sunni interests at heart, hate the Shi'a, and generally hate anyone who is doing well. What the US decided with al qaida was - kill them all. The Sunni tribes were engaged, and became front line warriors against al qaida, as did the Shi'a - and now, thanks to the Sunni tribes and the Shi'a - al qaida is very nearly extinct in Iraq.
Why? because we killed them, because NO it does not breed more, because the issue is ever so much more complicated than a 500 word column in the newspaper would allow for, and no amount of time in a classroom would permit for the time it would take to explain the preceding - espefially with 30 voices agitating for two minutes in the lime-light... it is simply too complicated.
So, one might ask - how are we supposed to know all this? Clearly not from Bush, who cannot explain how to get to his office, from down the hall - but in a way, he does. Bush does not deal with the small stuff, but his statements, if you go back and read them, in light of the preceding, and consider his statements in light of the reality of the events in Iraq - he did explain it. The problem - loonies on the left didn't like his simplistic explanations, deconstructed what he said and soon, no one understood anything and when they tried to articulate it, the left attacked them as too simplistic and Bush et al gave up trying.
So how do we 'kill them all' and who is 'all of them'?
Intelligence analysis and polls indicate between 10-12% of the Muslim population world-wide support the ideology and actions of Bin laden (al qaida, using Laden as a representative of what we can call terrorists).
120 million people support him.
BUT, a much smaller percent want to actively participate in killing innocents. The rest content themselves to sit in their E-Z Boys and watch it being done. Some estimates suggest 1% of the 10%.
1.2 million.
But how many of them would actually do the killing when it was demanded of them? How many could be convinced otherwise?
One report suggests the number of die-hard terrorists at 100,000 to 500,000. That is, those men who would lie down and die for al qaida / bin Laden / the cause, and not question or deviate from the request.
The remainder are arm-chair supporters. They will fund, aid, support, provide shelter to - but they have no desire to climb into the killing pit. The governments of the forty or so countries are charged with sorting out this remainder - dealing with the issues and eliminating threats as they rise in their respective countries.
For the remaining 100,000 to 500,000 ... you kill them.
So you kill them and their brother stands up for them. Yes, and no. Jihadists tend not to be followed by their relatives seeking revenge ... they do it for other reasons. Of course we find Palestinians who follow their sister, brother, mother, father down the path to hell, but there are other motivations than because they 'want' to. They are a special case.
We are also not dealing with 100,000 people in one country in one city. These 100-500 thousand are spread across the globe in 190 countries. It is then the responsibility of local police and intelligence services, and army to find them and either make them see the error of their ways or kill them.
If we work with the millions who may not like us, but who will embrace the opportunity for a future that is provided, we will slowly eliminate the recruitment pool of the jihadists (the 100-500 thousand). As they are killed off, fewer will join as more embrace the opportunity for life and hope. In time, we will have trimmed the numbers down considerably and it will be more garbage collection than military action.
Do I over simplify - absolutely. Do I denigrate the threat the 500,000 pose - yes. Are they dangerous - absolutely - nuclear and bilogical weapins side - I do not believe we need to or should talk to them. There is no reason, and nothing but negatives if we do - they have been brainwashed and seek nothing more than dying.
So yes - we can kill them all (those we must kill), oblige their desire; and no, they will not simply sprout up like weeds.
If all else fails ... let's hire the shi'a.
terrorism
My response - kill them all.
Response: But you can't kill them all.
****************************************
The above statements are quite significant, indicating where we are, what we think, and our worldview.
The implication of 'but you can't kill them all' is, there are too many, that if you kill one, another five will pop up - I believe is inaccurate, and the result of facile arguments by unquestioned fools on a subject they are clearly clueless about - spewing this nonsense out into the public square for inquiring minds who have few ideas about what to believe or not to believe.
They raise the point that for every terrorist in Iraq killed, more pop up.
It simply is not true.
The answers are much more complicated than the question, and when multiple voices agitate for attention, no one is well served.
In Iraq we fought more than al-qaida (terrorists), more than insurgents, more than bad people - we fought everyone and from everywhere and few of them were operating with the same agenda.
I have already caused at least one person to become confused. Now imagine if I tried to explain this with 30 other voices offering their input!
We invaded Iraq and toppled a government in a couple weeks. We were met with sweets and flowers. We were met with joy, happiness, and the overwhelming appreciation of a nation. Contrary to the simplistic statements of press and fool, we were received VERY WELL.
However, in toppling the regime of Saddam, his government, his army, and the Sunni lost everything they had secured over 30 years. Their path to privilege was taken away in two weeks. The army was without a purpose. The intelligence agencies were dissolved and unemployed. Sunni had lost their power base, their wealth, their connection to the past and they were not pleased.
The army went underground and fought for little reason other than they had no other purpose, and were led to believe that that was what they should do, perhaps drive the invaders out using guerrilla tactics.
The Sunni became insurgents because they had nothing, all was taken away and joining an insurgency movement was something more than nothing which is literally all they had when Saddam was gone. When I say they had nothing, I do mean nothing. All electrical, water, food, medical - stopped or turned off. The shi'a would begin to retaliate against the Sunni rule by executing and destroying any vestige of Sunni power.
The Sunni of both the former army/intelligence, and the wider Sunni body killed Americans not for religious reasons, but because we were the invaders. They may have acted badly, killed people who were trying to change their country for the better, but they could be negotiated with - and after a couple years, they were slowly brought back into the political process and the former army / intelligence and opposition Sunni elements have given up their attacks.
But what of those who lost family and are angry - who struck out and killed Americans. Absolutely true. That reason - honor, restoring honor, or revenge - does not require nor did it often happen that the person would fight on for years. They sought revenge and when, in their mind, they had killed someone they deemed responsible, their need for revenge or honor was satisfied, and they went home. Could they or did they pick up the gun again - quite possible, depending upon whether they lost another family member.
All of these groups - Sunni generally, army and intelligence more specifically were manageable - they fought against the US, but were given choices that offered hope and opportunity and they chose that path. We still faced violence when the Shi'a sought revenge for 30 years of repression by the Sunni. Hundreds and thousands of Sunni would die, and any American in the way would die, or be forced to kill a Shi'a, which in turn would raise the possibility of a revenge attack by the family of the Shi'a killed.
As never-ending as it may seem, it does end. These characters do not want to die. they are not terrorists. They do not wish to spend eternity in a shit hole. They want a better life, and we offered them that choice.
These groups have given up, and rejoined the political process.
The Shi'a have never finished their 30 year revenge tour, and will engage in the political process given their superiority of numbers.
There will be violence as Sunni and Shi'a settle decades of hatred and animosity, and if Americans are in the way, they may be killed. This in no ways means the Americans are the target, simply by-standers.
Then come the NON-IRAQIs who walk/fly/drive to Iraq because they have been fed the poison - go and jihad, kill Americans. The majority of these insurgents believe they are doing what is best for Iraq. When they began secretly entering Iraq, no one stopped them, and they killed at will. Today, the Sunni work against the insurgents, and have very nearly stopped their incursions into Iraq. They have convinced them, based upon their amicable working relationships in and with the government, that no one wants them in Iraq. They are being killed off by the Sunni tribal militias, or they have simply stopped trying to enter Iraq.
That leaves the final group - terrorists or al qaida. They do not have Sunni interests at heart, hate the Shi'a, and generally hate anyone who is doing well. What the US decided with al qaida was - kill them all. The Sunni tribes were engaged, and became front line warriors against al qaida, as did the Shi'a - and now, thanks to the Sunni tribes and the Shi'a - al qaida is very nearly extinct in Iraq.
Why? because we killed them, because NO it does not breed more, because the issue is ever so much more complicated than a 500 word column in the newspaper would allow for, and no amount of time in a classroom would permit for the time it would take to explain the preceding - espefially with 30 voices agitating for two minutes in the lime-light... it is simply too complicated.
So, one might ask - how are we supposed to know all this? Clearly not from Bush, who cannot explain how to get to his office, from down the hall - but in a way, he does. Bush does not deal with the small stuff, but his statements, if you go back and read them, in light of the preceding, and consider his statements in light of the reality of the events in Iraq - he did explain it. The problem - loonies on the left didn't like his simplistic explanations, deconstructed what he said and soon, no one understood anything and when they tried to articulate it, the left attacked them as too simplistic and Bush et al gave up trying.
So how do we 'kill them all' and who is 'all of them'?
Intelligence analysis and polls indicate between 10-12% of the Muslim population world-wide support the ideology and actions of Bin laden (al qaida, using Laden as a representative of what we can call terrorists).
120 million people support him.
BUT, a much smaller percent want to actively participate in killing innocents. The rest content themselves to sit in their E-Z Boys and watch it being done. Some estimates suggest 1% of the 10%.
1.2 million.
But how many of them would actually do the killing when it was demanded of them? How many could be convinced otherwise?
One report suggests the number of die-hard terrorists at 100,000 to 500,000. That is, those men who would lie down and die for al qaida / bin Laden / the cause, and not question or deviate from the request.
The remainder are arm-chair supporters. They will fund, aid, support, provide shelter to - but they have no desire to climb into the killing pit. The governments of the forty or so countries are charged with sorting out this remainder - dealing with the issues and eliminating threats as they rise in their respective countries.
For the remaining 100,000 to 500,000 ... you kill them.
So you kill them and their brother stands up for them. Yes, and no. Jihadists tend not to be followed by their relatives seeking revenge ... they do it for other reasons. Of course we find Palestinians who follow their sister, brother, mother, father down the path to hell, but there are other motivations than because they 'want' to. They are a special case.
We are also not dealing with 100,000 people in one country in one city. These 100-500 thousand are spread across the globe in 190 countries. It is then the responsibility of local police and intelligence services, and army to find them and either make them see the error of their ways or kill them.
If we work with the millions who may not like us, but who will embrace the opportunity for a future that is provided, we will slowly eliminate the recruitment pool of the jihadists (the 100-500 thousand). As they are killed off, fewer will join as more embrace the opportunity for life and hope. In time, we will have trimmed the numbers down considerably and it will be more garbage collection than military action.
Do I over simplify - absolutely. Do I denigrate the threat the 500,000 pose - yes. Are they dangerous - absolutely - nuclear and bilogical weapins side - I do not believe we need to or should talk to them. There is no reason, and nothing but negatives if we do - they have been brainwashed and seek nothing more than dying.
So yes - we can kill them all (those we must kill), oblige their desire; and no, they will not simply sprout up like weeds.
If all else fails ... let's hire the shi'a.
terrorism
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
September 11 and Egypt
An old article, but very telling about all those countries - 40+ that Obama wants us to be more friendly with - hug and have tea with, apologize to, and make amends with.
Silly, naive, foolish, dangerous, and potentially - criminal.
September 16, 2004, 7:08 a.m.
Denial Is a River...Egypt commemorates September 11.
By Steven Stalinsky
Despite being the U.S.'s closest Arab ally, for the past three years Egypt's government-controlled media has been unremittingly antagonistic in its reporting about September 11.
Setting the tone was Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during a conspiracy-filled interview in the leading Egyptian daily Al-Ahram on October 25, 2001: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission."
This past year alone, there has been a consistent stream of Egyptian conspiracy theories, primarily stating that Arabs or Muslims were not involved in September 11, and that the U.S. government or Jews/Israel is the true culprit. During this period, one of the most popular songs in Egypt praised the events that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. The beloved Egyptian singer Sha'ban Abd Al-Rahim's song "Kharittat Al Tariq" (Road Map) states that the U.S. is the perpetrator of the attacks: "Hey people, it was only a tower and I swear by Allah that they [the U.S.] are the ones who pulled it down."
Prominent members of Egyptian academia have also been teaching this year that America is "100 percent behind September 11." The former dean of humanities at 'Ein Shams University, Mustafa Shak'a, was interviewed by Saudi Iqra TV on June 16 and said: "To this day, we don't know who attacked the U.S. on September 11. Why is the attack attributed to bin Laden although it has not been proven that he was involved in the operation?... The operation was 100 percent American..." Another Egyptian professor, Galal Amin of the American University wrote an article for Al-Ahram in April that stated: "There is still doubt that the September [11] attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror. No conclusive proof to this effect is yet available.
Many writers, American and European, as well as Arab, suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans..."
Leading Egyptian journalists have also written conspiracy theories about September 11 this year. On August 9, the editor of the prestigious Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar, Galal Dweidar, wrote an article about the U.S. titled "Barbarian Imperialist Occupation," which questioned who was really behind the attacks: "...There are strong doubts regarding the identity of those who schemed the terrorist action that targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York..." The deputy editor of the daily Al-Gumhouriyya, Abd Al-Wahhab 'Adas, wrote an article on April 23 accusing Jews of perpetrating September 11: "Actually, it is they who are behind the events of September 11. Proof of this is what was broadcast by the Canadian news agency on September 17...that prior to the events the CIA had received a report that the Mossad would carry out an attack operation on American territory... Further [proof] of this is the news in the American papers at that time, that 4,000 Jews of American origin who worked at the World Trade Center received instructions from the Mossad not to go to work that day..."
This has become a bit of an annual trend. To commemorate the attacks, Al-Arabiyya TV conducted an interview with the Egyptian father of Muhammad Atta on September 11, 2003. He too characterized September 11 as, "100 percent made-in-America. All the facts that have been verified and published in the press, on television, and in the statements of officials in the U.S. and abroad prove definitively that this even is an American product, as I said on Egyptian television 72 hours after the event... The subject [at hand] is not my son; it is more general. Is my son or any of the other 19 young men — four of whom died over a year before the event... [Moreover], the FBI announced it had recorded two telephone calls on the 11th made by two congressmen at the Capitol to two American newspapers, in which they said, 'The zero hour has come, and the competition begins tomorrow.'"
Leading Egyptian strategic planners have also espoused conspiracy theories about September 11. For its September 10, 2003, edition, the Akher Sa'a weekly interviewed several experts for articles commemorating the attacks. Among them was General Mahmoud Khalaf, who said: "What took place on September 11 was a conspiratorial plan by the U.S. to justify invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. In 1999, books were published exposing a plan by far right-wing American hawks to fulfill the dream of a large empire, and there was an opportunity [for this] on September 11..." Also interviewed was General Ali Hafzi, governor of the northern Sinai district of Egypt, who stated: "The September 11, 2001 event was meant to determine and direct the events of the 21st century in order to force American hegemony on the world and to enable it to be the sole superpower in the world..."
Since September 11, 2001 many have asked "Why do they hate us?" The answer that is almost always overlooked is that the Arab media, along with schoolbooks and sermons, espouses never-ending incitement of and lies about America.
— Steven Stalinsky is executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
* * *
Silly, naive, foolish, dangerous, and potentially - criminal.
September 16, 2004, 7:08 a.m.
Denial Is a River...Egypt commemorates September 11.
By Steven Stalinsky
Despite being the U.S.'s closest Arab ally, for the past three years Egypt's government-controlled media has been unremittingly antagonistic in its reporting about September 11.
Setting the tone was Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during a conspiracy-filled interview in the leading Egyptian daily Al-Ahram on October 25, 2001: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission."
This past year alone, there has been a consistent stream of Egyptian conspiracy theories, primarily stating that Arabs or Muslims were not involved in September 11, and that the U.S. government or Jews/Israel is the true culprit. During this period, one of the most popular songs in Egypt praised the events that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. The beloved Egyptian singer Sha'ban Abd Al-Rahim's song "Kharittat Al Tariq" (Road Map) states that the U.S. is the perpetrator of the attacks: "Hey people, it was only a tower and I swear by Allah that they [the U.S.] are the ones who pulled it down."
Prominent members of Egyptian academia have also been teaching this year that America is "100 percent behind September 11." The former dean of humanities at 'Ein Shams University, Mustafa Shak'a, was interviewed by Saudi Iqra TV on June 16 and said: "To this day, we don't know who attacked the U.S. on September 11. Why is the attack attributed to bin Laden although it has not been proven that he was involved in the operation?... The operation was 100 percent American..." Another Egyptian professor, Galal Amin of the American University wrote an article for Al-Ahram in April that stated: "There is still doubt that the September [11] attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror. No conclusive proof to this effect is yet available.
Many writers, American and European, as well as Arab, suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans..."
Leading Egyptian journalists have also written conspiracy theories about September 11 this year. On August 9, the editor of the prestigious Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar, Galal Dweidar, wrote an article about the U.S. titled "Barbarian Imperialist Occupation," which questioned who was really behind the attacks: "...There are strong doubts regarding the identity of those who schemed the terrorist action that targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York..." The deputy editor of the daily Al-Gumhouriyya, Abd Al-Wahhab 'Adas, wrote an article on April 23 accusing Jews of perpetrating September 11: "Actually, it is they who are behind the events of September 11. Proof of this is what was broadcast by the Canadian news agency on September 17...that prior to the events the CIA had received a report that the Mossad would carry out an attack operation on American territory... Further [proof] of this is the news in the American papers at that time, that 4,000 Jews of American origin who worked at the World Trade Center received instructions from the Mossad not to go to work that day..."
This has become a bit of an annual trend. To commemorate the attacks, Al-Arabiyya TV conducted an interview with the Egyptian father of Muhammad Atta on September 11, 2003. He too characterized September 11 as, "100 percent made-in-America. All the facts that have been verified and published in the press, on television, and in the statements of officials in the U.S. and abroad prove definitively that this even is an American product, as I said on Egyptian television 72 hours after the event... The subject [at hand] is not my son; it is more general. Is my son or any of the other 19 young men — four of whom died over a year before the event... [Moreover], the FBI announced it had recorded two telephone calls on the 11th made by two congressmen at the Capitol to two American newspapers, in which they said, 'The zero hour has come, and the competition begins tomorrow.'"
Leading Egyptian strategic planners have also espoused conspiracy theories about September 11. For its September 10, 2003, edition, the Akher Sa'a weekly interviewed several experts for articles commemorating the attacks. Among them was General Mahmoud Khalaf, who said: "What took place on September 11 was a conspiratorial plan by the U.S. to justify invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. In 1999, books were published exposing a plan by far right-wing American hawks to fulfill the dream of a large empire, and there was an opportunity [for this] on September 11..." Also interviewed was General Ali Hafzi, governor of the northern Sinai district of Egypt, who stated: "The September 11, 2001 event was meant to determine and direct the events of the 21st century in order to force American hegemony on the world and to enable it to be the sole superpower in the world..."
Since September 11, 2001 many have asked "Why do they hate us?" The answer that is almost always overlooked is that the Arab media, along with schoolbooks and sermons, espouses never-ending incitement of and lies about America.
— Steven Stalinsky is executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
* * *
Congo: Proof the UN Does Not Work and Obama's Policies are Disasters
Congo soldiers fleeing Goma along with refugees
Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008.
By MICHELLE FAUL, The Associated Press
GOMA, Congo - Firing wildly, Congolese soldiers commandeered cars, taxis and motorbikes Wednesday in a retreat from advancing rebel fighters, joining tens of thousands of terrified refugees struggling to stay ahead of the violence.
As gunfire crackled in this eastern provincial capital, the Tutsi rebels said they had reached the outskirts of Goma and declared a unilateral cease-fire to prevent panic as the army retreats and residents flee.
Congo said Rwandan troops had crossed the border and attacked its soldiers - raising the specter that neighboring nations will again be drawn into Congo's war. Rwanda's Tutsi-led government immediately denied the charge, but Congo turned to Angola for help defending its territory.
As the chaos mounted, the U.S. announced its officials were leaving Goma and urged all American citizens to do the same. The State Department said Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer was heading to the capital, Kinshasa, and would arrive Thursday.
"There is a lot of violence," said spokesman Sean McCormack. "This is of deep concern to us."
Thousands of panicked refugees clogged the dirt roads out of Goma, struggling to reach safety.
Women carrying huge bundles on their heads and babies in their arms trudged alongside men pushing crude wooden carts crammed with clothing, food and cooking utensils. Bewildered children walked alongside. Young boys led goats and pigs on tethers as men on bicycles weaved in and out.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said about 45,000 people fled the nearby village of Kibati, where they had been sleeping in a makeshift camp in the open air, in a matter of hours on Wednesday.
"It was very chaotic," said agency spokesman Ron Redmond, speaking from Geneva. Most of the refugees had arrived only the day before after fleeing fighting farther north.
"They suddenly became very agitated and people began leaving the camp in a panic," Redmond said. They first headed toward Goma to the south, then changed direction and headed back out as it became clear the city was about to fall.
Goma's governor, Julien Mpaluku, acknowledged that panic was spreading, but stressed that U.N. peacekeepers were still in charge and rebels had not yet entered the city. U.N. spokesman Madnodje Mounoubai said peacekeepers were deployed at the airport and at other strategic points.
A rebel statement said their fighters were just outside Goma.
"We are not far from Goma," rebel leader Laurent Nkunda was quoted as saying on the BBC's Web site. "But because there is a state of destabilization in the town we decided ... unilaterally to proclaim a cease-fire."
Nkunda, who has ignored calls by the Security Council to respect a U.N.-brokered truce signed in January, called on government forces to follow suit.
The U.N. says its biggest peacekeeping mission - a 17,000-strong force - is now stretched to the limit with the surge in fighting and needs more troops quickly. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and South Africa are the main contributors to the existing force.
But hopes for immediate backup from the European Union dimmed. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Wednesday the EU had considered sending troops to reinforce the peacekeepers in Congo but some countries refused.
(Senator Obama - read the above sentence VERY carefully. I apologize that you have a resistance to reality - let me explain - THE allies you think we have offended, the ones we should lower ourselves to, in order that we are equal with them - DO NOT CARE ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING. THIS is what becomes of your silly idea of working with these states mulitlaterally. THEY DO NOT CARE. Weakening the US would prevent us from ever acting in these cases. Whether we should or not.)
Fears have grown of a wider war that could drag in Congo's neighbors. Congo suffered back-to-back wars from 1996 to 2002 that embroiled eight African nations and became a rush at the country's vast mineral wealth.
The unrest in eastern Congo has been fueled by festering hatreds left over from the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which half a million Tutsis were slaughtered. More than a million Hutu extremists fled to Congo where they regrouped in a brutal militia that helps fuel the continuing conflict in Congo.
Rebel leader Nkunda, an ethnic Tutsi and former general, quit the army several years ago, claiming the government of President Joseph Kabila was not doing enough to protect minority Tutsis from the Hutu extremists.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Congo's government to control its troops and help the U.N. peacekeepers protect civilians, blaming a "collapse in discipline" among soldiers for the escalating looting and attacks on U.N.
The U.N. Security Council later unanimously condemned the rebel offensive and demanded an end to the operation. The 15-nation council said any attack on civilians is "totally unacceptable" and called on Congo and Rwanda to restore stability in the region.
On Wednesday, retreating government soldiers entered Goma along with the fleeing refugees, grabbing cars, taxis and motorbikes to help in their escape.
About 15 soldiers briefly commandeered a car carrying an AP cameraman and photographer and demanded to be driven about 50 miles to the town of Saki.
"I'll kill you! I'll kill you!" yelled one soldier in front of an airfield near downtown Goma.
The soldiers grabbed boxes that looked like ammunition from the U.N. compound at the airport, piled them into the SUV and took off. Some of the soldiers piled onto the roof, others hung from open doors. The journalists finally managed to get away, jumping out of the moving vehicle at a military police checkpoint.
On another battlefront further north, government soldiers abandoned the town of Rutshuru and tens of thousands or refugees fled, according to U.N. officials and aid workers.
"It's incredibly dangerous," said Alice Gilbert, a project officer for the British medical agency Merlin. "Complete chaos broke out and everyone fled into the bush."
UN
Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008.
By MICHELLE FAUL, The Associated Press
GOMA, Congo - Firing wildly, Congolese soldiers commandeered cars, taxis and motorbikes Wednesday in a retreat from advancing rebel fighters, joining tens of thousands of terrified refugees struggling to stay ahead of the violence.
As gunfire crackled in this eastern provincial capital, the Tutsi rebels said they had reached the outskirts of Goma and declared a unilateral cease-fire to prevent panic as the army retreats and residents flee.
Congo said Rwandan troops had crossed the border and attacked its soldiers - raising the specter that neighboring nations will again be drawn into Congo's war. Rwanda's Tutsi-led government immediately denied the charge, but Congo turned to Angola for help defending its territory.
As the chaos mounted, the U.S. announced its officials were leaving Goma and urged all American citizens to do the same. The State Department said Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer was heading to the capital, Kinshasa, and would arrive Thursday.
"There is a lot of violence," said spokesman Sean McCormack. "This is of deep concern to us."
Thousands of panicked refugees clogged the dirt roads out of Goma, struggling to reach safety.
Women carrying huge bundles on their heads and babies in their arms trudged alongside men pushing crude wooden carts crammed with clothing, food and cooking utensils. Bewildered children walked alongside. Young boys led goats and pigs on tethers as men on bicycles weaved in and out.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said about 45,000 people fled the nearby village of Kibati, where they had been sleeping in a makeshift camp in the open air, in a matter of hours on Wednesday.
"It was very chaotic," said agency spokesman Ron Redmond, speaking from Geneva. Most of the refugees had arrived only the day before after fleeing fighting farther north.
"They suddenly became very agitated and people began leaving the camp in a panic," Redmond said. They first headed toward Goma to the south, then changed direction and headed back out as it became clear the city was about to fall.
Goma's governor, Julien Mpaluku, acknowledged that panic was spreading, but stressed that U.N. peacekeepers were still in charge and rebels had not yet entered the city. U.N. spokesman Madnodje Mounoubai said peacekeepers were deployed at the airport and at other strategic points.
A rebel statement said their fighters were just outside Goma.
"We are not far from Goma," rebel leader Laurent Nkunda was quoted as saying on the BBC's Web site. "But because there is a state of destabilization in the town we decided ... unilaterally to proclaim a cease-fire."
Nkunda, who has ignored calls by the Security Council to respect a U.N.-brokered truce signed in January, called on government forces to follow suit.
The U.N. says its biggest peacekeeping mission - a 17,000-strong force - is now stretched to the limit with the surge in fighting and needs more troops quickly. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and South Africa are the main contributors to the existing force.
But hopes for immediate backup from the European Union dimmed. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Wednesday the EU had considered sending troops to reinforce the peacekeepers in Congo but some countries refused.
(Senator Obama - read the above sentence VERY carefully. I apologize that you have a resistance to reality - let me explain - THE allies you think we have offended, the ones we should lower ourselves to, in order that we are equal with them - DO NOT CARE ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING. THIS is what becomes of your silly idea of working with these states mulitlaterally. THEY DO NOT CARE. Weakening the US would prevent us from ever acting in these cases. Whether we should or not.)
Fears have grown of a wider war that could drag in Congo's neighbors. Congo suffered back-to-back wars from 1996 to 2002 that embroiled eight African nations and became a rush at the country's vast mineral wealth.
The unrest in eastern Congo has been fueled by festering hatreds left over from the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which half a million Tutsis were slaughtered. More than a million Hutu extremists fled to Congo where they regrouped in a brutal militia that helps fuel the continuing conflict in Congo.
Rebel leader Nkunda, an ethnic Tutsi and former general, quit the army several years ago, claiming the government of President Joseph Kabila was not doing enough to protect minority Tutsis from the Hutu extremists.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Congo's government to control its troops and help the U.N. peacekeepers protect civilians, blaming a "collapse in discipline" among soldiers for the escalating looting and attacks on U.N.
The U.N. Security Council later unanimously condemned the rebel offensive and demanded an end to the operation. The 15-nation council said any attack on civilians is "totally unacceptable" and called on Congo and Rwanda to restore stability in the region.
On Wednesday, retreating government soldiers entered Goma along with the fleeing refugees, grabbing cars, taxis and motorbikes to help in their escape.
About 15 soldiers briefly commandeered a car carrying an AP cameraman and photographer and demanded to be driven about 50 miles to the town of Saki.
"I'll kill you! I'll kill you!" yelled one soldier in front of an airfield near downtown Goma.
The soldiers grabbed boxes that looked like ammunition from the U.N. compound at the airport, piled them into the SUV and took off. Some of the soldiers piled onto the roof, others hung from open doors. The journalists finally managed to get away, jumping out of the moving vehicle at a military police checkpoint.
On another battlefront further north, government soldiers abandoned the town of Rutshuru and tens of thousands or refugees fled, according to U.N. officials and aid workers.
"It's incredibly dangerous," said Alice Gilbert, a project officer for the British medical agency Merlin. "Complete chaos broke out and everyone fled into the bush."
UN
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama: praises Palestinian Rashid Khalidi - Old News
OMG - between hanging Palin in West Hollywood, the attacks on McCain supporters and their vehicles, the biased coverage of positive versus negative in the media ... and a video exists that is and should be available for voters ... and the LAT won't release it .... You can't get more biased than that.
McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April.
By a Times staff writer 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008
John McCain's presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape."The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April.
By a Times staff writer 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008
John McCain's presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape."The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Global Cooling
Near-record cold, and mountain snow
By Steve Lyttleslyttle@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008
Snow is accumulating this afternoon in the North Carolina mountains, and the rest of the Carolinas is shivering in the first cold outbreak of the season.
Temperatures that are more than 15 degrees below normal for this time of year, combined with strong northwest winds, are making today uncomfortably chilly in the Charlotte metro region.
But the cold snap is more pronounced in the mountains, where the strong winds are accompanied by snow showers.
The National Weather Service said that up to 3 inches of snow had accumulated by midday in some parts of the mountains. Snow is still falling this afternoon, and a dusting is even being reported in some lower elevations, such as Asheville.
The cold temperatures, gusty northwest winds, and mountain snow are the result of a flow of unstable cold air being pumped into the Southeast by a storm system over the Northeast and a strong high pressure system. Chilly weather is expected to continue through Wednesday, and the National Weather Service has issued frost and freeze warnings for the area tonight.
Forecasters say the cold will bring an end to the growing season in much of the region.
Temperatures in Charlotte reached 52 degrees by 1 p.m. That eliminated a chance of today becoming the coldest day ever for Oct. 28 in Charlotte. The record for chilliest high temperature on the date is 49 degrees, set in 1976.
Temperatures are forecast to tumble into the middle and upper 20s tonight, then rebound back into the 50s Wednesday.
Warmer weather is expected by late in the week. Forecasters say Halloween should feature nice conditions, with clear skies and highs in the upper 60s. Milder weather also is forecast for Saturday, before another cold snap hits the region Sunday and Monday.
School systems opened late this morning in Watauga, Yancey, Haywood, Avery, Madison and Mitchell counties. The National Weather Service said that at 11 a.m., a number of sites had reported snow on the ground.
cold
global warming
By Steve Lyttleslyttle@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008
Snow is accumulating this afternoon in the North Carolina mountains, and the rest of the Carolinas is shivering in the first cold outbreak of the season.
Temperatures that are more than 15 degrees below normal for this time of year, combined with strong northwest winds, are making today uncomfortably chilly in the Charlotte metro region.
But the cold snap is more pronounced in the mountains, where the strong winds are accompanied by snow showers.
The National Weather Service said that up to 3 inches of snow had accumulated by midday in some parts of the mountains. Snow is still falling this afternoon, and a dusting is even being reported in some lower elevations, such as Asheville.
The cold temperatures, gusty northwest winds, and mountain snow are the result of a flow of unstable cold air being pumped into the Southeast by a storm system over the Northeast and a strong high pressure system. Chilly weather is expected to continue through Wednesday, and the National Weather Service has issued frost and freeze warnings for the area tonight.
Forecasters say the cold will bring an end to the growing season in much of the region.
Temperatures in Charlotte reached 52 degrees by 1 p.m. That eliminated a chance of today becoming the coldest day ever for Oct. 28 in Charlotte. The record for chilliest high temperature on the date is 49 degrees, set in 1976.
Temperatures are forecast to tumble into the middle and upper 20s tonight, then rebound back into the 50s Wednesday.
Warmer weather is expected by late in the week. Forecasters say Halloween should feature nice conditions, with clear skies and highs in the upper 60s. Milder weather also is forecast for Saturday, before another cold snap hits the region Sunday and Monday.
School systems opened late this morning in Watauga, Yancey, Haywood, Avery, Madison and Mitchell counties. The National Weather Service said that at 11 a.m., a number of sites had reported snow on the ground.
cold
global warming
Monday, October 27, 2008
China - More Problems
China milk scandal spreads to eggs
High levels of the chemical in the China milk scandal have been discovered in Hong Kong in eggs from the mainland.
By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Last Updated: 4:54PM GMT 27 Oct 2008
The authorities on the island said that the eggs contained twice the legal limit of melamine, an industrial chemical which made over 50,000 infants ill and killed four when it was discovered in powdered baby milk over the summer.
Melamine, which is more commonly found in plastics, was added by unscrupulous traders to "bulk up" milk and make it appear richer in protein.
However, the chemical triggers the formation of kidney stones.
Authorities in Hong Kong said they have contacted Beijing to ask for an investigation after melamine was discovered in eggs from China's biggest producer, Hanwei, a company in the northern town of Dalian. Hanwei said it is investigating.
"We have contacted the mainland's food safety agency and hope they can do more to reduce the risk at the source," said York Chow, the island's health secretary.
A food safety inspector in Dalian said that eggs tainted with melamine were detected last month and were destroyed, but that tests this month showed no traces of the chemical.
China
High levels of the chemical in the China milk scandal have been discovered in Hong Kong in eggs from the mainland.
By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Last Updated: 4:54PM GMT 27 Oct 2008
The authorities on the island said that the eggs contained twice the legal limit of melamine, an industrial chemical which made over 50,000 infants ill and killed four when it was discovered in powdered baby milk over the summer.
Melamine, which is more commonly found in plastics, was added by unscrupulous traders to "bulk up" milk and make it appear richer in protein.
However, the chemical triggers the formation of kidney stones.
Authorities in Hong Kong said they have contacted Beijing to ask for an investigation after melamine was discovered in eggs from China's biggest producer, Hanwei, a company in the northern town of Dalian. Hanwei said it is investigating.
"We have contacted the mainland's food safety agency and hope they can do more to reduce the risk at the source," said York Chow, the island's health secretary.
A food safety inspector in Dalian said that eggs tainted with melamine were detected last month and were destroyed, but that tests this month showed no traces of the chemical.
China
US - Syria II
Syria confirms the attack took place, claims 8 people including 4 children were killed.
Other sources say 7 men.
I am inclied to believe that between 12-20 people were killed including several children who were put in harms way by the adults who used them as shields.
I am also inclied to believe that the US took at least two people into custody.
They had to be VERY high value targets for the US to launch the action.
VERY HIGH.
SUKKARIYEH, Syria (AP) - A resident of the village that was the scene of a U.S. raid says he saw at least two men taken into custody by American forces and whisked away by helicopter.
The villager spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life.
Another villager at the site displayed amateur video footage he took with his mobile phone that shows four helicopters flying toward them as villagers point to the skies in alarm.
An Associated Press journalist at the attack site in far eastern Syria on Monday saw the grainy video.
A U.S. military official in Washington confirmed Sunday that special forces had conducted the raid in Syria, targeting al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters. At least seven men died.
Syria
US
Other sources say 7 men.
I am inclied to believe that between 12-20 people were killed including several children who were put in harms way by the adults who used them as shields.
I am also inclied to believe that the US took at least two people into custody.
They had to be VERY high value targets for the US to launch the action.
VERY HIGH.
SUKKARIYEH, Syria (AP) - A resident of the village that was the scene of a U.S. raid says he saw at least two men taken into custody by American forces and whisked away by helicopter.
The villager spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life.
Another villager at the site displayed amateur video footage he took with his mobile phone that shows four helicopters flying toward them as villagers point to the skies in alarm.
An Associated Press journalist at the attack site in far eastern Syria on Monday saw the grainy video.
A U.S. military official in Washington confirmed Sunday that special forces had conducted the raid in Syria, targeting al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters. At least seven men died.
Syria
US
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Obama - Share the Wealth
Barack Obama:
Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM
Year: 2001
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that... "
This is not just another slip, and while he is arguing it on a racial level - he makes clear his agenda beyond simply racial equality of opportunity. Joe the Plumber and his 'redistribute the wealth' issue. This is something that afflicts Obama. He doesn't speak about it ALL the time, he wants to be elected. But it is a core part of HIS beliefs. In reading statements about his teaching, statements he made to his classes and ideas propounded - not terrible and not so far off the left side that we could not consider them in an academic debate, but Obama himself said he spent time with and associated with people in college who were Marxist. His words, not mine. He associated with Ayers - a man who was an avowed anarchist and self-described Marxist.
The Joe the Plumber statement and now, someone has spent a lot of energy digging up dirt - and yes, it is dirt ... but it goes to the character of the man. The President of the United States CANNOT be a socialist that admires Marxism. We do not have a system that advocates Marxism nor do we support socialistic programs, even if we tread very close to the line.
Obama has made it clear what he wants to do - Americans cannot allow him to carry out his redistribution plan - well, it is actually much more than that, and includes many fronts and programs. In the end, we become less than we are, and more like the rest.
Bad ideas need to be brushed into the trash bin of history - where they stay put.
Obama
Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM
Year: 2001
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that... "
This is not just another slip, and while he is arguing it on a racial level - he makes clear his agenda beyond simply racial equality of opportunity. Joe the Plumber and his 'redistribute the wealth' issue. This is something that afflicts Obama. He doesn't speak about it ALL the time, he wants to be elected. But it is a core part of HIS beliefs. In reading statements about his teaching, statements he made to his classes and ideas propounded - not terrible and not so far off the left side that we could not consider them in an academic debate, but Obama himself said he spent time with and associated with people in college who were Marxist. His words, not mine. He associated with Ayers - a man who was an avowed anarchist and self-described Marxist.
The Joe the Plumber statement and now, someone has spent a lot of energy digging up dirt - and yes, it is dirt ... but it goes to the character of the man. The President of the United States CANNOT be a socialist that admires Marxism. We do not have a system that advocates Marxism nor do we support socialistic programs, even if we tread very close to the line.
Obama has made it clear what he wants to do - Americans cannot allow him to carry out his redistribution plan - well, it is actually much more than that, and includes many fronts and programs. In the end, we become less than we are, and more like the rest.
Bad ideas need to be brushed into the trash bin of history - where they stay put.
Obama
US - Syria
The BBC put out a story - calling into question everything and attributing cause where no evidence existed. Suggesting it was election related. What a despicable reporter Mr. Marcus is. What the truth is ... well, the Israeli attack on Syria some time ago - the one Syria reluctantly acknowledged, and then -publicly said that their well armed forces had driven the Israelis away - that attack was to blow up a nuclear site.
This event by US forces was to achieve a purpose and it was successful. What the Syrians say could be anything from:
- the evil jin tried to abscond with our daughters virtue but our manly men stopped them
- the infidels tried to find Saddams WMDs and we prevented them, err, we let them search and they found nothing.
- we killed them all but we shot them so many times their bodies are unable to be displayed.
- they peed their pants as we descended on them howling like banshees and we chased them into the darkness where the jin swallowed them up.
OR ... we could go with something probably CLOSER to the truth
US official confirms Syria raid called by Damascus “serious aggression”
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 27, 2008, 5:12 AM (GMT+02:00)
An American military official said the cross-border raid by helicopter-borne special forces at al Sukkariya near Abu Kemal in N. Syria Sunday, Oct. 26 targeted “the foreign fighter network” that travels through Syria into Iraq. In the first US comment on the incident, the anonymous spokesman hinted at more cross-border action when he said: “We are taking matters in our own hands.” He spoke shortly after Damascus summoned the US and Iraqi envoys to protest the “serious aggression” in which 8 “civilians, including children” were killed and 14 wounded.
Three days earlier, US commander in western Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Kelly, called the Syrian border “an uncontrolled gateway” for fighters entering Iraq. He described the borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan as “fairly tight” and referred to US forces’ success in shutting down the “rat lines” in Iraq with help from governments in North Africa. “The one piece of the puzzle where we have not shown success on is the nexus in Syria,” Gen. Kelly said.
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report he was referring to help from the Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian governments, as well as Western Europe countries hosting large North African migrants, in drying up the stream of al Qaeda’s recruits for Iraq. However, Syrian president Bashar Assad has frustrated years of US effort to shut down the network operating out of his territory.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report: This was not the first US military incursion of Syria. Previous US strikes on Syrian soil in 2004 and 2005 targeted al Qaeda exit points to Iraq and involved bombardments and clashes with Syrian border units.
These US attacks were discontinued for three years. Sunday’s operation was an extension of the US-Iraqi offensive to purge the northern Iraqi town of Mosul and northern Syria of al Qaeda elements, the jihadists’ last two strong bastions in the region.
According to eye witnesses, 8 US troops dropped by at least 2 helicopters stormed a farm house in Sukkariya and killed 8 people before flying back to Iraq. Damascus announced it held US forces responsible for “this aggression and all its repercussions.” It called on the Iraqi government to launch an immediate investigation into “this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria."
Al Qaeda fighters recently captured by the US military in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul revealed the unabated flow of arms, fighters, cash and explosives from Syria to Iraq. The discovery belied Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem’s assurance to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice when they met in New York in September that Damascus had halted this traffic.
Abu Kemal is located opposite the al Qaim region of Iraqi Anbar. For most of the five-year Iraq war, it was al Qaeda’s main logistics base for the jihadists fighting in Anbar. Recently this province, finally cleared of terrorists, was handed over to Iraqi forces. Washington is determined not to allow the Syria rat line to destroy one of the great US achievements of the war.
Asked if the incident was compatible with Israel’s talks with Syria, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni commented: Damascus must stop aiding al Qaeda as well two other terrorist groups, Hizballah and Hamas. DEBKAfile’s political sources note that the northern Syrian operation bears strongly on the US presidential campaign 10 days before voting. Both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, will no doubt comment and if the attacks continue and meet with Syrian reprisal, they could become a focal campaign theme.
US cross-border incursions from Afghanistan firing missiles from drones at Taliban and al Qaeda havens in Pakistan are ongoing. The latest attack took place Sunday night killing up to 20 insurgents.
Bad guys lose
This event by US forces was to achieve a purpose and it was successful. What the Syrians say could be anything from:
- the evil jin tried to abscond with our daughters virtue but our manly men stopped them
- the infidels tried to find Saddams WMDs and we prevented them, err, we let them search and they found nothing.
- we killed them all but we shot them so many times their bodies are unable to be displayed.
- they peed their pants as we descended on them howling like banshees and we chased them into the darkness where the jin swallowed them up.
OR ... we could go with something probably CLOSER to the truth
US official confirms Syria raid called by Damascus “serious aggression”
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 27, 2008, 5:12 AM (GMT+02:00)
An American military official said the cross-border raid by helicopter-borne special forces at al Sukkariya near Abu Kemal in N. Syria Sunday, Oct. 26 targeted “the foreign fighter network” that travels through Syria into Iraq. In the first US comment on the incident, the anonymous spokesman hinted at more cross-border action when he said: “We are taking matters in our own hands.” He spoke shortly after Damascus summoned the US and Iraqi envoys to protest the “serious aggression” in which 8 “civilians, including children” were killed and 14 wounded.
Three days earlier, US commander in western Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Kelly, called the Syrian border “an uncontrolled gateway” for fighters entering Iraq. He described the borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan as “fairly tight” and referred to US forces’ success in shutting down the “rat lines” in Iraq with help from governments in North Africa. “The one piece of the puzzle where we have not shown success on is the nexus in Syria,” Gen. Kelly said.
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report he was referring to help from the Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian governments, as well as Western Europe countries hosting large North African migrants, in drying up the stream of al Qaeda’s recruits for Iraq. However, Syrian president Bashar Assad has frustrated years of US effort to shut down the network operating out of his territory.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report: This was not the first US military incursion of Syria. Previous US strikes on Syrian soil in 2004 and 2005 targeted al Qaeda exit points to Iraq and involved bombardments and clashes with Syrian border units.
These US attacks were discontinued for three years. Sunday’s operation was an extension of the US-Iraqi offensive to purge the northern Iraqi town of Mosul and northern Syria of al Qaeda elements, the jihadists’ last two strong bastions in the region.
According to eye witnesses, 8 US troops dropped by at least 2 helicopters stormed a farm house in Sukkariya and killed 8 people before flying back to Iraq. Damascus announced it held US forces responsible for “this aggression and all its repercussions.” It called on the Iraqi government to launch an immediate investigation into “this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria."
Al Qaeda fighters recently captured by the US military in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul revealed the unabated flow of arms, fighters, cash and explosives from Syria to Iraq. The discovery belied Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem’s assurance to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice when they met in New York in September that Damascus had halted this traffic.
Abu Kemal is located opposite the al Qaim region of Iraqi Anbar. For most of the five-year Iraq war, it was al Qaeda’s main logistics base for the jihadists fighting in Anbar. Recently this province, finally cleared of terrorists, was handed over to Iraqi forces. Washington is determined not to allow the Syria rat line to destroy one of the great US achievements of the war.
Asked if the incident was compatible with Israel’s talks with Syria, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni commented: Damascus must stop aiding al Qaeda as well two other terrorist groups, Hizballah and Hamas. DEBKAfile’s political sources note that the northern Syrian operation bears strongly on the US presidential campaign 10 days before voting. Both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, will no doubt comment and if the attacks continue and meet with Syrian reprisal, they could become a focal campaign theme.
US cross-border incursions from Afghanistan firing missiles from drones at Taliban and al Qaeda havens in Pakistan are ongoing. The latest attack took place Sunday night killing up to 20 insurgents.
Bad guys lose
UN: Another reason why Obama MUST lose
Because these fools want him to win, believing that an Obama win will usher in years of UN corruption.
We saw this for years until iraq and the Oil for Food Scandal was knocked out, we saw this with the UN peacekeeping Scandals in Africa, we saw this with failure after failure of UN policy around the world and now the UN wants to use Bush as an excuse for all their failures and scandals.
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at UN headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, clock on the title link above.]At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum LynchWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link above.]
It is almost too funny. The McCain campaign should use these statements in the remaning days.
UN
Obaam
We saw this for years until iraq and the Oil for Food Scandal was knocked out, we saw this with the UN peacekeeping Scandals in Africa, we saw this with failure after failure of UN policy around the world and now the UN wants to use Bush as an excuse for all their failures and scandals.
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at UN headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, clock on the title link above.]At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum LynchWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link above.]
It is almost too funny. The McCain campaign should use these statements in the remaning days.
UN
Obaam
End of the World: Economically, or so this man thinks
October 26, 2008
The Sunday Times
Nouriel Roubini: I fear the worst is yet to come
When this man predicted a global financial crisis more than a year ago, people laughed. Not any more...
Dominic Rushe
As stock markets headed off a cliff again last week, closely followed by currencies, and as meltdown threatened entire countries such as Hungary and Iceland, one voice was in demand above all others to steer us through the gloom: that of Dr Doom.
For years Dr Doom toiled in relative obscurity as a New York University economics professor under his alias, Nouriel Roubini. But after making a series of uncannily accurate predictions about the global meltdown, Roubini has become the prophet of his age, jetting around the world dispensing his advice and latest prognostications to politicians and businessmen desperate to know what happens next – and for any answer to the crisis.
While the economic sun was shining, most other economists scoffed at Roubini and his predictions of imminent disaster. They dismissed his warnings that the sub-prime mortgage disaster would trigger a financial meltdown. They could not quite believe his view that the US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would collapse, and that the investment banks would be crushed as the world headed for a long recession.
Yet all these predictions and more came true. Few are laughing now.
What does Roubini think is going to happen next? Rather worryingly, in London last Thursday he predicted that hundreds of hedge funds will go bust and stock markets may soon have to shut – perhaps for as long as a week – in order to stem the panic selling now sweeping the world. What happened? The next day trading was briefly stopped in New York and Moscow.
Dubbed Dr Doom for his gloomy views, this lugubrious disciple of the “dismal science” is now the world’s most in-demand economist. He reckons he is getting about four hours’ sleep a night. Last week he was in Budapest, London, Madrid and New York. Next week he will address Congress in Washington. Do not expect any good news.
Contacted in Madrid on Friday, Roubini said the world economy was “at a breaking point”. He believes the stock markets are now “essentially in free fall” and “we are reaching the point of sheer panic”.
For all his recent predictive success, his critics still urge calm. They charge he is a professional doom-monger who was banging on about recession for years as the economy boomed. Roubini is stung by such charges, dismissing them as “pathetic”.
He takes no pleasure in bad news, he says, but he makes his standpoint clear: “Frankly I was right.” A combative, complex man, he is fond of the word “frankly”, which may be appropriate for someone so used to delivering bad news.
Born in Istanbul 49 years ago, he comes from a family of Iranian Jews. They moved to Tehran, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college, graduating summa cum laude in economics from Bocconi University before taking a PhD in international economics at Harvard.
Fluent in English, Italian, Hebrew, and Persian, Roubini has one of those “international man of mystery” accents: think Henry Kissinger without the bonhomie. Single, he lives in a loft in Manhattan’s trendy Tribeca, an area popularised by Robert De Niro, and collects contemporary art.
Despite his slightly mad-professor look, he is at pains to make clear he is normal. “I’m not a geek,” said Roubini, who sounds rather concerned that people might think he is. “I mean it frankly. I’m not a geek.”
He is, however, ferociously bright. When he left Harvard, he moved quickly, holding various positions at the Treasury department, rising to become an economic adviser to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Then his profile seemed to plateau. His doubts about the economic outlook seemed out of tune with the times, especially when a few years ago he began predicting a meltdown in the financial markets through his blog, hosted on RGEmonitor. com, the website of his advisory company.
But it was a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in September 2006 that earned him his nickname Dr Doom.
Roubini told an audience of fellow economists that a generational crisis was coming. A once-in-a-lifetime housing bust would lay waste to the US economy as oil prices soared, consumers stopped shopping and the country went into a deep recession.
The collapse of the mortgage market would trigger a global meltdown, as trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unravelled. The shockwaves would destroy banks and other big financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s largest home loan lenders.
“I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that,” the moderator said. Members of the audience laughed.
Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing. While the public might be impressed by Nostradamus-like predictions, economists want figures and equations. Anirvan Banerji, economist with the New York-based Economic Cycle Research Institute, summed up the feeling of many of those at the IMF meeting when he delivered his response to Roubini’s talk.
Banerji questioned Roubini’s assumptions, said they were not based on mathematical models and dismissed his hunches as those of a Cassandra. At first, indeed, it seemed Roubini was wrong. Meltdown did not happen. Even by the end of 2007, the financial and economic outlook was grim but not disastrous.
Then, in February 2008, Roubini posted an entry on his blog headlined: “The rising risk of a systemic financial meltdown: the twelve steps to financial disaster”.
It detailed how the housing market collapse would lead to huge losses for the financial system, particularly in the vehicles used to securitise loans. It warned that “ a national bank” might go bust, and that, as trouble deepened, investment banks and hedge funds might collapse.
Even Roubini was taken aback at how quickly this scenario unfolded. The following month the US investment bank Bear Stearns went under. Since then, the pace and scale of the disaster has accelerated and, as Roubini predicted, the banking sector has been destroyed, Freddie and Fannie have collapsed, stock markets have gone mad and the economy has entered a frightening recession.
Roubini says he was able to predict the catastrophe so accurately because of his “holistic” approach to the crisis and his ability to work outside traditional economic disciplines. A long-time student of financial crises, he looked at the history and politics of past crises as well as the economic models.
“These crises don’t come out of nowhere,” he said. “Usually they arrive because of a systematic increase in a variety of asset and credit bubbles, macro-economic policies and other vulnerabilities. If you combine them, you may not get the timing right but you get an indication that you are closer to a tipping point.”
Others who claimed the economy would escape a recession had been swept up in “a critical euphoria and mania, an irrational exuberance”, he said. And many financial pundits, he believes, were just talking up their own vested interests. “I might be right or wrong, but I have never traded, bought or sold a single security in my life. I am trying to be as objective as I can.”
What does his objectivity tell him now? No end is yet in sight to the crisis.
“Every time there has been a severe crisis in the last six months, people have said this is the catastrophic event that signals the bottom. They said it after Bear Stearns, after Fannie and Freddie, after AIG [the giant US insurer that had to be rescued], and after [the $700 billion bailout plan]. Each time they have called the bottom, and the bottom has not been reached.”
Across the world, governments have taken more and more aggressive actions to stop the panic. However, Roubini believes investors appear to have lost confidence in governments’ ability to sort out the mess.
The announcement of the US government’s $700 billion bailout, Gordon Brown’s grand bank rescue plan and the coordinated response of governments around the world has done little to calm the situation. “It’s been a slaughter, day after day after day,” said Roubini. “Markets are dysfunctional; they are totally unhinged.” Economic fundamentals no longer apply, he believes.
“Even using the nuclear option of guaranteeing everything, providing unlimited liquidity, nationalising the banks, making clear that nobody of importance is going to be allowed to fail, even that has not helped. We are reaching a breaking point, frankly.”
He believes governments will have to come up with an even bigger international rescue, and that the US is facing “multi-year economic stagnation”.
Given such cataclysmic talk, some experts fear his new-found influence may be a bad thing in such troubled times. One senior Wall Street figure said: “He is clearly very bright and thoughtful when he is not shooting from the hip.”
He said he found some of Roubini’s comments “slapdash and silly”. “Sometimes the rigour of his analysis seems to be missing,” he said.
Banerji still has problems with Roubini’s prescient IMF speech. “He has been very accurate in terms of what would happen,” he said. But Roubini was predicting an “imminent” recession by the start of 2007 and he was wrong. “He hurt his credibility by being so pessimistic long before it was appropriate.”
Banerji said on average the US economy had grown for five years before hitting a bad patch. “Roubini started predicting a recession four years ago and saying it was imminent. He kept changing his justification: first the trade deficit, the current account deficit, then the oil price spike, then the housing downturn and so on. But the recession actually did not arrive,” he said.
“If you are an investor or a businessman and you took him seriously four years ago, what on earth would happen to you? You would be in a foetal position for years. This is why the timing is critical. It’s not enough to know what will happen in some point in the distant future.”
Roubini says the argument about content and timing is irrelevant. “People who have been totally blinded and wrong accusing me of getting the timing wrong, it’s just a joke,” he said. “It’s a bit pathetic, frankly. I was not making generic statements. I have made very specific predictions and I have been right all along.” Maybe so, but he does not sound too happy about it, frankly.
economic meltdown
The Sunday Times
Nouriel Roubini: I fear the worst is yet to come
When this man predicted a global financial crisis more than a year ago, people laughed. Not any more...
Dominic Rushe
As stock markets headed off a cliff again last week, closely followed by currencies, and as meltdown threatened entire countries such as Hungary and Iceland, one voice was in demand above all others to steer us through the gloom: that of Dr Doom.
For years Dr Doom toiled in relative obscurity as a New York University economics professor under his alias, Nouriel Roubini. But after making a series of uncannily accurate predictions about the global meltdown, Roubini has become the prophet of his age, jetting around the world dispensing his advice and latest prognostications to politicians and businessmen desperate to know what happens next – and for any answer to the crisis.
While the economic sun was shining, most other economists scoffed at Roubini and his predictions of imminent disaster. They dismissed his warnings that the sub-prime mortgage disaster would trigger a financial meltdown. They could not quite believe his view that the US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would collapse, and that the investment banks would be crushed as the world headed for a long recession.
Yet all these predictions and more came true. Few are laughing now.
What does Roubini think is going to happen next? Rather worryingly, in London last Thursday he predicted that hundreds of hedge funds will go bust and stock markets may soon have to shut – perhaps for as long as a week – in order to stem the panic selling now sweeping the world. What happened? The next day trading was briefly stopped in New York and Moscow.
Dubbed Dr Doom for his gloomy views, this lugubrious disciple of the “dismal science” is now the world’s most in-demand economist. He reckons he is getting about four hours’ sleep a night. Last week he was in Budapest, London, Madrid and New York. Next week he will address Congress in Washington. Do not expect any good news.
Contacted in Madrid on Friday, Roubini said the world economy was “at a breaking point”. He believes the stock markets are now “essentially in free fall” and “we are reaching the point of sheer panic”.
For all his recent predictive success, his critics still urge calm. They charge he is a professional doom-monger who was banging on about recession for years as the economy boomed. Roubini is stung by such charges, dismissing them as “pathetic”.
He takes no pleasure in bad news, he says, but he makes his standpoint clear: “Frankly I was right.” A combative, complex man, he is fond of the word “frankly”, which may be appropriate for someone so used to delivering bad news.
Born in Istanbul 49 years ago, he comes from a family of Iranian Jews. They moved to Tehran, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college, graduating summa cum laude in economics from Bocconi University before taking a PhD in international economics at Harvard.
Fluent in English, Italian, Hebrew, and Persian, Roubini has one of those “international man of mystery” accents: think Henry Kissinger without the bonhomie. Single, he lives in a loft in Manhattan’s trendy Tribeca, an area popularised by Robert De Niro, and collects contemporary art.
Despite his slightly mad-professor look, he is at pains to make clear he is normal. “I’m not a geek,” said Roubini, who sounds rather concerned that people might think he is. “I mean it frankly. I’m not a geek.”
He is, however, ferociously bright. When he left Harvard, he moved quickly, holding various positions at the Treasury department, rising to become an economic adviser to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Then his profile seemed to plateau. His doubts about the economic outlook seemed out of tune with the times, especially when a few years ago he began predicting a meltdown in the financial markets through his blog, hosted on RGEmonitor. com, the website of his advisory company.
But it was a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in September 2006 that earned him his nickname Dr Doom.
Roubini told an audience of fellow economists that a generational crisis was coming. A once-in-a-lifetime housing bust would lay waste to the US economy as oil prices soared, consumers stopped shopping and the country went into a deep recession.
The collapse of the mortgage market would trigger a global meltdown, as trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unravelled. The shockwaves would destroy banks and other big financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s largest home loan lenders.
“I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that,” the moderator said. Members of the audience laughed.
Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing. While the public might be impressed by Nostradamus-like predictions, economists want figures and equations. Anirvan Banerji, economist with the New York-based Economic Cycle Research Institute, summed up the feeling of many of those at the IMF meeting when he delivered his response to Roubini’s talk.
Banerji questioned Roubini’s assumptions, said they were not based on mathematical models and dismissed his hunches as those of a Cassandra. At first, indeed, it seemed Roubini was wrong. Meltdown did not happen. Even by the end of 2007, the financial and economic outlook was grim but not disastrous.
Then, in February 2008, Roubini posted an entry on his blog headlined: “The rising risk of a systemic financial meltdown: the twelve steps to financial disaster”.
It detailed how the housing market collapse would lead to huge losses for the financial system, particularly in the vehicles used to securitise loans. It warned that “ a national bank” might go bust, and that, as trouble deepened, investment banks and hedge funds might collapse.
Even Roubini was taken aback at how quickly this scenario unfolded. The following month the US investment bank Bear Stearns went under. Since then, the pace and scale of the disaster has accelerated and, as Roubini predicted, the banking sector has been destroyed, Freddie and Fannie have collapsed, stock markets have gone mad and the economy has entered a frightening recession.
Roubini says he was able to predict the catastrophe so accurately because of his “holistic” approach to the crisis and his ability to work outside traditional economic disciplines. A long-time student of financial crises, he looked at the history and politics of past crises as well as the economic models.
“These crises don’t come out of nowhere,” he said. “Usually they arrive because of a systematic increase in a variety of asset and credit bubbles, macro-economic policies and other vulnerabilities. If you combine them, you may not get the timing right but you get an indication that you are closer to a tipping point.”
Others who claimed the economy would escape a recession had been swept up in “a critical euphoria and mania, an irrational exuberance”, he said. And many financial pundits, he believes, were just talking up their own vested interests. “I might be right or wrong, but I have never traded, bought or sold a single security in my life. I am trying to be as objective as I can.”
What does his objectivity tell him now? No end is yet in sight to the crisis.
“Every time there has been a severe crisis in the last six months, people have said this is the catastrophic event that signals the bottom. They said it after Bear Stearns, after Fannie and Freddie, after AIG [the giant US insurer that had to be rescued], and after [the $700 billion bailout plan]. Each time they have called the bottom, and the bottom has not been reached.”
Across the world, governments have taken more and more aggressive actions to stop the panic. However, Roubini believes investors appear to have lost confidence in governments’ ability to sort out the mess.
The announcement of the US government’s $700 billion bailout, Gordon Brown’s grand bank rescue plan and the coordinated response of governments around the world has done little to calm the situation. “It’s been a slaughter, day after day after day,” said Roubini. “Markets are dysfunctional; they are totally unhinged.” Economic fundamentals no longer apply, he believes.
“Even using the nuclear option of guaranteeing everything, providing unlimited liquidity, nationalising the banks, making clear that nobody of importance is going to be allowed to fail, even that has not helped. We are reaching a breaking point, frankly.”
He believes governments will have to come up with an even bigger international rescue, and that the US is facing “multi-year economic stagnation”.
Given such cataclysmic talk, some experts fear his new-found influence may be a bad thing in such troubled times. One senior Wall Street figure said: “He is clearly very bright and thoughtful when he is not shooting from the hip.”
He said he found some of Roubini’s comments “slapdash and silly”. “Sometimes the rigour of his analysis seems to be missing,” he said.
Banerji still has problems with Roubini’s prescient IMF speech. “He has been very accurate in terms of what would happen,” he said. But Roubini was predicting an “imminent” recession by the start of 2007 and he was wrong. “He hurt his credibility by being so pessimistic long before it was appropriate.”
Banerji said on average the US economy had grown for five years before hitting a bad patch. “Roubini started predicting a recession four years ago and saying it was imminent. He kept changing his justification: first the trade deficit, the current account deficit, then the oil price spike, then the housing downturn and so on. But the recession actually did not arrive,” he said.
“If you are an investor or a businessman and you took him seriously four years ago, what on earth would happen to you? You would be in a foetal position for years. This is why the timing is critical. It’s not enough to know what will happen in some point in the distant future.”
Roubini says the argument about content and timing is irrelevant. “People who have been totally blinded and wrong accusing me of getting the timing wrong, it’s just a joke,” he said. “It’s a bit pathetic, frankly. I was not making generic statements. I have made very specific predictions and I have been right all along.” Maybe so, but he does not sound too happy about it, frankly.
economic meltdown
BBC: US Attack on Syria
What does it take to be a writer for the BBC?
Not much.
Requirement: A generally Eurocentric view of the world, and an anti-American view of the US.
Helpful: Belief in invisible creatures, jin, leprechauns, and fairies.
Desirable: A belief that whatever the US does, is questionable. That what others do, is almost always in response to the US doing or not doing something.
That everything bad that happens can be traced back to something the US has done, or failed to do.
The above seem to be the requirements to work for the BBC, Guardian, and other English papers.
Mr. Marcus - perhaps a few details to assist you in reconciling your fantasy world with reality:
1) Before the US launched any attack into Syria, both McCain and Obama were told. They are not asked for their permission, BUT they have it explained to them, and if they oppose the action, given all the information available - they may oppose it - afterward. As yet, Obama has not gone public with opposition. That Mr. Marcus should tell you volumes.
2) Yes, before the US launched any such action, the president is involved and must give his ok.
3) In the preceding 24 hours, it is almost certain that the US sent messages to Syria to do whatever it was the US wanted done - catch someone, stop someone, close the border, and Syria refused. They were warned at least 24 hours in advance.
4) The action was done to safeguard advances in Iraq - not in the US. Iranian weapons and supplies come across borders - insurgents, al qaida and otherwise, cross from Syria into Iraq. Iraq has a right to do what is needed to protect its borders and Iraq requested the US take whatever action was required (as we will find out soon enough).
5) Blowing up 8 people in Syria will not gain McCain any points you shirtlifter. Imagine how scared everyone will be of 8 men blown up on their way into Iraq. I can see the world tremble. It will hardly register unless those 8 men are more than simply terrorists or insurgents moving across borders.
And no, the timing is NOT curious - just in your mind, and the minds of little people who do not understand how events transpire in the real world.
***************************************
What could lie behind Syria raid?
By Jonathan Marcus Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News
Syria has said American troops carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people - if the claims are true then this will be the first military incursion by the US into Syrian territory from Iraq.
But its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus.
Whatever the local military factors involved in this US operation, it would be unthinkable to imagine that an incursion into Syria would not require a policy decision at a high-level.
The movement of insurgents and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq has long been a bone of contention between Damascus and Washington.
The US argument has always been that the Syrians are not doing enough to control the border.
The Syrians have always countered that they are unfairly being blamed for turmoil inside Iraq that is not of their making.
Quite apart from their differences over Iraq, Washington sees Syria as unhelpful in Lebanon and as far too friendly with Iran.
While there have been relatively high-level contacts between the two governments - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meeting the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly just a few weeks ago - they have hardly generated any warmth.
Washington has even been lukewarm to Turkey's efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria.
All of this is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.
With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.
But despite glimmerings of dissent from the State Department, the Bush administration has held firm to its policy of no substantive talks with Syria unless - as the Americans put it - Damascus decides to take a more "positive role" in the region.
With the Bush administration on the way out, this US military incursion may represent something of a parting shot against the Syrians.
It's clear that if Senator Barrack Obama were to win the White House, his key advisers are among the strongest advocates of engaging with the Damascus across a broad spectrum of issues.
Obama
Syria
Not much.
Requirement: A generally Eurocentric view of the world, and an anti-American view of the US.
Helpful: Belief in invisible creatures, jin, leprechauns, and fairies.
Desirable: A belief that whatever the US does, is questionable. That what others do, is almost always in response to the US doing or not doing something.
That everything bad that happens can be traced back to something the US has done, or failed to do.
The above seem to be the requirements to work for the BBC, Guardian, and other English papers.
Mr. Marcus - perhaps a few details to assist you in reconciling your fantasy world with reality:
1) Before the US launched any attack into Syria, both McCain and Obama were told. They are not asked for their permission, BUT they have it explained to them, and if they oppose the action, given all the information available - they may oppose it - afterward. As yet, Obama has not gone public with opposition. That Mr. Marcus should tell you volumes.
2) Yes, before the US launched any such action, the president is involved and must give his ok.
3) In the preceding 24 hours, it is almost certain that the US sent messages to Syria to do whatever it was the US wanted done - catch someone, stop someone, close the border, and Syria refused. They were warned at least 24 hours in advance.
4) The action was done to safeguard advances in Iraq - not in the US. Iranian weapons and supplies come across borders - insurgents, al qaida and otherwise, cross from Syria into Iraq. Iraq has a right to do what is needed to protect its borders and Iraq requested the US take whatever action was required (as we will find out soon enough).
5) Blowing up 8 people in Syria will not gain McCain any points you shirtlifter. Imagine how scared everyone will be of 8 men blown up on their way into Iraq. I can see the world tremble. It will hardly register unless those 8 men are more than simply terrorists or insurgents moving across borders.
And no, the timing is NOT curious - just in your mind, and the minds of little people who do not understand how events transpire in the real world.
***************************************
What could lie behind Syria raid?
By Jonathan Marcus Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News
Syria has said American troops carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people - if the claims are true then this will be the first military incursion by the US into Syrian territory from Iraq.
But its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus.
Whatever the local military factors involved in this US operation, it would be unthinkable to imagine that an incursion into Syria would not require a policy decision at a high-level.
The movement of insurgents and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq has long been a bone of contention between Damascus and Washington.
The US argument has always been that the Syrians are not doing enough to control the border.
The Syrians have always countered that they are unfairly being blamed for turmoil inside Iraq that is not of their making.
Quite apart from their differences over Iraq, Washington sees Syria as unhelpful in Lebanon and as far too friendly with Iran.
While there have been relatively high-level contacts between the two governments - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meeting the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly just a few weeks ago - they have hardly generated any warmth.
Washington has even been lukewarm to Turkey's efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria.
All of this is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.
With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.
But despite glimmerings of dissent from the State Department, the Bush administration has held firm to its policy of no substantive talks with Syria unless - as the Americans put it - Damascus decides to take a more "positive role" in the region.
With the Bush administration on the way out, this US military incursion may represent something of a parting shot against the Syrians.
It's clear that if Senator Barrack Obama were to win the White House, his key advisers are among the strongest advocates of engaging with the Damascus across a broad spectrum of issues.
Obama
Syria
Gut the Military - leave America Defenseless
Obama has stated publicly, many times - he wants to cut 'wasteful' spending in the military on 'unproven' programs.
Wasteful - Subjective term that can mean - anything you want it to.
Unproven - Very subjective term that can encompass any program or set of programs.
******************
Obama has stated, again, very clearly, that he believes the US should work with our allies, work with the UN, not go it alone.
Any nation that works in conjunction with its allies does not need the largest military on earth. Just doesn't.
******************
Barney Frank - the people's choice for most hypocritical - responsible, or one of the responsible parties of the economic mortgage meltdown ... wants a 25% cut in the military.
Mr. Frank is one of the most senior members of Congress (that esteemed institution with 12% approval rating) and he does not speak for himself - he is representative of a faction of Congress.
*****************
John F. Kerry - Reporting for Duty - wants a 2nd New deal ... hundreds of billions to make this program go forward ... and the money will come from where.
****************
Among anarchists and revolutionaries, Marxists - the following would well be within their worldview - that the US acts many times if not all, without justification, arrogantly, abruptly, without respect for others, and possessing a military that acts in a criminal manner most of the time.
****************
Among intellectuals at our major universities - the US military does less good than it does harm. In the few cases where we do good, there are far more cases where we do greater harm than good, and possessing the largest military is in itself uncalled for, a sign of arrogance and belligerence, and wasteful spending. We intimidate and abuse other countries, we are too large for our own good. No enlightened democracy has a military as large as we do and no European nation has a military equal - therefore, it is entirely unnecessary to have such a large force.
**********************************
Individually, each of these forces within our political or academic system do not warrant undue concern, but when one of their own is on the verge of winning (Obama) the gutting of the military would occur - in my mind, there is no question as to whether or not it would occur. It will and unlike the efforts in the Clinton administration - this time Congress will be controlled by the Democrats and they will not be open to debating cuts or changes. Having control of all three branches (like Clinton until 94) does not in itself warrant undue fear for Clinton may have cut the military, but he didn't gut it as I suggest they will after January 2009 - the reason is I believe clear - the Democrats did not hold a large margin in Congress; we were not eight years into a war the Democrats hated from the start; we did not have perilous economic conditions.
For the above reasons, and the fact Obama is the furthest left candidate for president we have had since McGovern, and perhaps more left of McGovern given Obama's stated interest in Marxism (even if it was within an academic setting) - the gutting of the military would occur.
That is not to say we would not use the military - to ferry people around, to clean up trash, to help people collect food, rebuild dams ... the arts of behavior the left believe the military should be doing. Rather, our national security would, with each cut, be compromised - our future - not this year and not next year, but our future position in the world would be in question.
Electing Obama is the most unwise decision any person could make.
That does not mean we should be thrilled with Jovial McCain, but we are not electing someone to do a dance routine or talk about change. We are electing someone to protect us.
As much as Americans believe the president is responsible for economic issues, he is one player and as such should not be held any more responsible than the other players. Congress holds the purse strings and for two years, Congress has been controlled by the Democrats.
I understand the desire to immediately flip back and say the Congress hasn't produced the budgets it has - the president did. But if you look at the budget the president proposed versus the budget that came out of Congress you will notice something - tens of billions added. Over several years the amounts added to the budgets and supplemental budget requests is hundreds of billions in added projects. None of that was the president. Fanny and Freddy - had the Democratic Congress not prevented oversight on entities that were in large part pushed forward to get underprivileged people into homes, covered by the federal government - we would not have had the mortgage meltdown that took our stock market and dropped it into the abyss along with world markets. That was IN LARGE PART what begin the economic issues, compounded by a cyclical economic downturn now becomes a near cataclysmic event.
So why blame it on Republicans when the Democrats have held Congress for two years. Why would any sane and reasonable person, concerned about the world consider giving our future security to someone that has stated he will slash the military, to a party that is desirous of ensuring our military never again is in the position of unilaterally invading anything bigger than Grenada.
For the Retardican party to have selected candidates that cannot do any better than a 2 year Senator with no experience doing anything of any importance - you should pray your two candidates win, for if they do not, you will find yourself wandering in the desert for forty years during which time our security, our nation, our sovereignty will be in question and your whining will not stop it. You will be partly responsible for every life lost while the Democrats have control. You will be responsible for every program they create that cannot be undone, you will be responsible.
Electing Obama and the Democrats is the wrong course. It is the wrong direction and its effects on the US will be disastrous.
Obama
election
Oil and Gas
Expliquer s'il vous plait:
Oil was at $147 a barrel. Gas was at $4.50 a gallon.
Oil has dropped to $65 a barrel. More than 50% drop. Price of gas is $3.05
OPEC cut 1.5 million barrels a day. Miles driven by US drivers has dropped more than at any time in over 60 years. That drop will more than compensate for the cut in oil along with worldwide driving down.
The world continues to spiral into a recession - from Pakistan begging for money to Iceland to Germany and Russia, Venezuela with no electricity to Iran having one of the highest unemployment rates outside of Gaza.
And OPEC has decided it will be good to cut oil and further deepen the world wide recession.
And gas prices, we are told, have hit the bottom (within a few cents).
That makes perfect sense - in some alternate dimension.
Several years ago when oil was selling for $55 a barrel, the industry and OPEC were ecstatic. Now, when it sits at $65, they are running for the pump turn off switches.
I can only imagine - several refineries will shut down or otherwise break down in the next month or two, a hurricane will shut a couple more down, suddenly someone will realize their numbers were off and demand is higher and we will see gas back at $4 a gallon.
NONE of that makes sense. What we should see is a 15-20% increase from gas prices when oil was $55 a barrel. That is what we should see.
Expliquer s'il vous plait, parce que je n'a pas de cerveau. Merci.
french
oile
Oil was at $147 a barrel. Gas was at $4.50 a gallon.
Oil has dropped to $65 a barrel. More than 50% drop. Price of gas is $3.05
OPEC cut 1.5 million barrels a day. Miles driven by US drivers has dropped more than at any time in over 60 years. That drop will more than compensate for the cut in oil along with worldwide driving down.
The world continues to spiral into a recession - from Pakistan begging for money to Iceland to Germany and Russia, Venezuela with no electricity to Iran having one of the highest unemployment rates outside of Gaza.
And OPEC has decided it will be good to cut oil and further deepen the world wide recession.
And gas prices, we are told, have hit the bottom (within a few cents).
That makes perfect sense - in some alternate dimension.
Several years ago when oil was selling for $55 a barrel, the industry and OPEC were ecstatic. Now, when it sits at $65, they are running for the pump turn off switches.
I can only imagine - several refineries will shut down or otherwise break down in the next month or two, a hurricane will shut a couple more down, suddenly someone will realize their numbers were off and demand is higher and we will see gas back at $4 a gallon.
NONE of that makes sense. What we should see is a 15-20% increase from gas prices when oil was $55 a barrel. That is what we should see.
Expliquer s'il vous plait, parce que je n'a pas de cerveau. Merci.
french
oile
Saturday, October 25, 2008
See Dick, See Jane - Poke Your Eye Out.
Kenya readies for Obama tourist boom
By Parselelo Kantai in Nairobi
Published: October 24 2008 19:33 Last updated: October 24 2008 19:33
Hollywood has its star tours, Boston the Freedom Trail. Now Kenya is busy planning a new addition to the world’s tourist treks – the Obama experience.
Ten days away from the US presidential election, tour operators in the east African nation are positioning themselves for an Obama boom.
Kogelo, the remote village home of Barack Obama’s grandmother, Sarah, is nowhere near Kenya’s safari circuit. But the three hotels in the nearby city of Kisumu are booked solid for the week of the US elections, as visitors make a pilgrimage to the region where Mr Obama’s father was born and buried.
***********************************
Amazing.
Why not go on a pilgrimage to see where Dick and Jane fell down the hill. Maybe go find the mythical home of the Umbaya. Go hunting for Tarzan's home.
What absolute morons. They deserve to lose every penny they have.
Fools and idiots
By Parselelo Kantai in Nairobi
Published: October 24 2008 19:33 Last updated: October 24 2008 19:33
Hollywood has its star tours, Boston the Freedom Trail. Now Kenya is busy planning a new addition to the world’s tourist treks – the Obama experience.
Ten days away from the US presidential election, tour operators in the east African nation are positioning themselves for an Obama boom.
Kogelo, the remote village home of Barack Obama’s grandmother, Sarah, is nowhere near Kenya’s safari circuit. But the three hotels in the nearby city of Kisumu are booked solid for the week of the US elections, as visitors make a pilgrimage to the region where Mr Obama’s father was born and buried.
***********************************
Amazing.
Why not go on a pilgrimage to see where Dick and Jane fell down the hill. Maybe go find the mythical home of the Umbaya. Go hunting for Tarzan's home.
What absolute morons. They deserve to lose every penny they have.
Fools and idiots
Islam and Rome - Build me a Mosque
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=194033
Italy, Rome - the heart of the Roman Catholic faith ... but now, with 1 million Muslims in Rome (listen to the video and decide if the listener could come away believing there are that many Muslims in Rome, not just around Rome and in Italy) ... should they not get a new mosque, are they not entitled to a new mosque - out of respect, to help integrate the Muslim population ...
After all, violance is being committed by non-Muslims upon Muslims, who are just trying to live their lives and be good citizens.
There was a statement made by an Imam or cleric of some title - that one day Rome would be a Muslim city.
I have a proposal - for every NEW church (that is, in addition to any that currently exist) built in Iran and Saudi Arabia - we will build 10 mosques anywhere they would like!
Italy, Rome - the heart of the Roman Catholic faith ... but now, with 1 million Muslims in Rome (listen to the video and decide if the listener could come away believing there are that many Muslims in Rome, not just around Rome and in Italy) ... should they not get a new mosque, are they not entitled to a new mosque - out of respect, to help integrate the Muslim population ...
After all, violance is being committed by non-Muslims upon Muslims, who are just trying to live their lives and be good citizens.
There was a statement made by an Imam or cleric of some title - that one day Rome would be a Muslim city.
I have a proposal - for every NEW church (that is, in addition to any that currently exist) built in Iran and Saudi Arabia - we will build 10 mosques anywhere they would like!
Stuff the Ballot Box - Unless you get caught
BAM STAFFERS PULL THEIR BOGUS OHIO BALLOTS
By JEANE MACINSTOSH
Posted: 4:28 amOctober 25, 2008
Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state.
A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.
The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.
Earlier in the week, O'Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.
Also pulling his ballot yesterday was Hofstra University grad Jake Smith, an Obama volunteer who had voted in Knox County, Ohio.
On Thursday, O'Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn't meet residency requirements.
Obama
elections
By JEANE MACINSTOSH
Posted: 4:28 amOctober 25, 2008
Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state.
A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.
The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.
Earlier in the week, O'Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.
Also pulling his ballot yesterday was Hofstra University grad Jake Smith, an Obama volunteer who had voted in Knox County, Ohio.
On Thursday, O'Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn't meet residency requirements.
Obama
elections
Cut the Military! Cut the Military! Cut the Military! - Obama Barney chant
The 3rd video below, of Obama and his statement on cutting the military.
Some people seem to believe all the promises and assurances that he would cut the military are just election promises.
Ok.
The Clinton administration cut the US military by, between 25-40% (depending upon area of the service), and now Barney wants another 25% cut - to ensure that the US will lose its position in the world. We have watched enough evil happen without getting involved - what reasonable person would want to allow greater evil to occur and the US be unable to intervene because our 'allies' do not agree.
Serbia/Bosnia - the US waited for our 'allies' to act - THEY REFUSED. We had to get involved before they would. If the US was unable to act militarily, unilaterally, who would ever want to join a loser? Would the Europeans have been forced to act if the US never intervened? I doubt it very much.
The US must be able to act unilaterally anywhere and anytime - but that concept does not fit with the liberal orthodoxy on the subject of the military and its purpose.
We must not allow Obama and Frank to dictate these terms.
Barney Frank
Some people seem to believe all the promises and assurances that he would cut the military are just election promises.
Ok.
NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second
economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The Clinton administration cut the US military by, between 25-40% (depending upon area of the service), and now Barney wants another 25% cut - to ensure that the US will lose its position in the world. We have watched enough evil happen without getting involved - what reasonable person would want to allow greater evil to occur and the US be unable to intervene because our 'allies' do not agree.
Serbia/Bosnia - the US waited for our 'allies' to act - THEY REFUSED. We had to get involved before they would. If the US was unable to act militarily, unilaterally, who would ever want to join a loser? Would the Europeans have been forced to act if the US never intervened? I doubt it very much.
The US must be able to act unilaterally anywhere and anytime - but that concept does not fit with the liberal orthodoxy on the subject of the military and its purpose.
We must not allow Obama and Frank to dictate these terms.
Barney Frank
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Issues
Last update - 12:05 22/10/2008
Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy. Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.
Advertisement
Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government. An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor. Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program. Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone. He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action. Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized. Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic. Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda. Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race. Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.
*******************************
US intelligence: Iran will be able to build first nuclear bomb by February 2009
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
October 21, 2008, 1:06 PM (GMT+02:00)
US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.
The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”
McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”)
DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb.
US intelligence believes Tehran has the personnel, plans and diagrams for a bomb and has been running experiments to this end for the past two years. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last week asked Tehran to clarify recent complex experiments they conducted in detonating nuclear materials for a weapon, but received no answer.
The same US evaluation adds that the Iranian leadership is holding off its go-ahead to start building the bomb until the last minute so as to ward off international pressure to stop at the red line.
This development together with the galloping global economic crisis will force the incoming US president to go straight into decision-making without pause on Day One in the Oval Office. He will have to determine which urgent measures can serve best for keeping a nuclear bomb out of the Islamic republic’s hands - diplomatic or military – and how to proceed if those measures fail.
His knowledge of the challenge colored Sen. Biden’s additional words in Seattle: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
Israel’s political and military leaders also face a tough dilemma that can no longer be put off of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear installations militarily in the next three months between US presidencies before the last window closes, or take a chance on coordination with the next president.
Waiting for the “international community” to do the job of stopping Iran, as urged by governments headed by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert - and strongly advocated Tzipi Livni, foreign minister and would-be prime minister - has been a washout. Iran stands defiantly on the threshold of a nuclear weapon.
*****************************
Arab Websites report Mossad chief assassinated in Amman. Israeli sources deny
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 21, 2008, 12:34 PM (GMT+02:00)
Meir Dagan, Mossad director
DEBKAfile reports that Arab Internet sites, most of them Jordanian, claim that 10 days ago on Oct. 12, Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, was targeted by assassins while visiting Amman. Some describe a large bomb explosion alongside his convoy and add that Israeli and Jordanian guards with the convoy were injured. Others say Dagan himself was hurt or even killed in the attack. They claim Israel and Jordan are keeping the incident a secret.
DEBKAfile’s sources have no knowledge of any visit by Meir Dagan to the Jordanian capital.
Jordanian officials are trying hard to dismiss the incident. Without going on record, they maintain Dagan paid no recent visits to their capital and was not attacked. This has not been enough to dispel the rumors, according to one of which a hit-man or team linked to Hizballah or Iran managed to avenge the death of Hizballah military chief Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus last February.
The Arab world sees Dagan as master of the hidden Israeli hand which reached into Syria to target Mugniyeh and destroyed Syria’s plutonium reactor in September 2007.
According to another theory, Damascus is working the rumor mill to offset the unfavorable impression generated in the Arab world by its military concentrations on Lebanon’s borders.
Meir Dagan would need to make an appearance in person to dispel the rumors.
The movements of intelligence chiefs who travel in constant fear of their lives, especially in the Middle East, are strictly shrouded in secrecy.
Whether the US CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, for instance, actually went through with a planned visit to Beirut on Oct. 16, has never been disclosed.
DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources confirm that he was indeed there. The visit was important to make sure that the new head of Lebanese military intelligence, Gen. Edmund Fadal, who traveled to Damascus directly after his appointment to meet his Syrian counterpart, Gen. Asif Shawqat, was not caught in the Syrian net. The service he heads is the staunchest pro-Western military outfit in Lebanon.
*******************************
Olmert remains in place??
The guy who restrained Israel against Hizbollah last time???
Tzipi Livni loses momentum for forming a government
October 22, 2008, 12:24 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tzipi Livni is running out of time
Foreign minister Tzipi Livni is running out of time for forming a viable coalition government. Ehud Olmert will therefore deliver the opening speech of the Knesset winter session next Tuesday as caretaker prime minister followed by opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, Likud.
After failing to pull together a majority line-up in 28 days of hard bargaining, the Kadima leader has two weeks ending on Nov. 3 to finish the task, although when first entrusted with the task she pledged she would go for a new election if she failed to pull it off in the first ten days.
So far, only Labor has initialed a deal, but its leader, defense minister Ehud Barak, has said it is not final. Labor and other potential partners, the ultra-religious Shas and Pensioners, are holding out for substantial extra allocations for large families, senior citizens and healthcare, before signing on. Finance minister Ronnie Bar-On, Livni’s mainstay in their Kadima party, is standing firm against reopening the budget which the Knesset must endorse by year’s end.
On the horns of this dilemma, Livni must also juggle the budding opposition in her own party to a minority government, which is all she may be able to scrape together in the time left her. The dissident movement is spearheaded by transport minister Shaul Mofaz, the candidate she defeated for the Kadima party leadership. He is conducting an independent line of negotiations with possible coalition partners.
The foreign minister’s failure would leave two options: The president may entrust the task of forming a government to another lawmaker with credible support, or an early election may be called, to take place most probably in the first quarter or 2009.
The Olmert government would remain in place as caretaker until a new government is formed.
***********************************
Russians, Syrians discuss missile shield – initially for Tartus port
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
October 18, 2008
Russian Iskander-E missile
The Russian-Syrian discussions in progress in both their capitals cover the disposition of air defense S-300PMU-2 and Iskander-E missiles – to be deployed initially around Syria’s Mediterranean ports where Moscow is building naval bases.
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources reveal that these two high-powered items have not been excluded from the big Russian-Syrian arms deal under discussion, despite appeals from Washington and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who made a special trip to Moscow for this purpose earlier this month.
As soon as he flew home, the foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow maintained ambiguously on Oct. 9 that Russia would not supply air defense systems to “volatile regions.” He said such decisions are based on regional security issues and “the need to maintain a balance of forces” in the region.
This was taken to mean that if weapons delivered to Israel were seen by Moscow as upsetting “the balance of forces,” Moscow would think again about withholding the S-300 and Iskander-E missiles.
Our Moscow sources disclose that the Russians now view the supply of the advanced American FBX-T anti-missile radar system to Israel in September and its deployment in the Negev base of Nevatim as a balance-breaker.
In the broader context of its contest with Washington, the Kremlin regards the US radar system installed in the Negev to be an integral part of the US missile shield deployed in the face of Russian protests in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow has already indicated it may hit back by moving nuclear-armed Iskander-E missiles to the Baltic opposite the US batteries deployed in East Europe.
Positioning missile systems at Syrian ports would be part of Russia’s overall military payback for the array of US missile and radar installations in Europe and the Middle East.
Therefore, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, the Kremlin may decide against handing the missiles to the Syrian army but prefer to install them to guard the Mediterranean naval bases Russians are building at the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia.
Another option would be to outfit the Russian warships to be anchored in Syria ports with S-300 missiles, which are already part of the weapons array of the Peter the Great missile cruiser, which carried out maneuvers in the Mediterranean last week.
In either case, Russian fingers would be on the controls of these batteries in the early stages of delivery.
At the same time, the big Russian arms deal in negotiation would substantially boost and upgrade Damascus’ war armory with some pretty impressive hardware, all paid for by Tehran:
1. Mig-29 M2 fighter-bombers
2. Mig-31 fighter-bombers.
3. Su-30 Flanker bombers.
4. Mobile Tor-M1 air defense missiles, like the ones sold to Iran. Iran and Syria are obviously integrating their air and missile defense systems with Russian hardware, further facilitating Moscow’s military expansion in the Middle East.
5. Pantsir-C air defense missiles.
6. Extensive Russian upgrades of Syria’s antiquated T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks.
7. Upgrades of Syrian SA-5 Gammon, S-125 and Pechora-2A missiles.
8. Advanced ATM anti-tank missiles.
Last year, too, Iran forked out for Syria’s Russian arms acquisitions.
While some Israeli leaders, including president Shimon Peres, predicted that falling oil prices would inhibit the two radical allies’ arms shopping plans, our military sources note this paradox: Iran has scarcely been affected by the international financial crisis because international sanctions have long isolated its financial system from international banking and taught the Islamic republic to live with an economy on the ropes.
******************************************************
Tehran wants Barack Obama in the White House, rules out war
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 23, 2008, 8:32 AM (GMT+02:00)
Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani
During a visit to Bahrain, Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday, Oct. 22, that Tehran would prefer Democratic senator Barack Obama in the White House next year. He also ruled out any US attack on his country. “The risk was low before, but now I am 100 percent certain that the United States will not unleash a war against Iran,” he said at a new conference in Manama.
“We lean more in favor of Obama,”, “because he is more flexible and rational, even through we know American policy will not change that much.”
*******************************************
Bush to Assad: Sever Ties with Iran and Take the Golan Heights
18 Tishrei 5769, 17 October 08 11:49 by Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) U.S. President George W. Bush offered Syrian President Bashar Assad a secret deal to pull Israel out of the Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus breaking off ties with Tehran, according to a report published Friday in the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida.
A Palestinian Authority (PA) source quoted in the report said Bush reportedly proposed "a quick and satisfactory solution" to Syria's dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights. The "solution" was to be finalized "within several weeks, before the U.S. presidential elections, in order to push the Middle East peace process, an achievement the president will be able to proudly present before leaving the White House in January," according to Cairo-based journalist Abdel-Wahab Al-Nasser.
The offer allegedly came in a letter sent via PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who arrived in Damascus for meetings with Assad and other Syrian officials beginning last Saturday.
Abbas's visit was billed at the time as an attempt by Abbas to shore up his political position within the PA due to the fact that his current term in office ends on January 9, 2009, and as part of his effort to reconcile his Fatah faction with the rival Hamas terrorist organization that took over complete control of Gaza in June 2007.
According to the PA source, the real purpose of Abbas's visit, however, was to deliver the secret letter, the knowledge of which was kept secret from the American Ambassador in Damascus and the members of Abbas's entourage. It was delivered personally by Abbas to Assad, said the source, who added that "the United States stressed the importance of this confidential letter outside the usual official channels."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman David Baker said in response to a call from Israel National News, "We have nothing to comment regarding that report."
************************************
Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy. Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.
Advertisement
Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government. An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor. Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program. Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone. He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action. Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized. Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic. Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda. Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race. Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.
*******************************
US intelligence: Iran will be able to build first nuclear bomb by February 2009
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
October 21, 2008, 1:06 PM (GMT+02:00)
US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.
The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”
McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”)
DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb.
US intelligence believes Tehran has the personnel, plans and diagrams for a bomb and has been running experiments to this end for the past two years. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last week asked Tehran to clarify recent complex experiments they conducted in detonating nuclear materials for a weapon, but received no answer.
The same US evaluation adds that the Iranian leadership is holding off its go-ahead to start building the bomb until the last minute so as to ward off international pressure to stop at the red line.
This development together with the galloping global economic crisis will force the incoming US president to go straight into decision-making without pause on Day One in the Oval Office. He will have to determine which urgent measures can serve best for keeping a nuclear bomb out of the Islamic republic’s hands - diplomatic or military – and how to proceed if those measures fail.
His knowledge of the challenge colored Sen. Biden’s additional words in Seattle: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
Israel’s political and military leaders also face a tough dilemma that can no longer be put off of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear installations militarily in the next three months between US presidencies before the last window closes, or take a chance on coordination with the next president.
Waiting for the “international community” to do the job of stopping Iran, as urged by governments headed by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert - and strongly advocated Tzipi Livni, foreign minister and would-be prime minister - has been a washout. Iran stands defiantly on the threshold of a nuclear weapon.
*****************************
Arab Websites report Mossad chief assassinated in Amman. Israeli sources deny
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 21, 2008, 12:34 PM (GMT+02:00)
Meir Dagan, Mossad director
DEBKAfile reports that Arab Internet sites, most of them Jordanian, claim that 10 days ago on Oct. 12, Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, was targeted by assassins while visiting Amman. Some describe a large bomb explosion alongside his convoy and add that Israeli and Jordanian guards with the convoy were injured. Others say Dagan himself was hurt or even killed in the attack. They claim Israel and Jordan are keeping the incident a secret.
DEBKAfile’s sources have no knowledge of any visit by Meir Dagan to the Jordanian capital.
Jordanian officials are trying hard to dismiss the incident. Without going on record, they maintain Dagan paid no recent visits to their capital and was not attacked. This has not been enough to dispel the rumors, according to one of which a hit-man or team linked to Hizballah or Iran managed to avenge the death of Hizballah military chief Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus last February.
The Arab world sees Dagan as master of the hidden Israeli hand which reached into Syria to target Mugniyeh and destroyed Syria’s plutonium reactor in September 2007.
According to another theory, Damascus is working the rumor mill to offset the unfavorable impression generated in the Arab world by its military concentrations on Lebanon’s borders.
Meir Dagan would need to make an appearance in person to dispel the rumors.
The movements of intelligence chiefs who travel in constant fear of their lives, especially in the Middle East, are strictly shrouded in secrecy.
Whether the US CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, for instance, actually went through with a planned visit to Beirut on Oct. 16, has never been disclosed.
DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources confirm that he was indeed there. The visit was important to make sure that the new head of Lebanese military intelligence, Gen. Edmund Fadal, who traveled to Damascus directly after his appointment to meet his Syrian counterpart, Gen. Asif Shawqat, was not caught in the Syrian net. The service he heads is the staunchest pro-Western military outfit in Lebanon.
*******************************
Olmert remains in place??
The guy who restrained Israel against Hizbollah last time???
Tzipi Livni loses momentum for forming a government
October 22, 2008, 12:24 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tzipi Livni is running out of time
Foreign minister Tzipi Livni is running out of time for forming a viable coalition government. Ehud Olmert will therefore deliver the opening speech of the Knesset winter session next Tuesday as caretaker prime minister followed by opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, Likud.
After failing to pull together a majority line-up in 28 days of hard bargaining, the Kadima leader has two weeks ending on Nov. 3 to finish the task, although when first entrusted with the task she pledged she would go for a new election if she failed to pull it off in the first ten days.
So far, only Labor has initialed a deal, but its leader, defense minister Ehud Barak, has said it is not final. Labor and other potential partners, the ultra-religious Shas and Pensioners, are holding out for substantial extra allocations for large families, senior citizens and healthcare, before signing on. Finance minister Ronnie Bar-On, Livni’s mainstay in their Kadima party, is standing firm against reopening the budget which the Knesset must endorse by year’s end.
On the horns of this dilemma, Livni must also juggle the budding opposition in her own party to a minority government, which is all she may be able to scrape together in the time left her. The dissident movement is spearheaded by transport minister Shaul Mofaz, the candidate she defeated for the Kadima party leadership. He is conducting an independent line of negotiations with possible coalition partners.
The foreign minister’s failure would leave two options: The president may entrust the task of forming a government to another lawmaker with credible support, or an early election may be called, to take place most probably in the first quarter or 2009.
The Olmert government would remain in place as caretaker until a new government is formed.
***********************************
Russians, Syrians discuss missile shield – initially for Tartus port
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
October 18, 2008
Russian Iskander-E missile
The Russian-Syrian discussions in progress in both their capitals cover the disposition of air defense S-300PMU-2 and Iskander-E missiles – to be deployed initially around Syria’s Mediterranean ports where Moscow is building naval bases.
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources reveal that these two high-powered items have not been excluded from the big Russian-Syrian arms deal under discussion, despite appeals from Washington and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who made a special trip to Moscow for this purpose earlier this month.
As soon as he flew home, the foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow maintained ambiguously on Oct. 9 that Russia would not supply air defense systems to “volatile regions.” He said such decisions are based on regional security issues and “the need to maintain a balance of forces” in the region.
This was taken to mean that if weapons delivered to Israel were seen by Moscow as upsetting “the balance of forces,” Moscow would think again about withholding the S-300 and Iskander-E missiles.
Our Moscow sources disclose that the Russians now view the supply of the advanced American FBX-T anti-missile radar system to Israel in September and its deployment in the Negev base of Nevatim as a balance-breaker.
In the broader context of its contest with Washington, the Kremlin regards the US radar system installed in the Negev to be an integral part of the US missile shield deployed in the face of Russian protests in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow has already indicated it may hit back by moving nuclear-armed Iskander-E missiles to the Baltic opposite the US batteries deployed in East Europe.
Positioning missile systems at Syrian ports would be part of Russia’s overall military payback for the array of US missile and radar installations in Europe and the Middle East.
Therefore, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, the Kremlin may decide against handing the missiles to the Syrian army but prefer to install them to guard the Mediterranean naval bases Russians are building at the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia.
Another option would be to outfit the Russian warships to be anchored in Syria ports with S-300 missiles, which are already part of the weapons array of the Peter the Great missile cruiser, which carried out maneuvers in the Mediterranean last week.
In either case, Russian fingers would be on the controls of these batteries in the early stages of delivery.
At the same time, the big Russian arms deal in negotiation would substantially boost and upgrade Damascus’ war armory with some pretty impressive hardware, all paid for by Tehran:
1. Mig-29 M2 fighter-bombers
2. Mig-31 fighter-bombers.
3. Su-30 Flanker bombers.
4. Mobile Tor-M1 air defense missiles, like the ones sold to Iran. Iran and Syria are obviously integrating their air and missile defense systems with Russian hardware, further facilitating Moscow’s military expansion in the Middle East.
5. Pantsir-C air defense missiles.
6. Extensive Russian upgrades of Syria’s antiquated T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks.
7. Upgrades of Syrian SA-5 Gammon, S-125 and Pechora-2A missiles.
8. Advanced ATM anti-tank missiles.
Last year, too, Iran forked out for Syria’s Russian arms acquisitions.
While some Israeli leaders, including president Shimon Peres, predicted that falling oil prices would inhibit the two radical allies’ arms shopping plans, our military sources note this paradox: Iran has scarcely been affected by the international financial crisis because international sanctions have long isolated its financial system from international banking and taught the Islamic republic to live with an economy on the ropes.
******************************************************
Tehran wants Barack Obama in the White House, rules out war
DEBKAfile Special Report
October 23, 2008, 8:32 AM (GMT+02:00)
Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani
During a visit to Bahrain, Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday, Oct. 22, that Tehran would prefer Democratic senator Barack Obama in the White House next year. He also ruled out any US attack on his country. “The risk was low before, but now I am 100 percent certain that the United States will not unleash a war against Iran,” he said at a new conference in Manama.
“We lean more in favor of Obama,”, “because he is more flexible and rational, even through we know American policy will not change that much.”
*******************************************
Bush to Assad: Sever Ties with Iran and Take the Golan Heights
18 Tishrei 5769, 17 October 08 11:49 by Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) U.S. President George W. Bush offered Syrian President Bashar Assad a secret deal to pull Israel out of the Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus breaking off ties with Tehran, according to a report published Friday in the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida.
A Palestinian Authority (PA) source quoted in the report said Bush reportedly proposed "a quick and satisfactory solution" to Syria's dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights. The "solution" was to be finalized "within several weeks, before the U.S. presidential elections, in order to push the Middle East peace process, an achievement the president will be able to proudly present before leaving the White House in January," according to Cairo-based journalist Abdel-Wahab Al-Nasser.
The offer allegedly came in a letter sent via PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who arrived in Damascus for meetings with Assad and other Syrian officials beginning last Saturday.
Abbas's visit was billed at the time as an attempt by Abbas to shore up his political position within the PA due to the fact that his current term in office ends on January 9, 2009, and as part of his effort to reconcile his Fatah faction with the rival Hamas terrorist organization that took over complete control of Gaza in June 2007.
According to the PA source, the real purpose of Abbas's visit, however, was to deliver the secret letter, the knowledge of which was kept secret from the American Ambassador in Damascus and the members of Abbas's entourage. It was delivered personally by Abbas to Assad, said the source, who added that "the United States stressed the importance of this confidential letter outside the usual official channels."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman David Baker said in response to a call from Israel National News, "We have nothing to comment regarding that report."
************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments