Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"Paul to keep Stormfront Money
Posted by: McQ
In presidential politics, it's all about perception. Apparently the Ron Paul campaign doesn't understand that basic political law:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
Of course, had he given the money to his favorite charity or even the NAACP or a predominantly black university scholarship fund, he'd have made the point that he doesn't want any association with white supremacists or their money.
But apparently, as some will interpret this dumb move, that's not true. What a stupid decision - concerning all of $500 - for a presidential campaign to make.
"
"Neo-Nazi complains about Ron Paul's denial of ties to white supremacists
Thomas Lifson
American Thinker has extensively covered the troubling links between Ron Paul's campaign and neo-Nazis. For our trouble we were blasted by some critics, and subjected to a torrent of abusive letters from Ron Paul supporters.
But now, an apparently genuine Neo-Nazi, Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party is fed up with the campaign's mild distancing and disavowal, and claims on a neo-Nazi website, the Vanguard News Network, that he has attended meetings with Paul at both a Thai restaurant in Arlington, and in his official office.
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has assembled links to corroborating evidence, and offers a redirect link to the website on which White writes:
Comrades:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous - and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
I suppose there a slight chance this is all an elaborate hoax, but it doesn't look that way. If Paul believes White is lying, he should sue. And testify under oath."
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
3461 Washington Blvd Suite 200
Arlington, Virginia 22201
FEC Committee ID #: C00432914
Report type: October Quarterly
This Report is an Amendment
Filed 12/15/2007
PAYEE SUM
1 & 1 Internet Inc. 77.85
49ER Inn and Suites 192.68
7-Eleven 166 40.25
A & W 6.41
A Better Answer 3,524.80
Adobe Systems Inc. 323.67
AFI Prostores 249.95
Aguilar, Francisco Javier 50.00
Alamo 642.00
Alamo Bob 107.03
Alamo Dallas Love Field 363.18
Alaska Airlines 1,489.20
Allegra Print & Imaging 65,613.00
Allies Restaurant 110.85
Amazon.com Superstore 838.94
AMCOPRO 305.00
American Airlines 2,889.49
American Express 33,808.55
Ameritec Sign Supply Inc. 890.40
Ames Rentals Inc. 288.40
Amoco - NC 93.74
Ampco System Parking 99.75
Andrews, Anita 10,441.36
Ankeny Value Place (Des Moines IA) 957.30
Apple Store Jordan Creek 180.09
Applebees 56.49
Applebees-IA 12.00
Arco #02112 30.91
Arizona Right to Life 650.00
AT&T 1,668.97
Audubons Restaurant 298.60
Avis 67.98
B.W.I. Airport Parking 661.40
Babys Here Inc. 42,325.99
Bahama Breeze 28.52
Bailey, Caleb 1,300.00
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill 36.43
Bakers Square 230.93
Bali Satay House 1,100.61
Ballston Shell 115.69
Barbers Auto Service 25.11
Barnes & Noble Bookseller 17.90
Bartel, John 900.00
Battles BBQ 14.45
Bauer, Edward S. 250.00
Beauchamp, Matthew 47.76
Becker Electric Company Inc 268.00
Becker, Joseph 28,984.24
Bedell, Paula J. 749.09
Bel Ridge 66 20.37
Benton, Jesse 15,252.25
Berman Films LLC 9,965.00
Best Burgers 10.77
Best Buy 1,763.44
Best Buy #796 259.63
Best Western Hotel Plaza Ct Restaurant 25.00
Best Western University Park Inn & Suite 227.97
Biaggis Ristorante Italiano 98.32
Big Als Smokehouse 12.80
Bill Dumas Productions 4,189.00
Blair, Douglas M. 5,586.53
Blue Burrito 7.42
Blue Star Jets 40,844.00
BMP Radio 300.00
Bob Evans #0273 7.41
Bobby Horton Band 300.00
Bolton & Hay Inc. 21.26
Bolton, John B 150.00
Bowers, Wayne H 25.00
BP Oil 51.26
BP ON 1ST 26.63
Bradford Mini Mart 30.23
Broesicke, Hans 1,000.00
Brooks-Lussem-Clem Insurance 210.00
Brown, Jordan 10,302.16
Bucees 134.16
Budget 71.43
Budget Rent A Car 165.20
Budget Rent a Car System Inc. 110.99
Budgyk, Marko A 1,000.00
Buraglio, Mark A 742.00
Burger King #13350 4.39
Burger King #6139 17.06
Burnett, Charles R 1,000.00
Butcher, Bryan 375.00
Butterfly 3,000.00
BWI Taxi #141 135.00
Bydlak, Jonathan M. 7,539.72
Bynum, Matt 130.00
Cactus Grill 205.78
California Dept of Transportation 4.00
California Republican Party 500.00
California Tortilla 15.28
Call Group Inc. 36.32
Cameron, David J 100.00
Campos, Andre M. 18,899.70
Capital Square PO 41.00
Capitol Cab Co. 25.00
Carinos Italian Grill 65.65
Carl William Printing 502.96
Carlos ORellys 38.45
Carmack, John M 100.00
Carolina First Center 6,239.27
Carr, Curtis 318.04
Caseys General Store #2768 107.52
CDW Direct LLC 14,377.82
Cedar Rapids Special Duty Police 250.52
Celias Restaurant 10 62.44
Central City Liquors 24.40
Centric Telecom Inc. 13,041.84
Chase Suites Hotel 89.97
Chase Visa 3,268.62
Chicoine, Jared 14,050.27
Chilis - Ankeny #939 11.47
Chilis Coralville 925 26.95
Chimney Corners Station 590.40
Chipotle 8.99
Cibo Express 3.26
CIC Solutions Ltd. 660.00
Circuit City 244.73
Citgo 499.04
City of Mountain View 1,093.65
City of Seattle 1,240.00
Client Intellect Inc. 409.00
Coach America 1,398.14
Coats, William 50.00
Cobin, Joshua 142.32
Comcast Communications 1,232.37
Comfort Inn Fort Dodge 667.60
Comfort Suites 1,015.20
Computer Works 555.00
Conoco 31.94
Conoco 3rd & Thor 22.05
Conrad Direct Inc. 20,960.45
Conseco Insurance Services 3,900.00
Consolidated Mailing Services 13,169.79
Continental Airlines 9,941.99
Convenience Express 51.04
Copperhead Consulting Services 27,176.32
Copy Pickup 5,071.80
Coralville Fairfield Inn 649.54
Corner Bakery Cafe 16.36
Cortes, Fernando 2,965.28
Cosi #164 54.61
Costin, Brian M. 1,000.00
Council Bluffs Fairfield Inn 383.04
Courtyard by Marriot SLC 173.96
Courtyard by Marriott 6,304.70
Courtyard by Marriott-Los Altos 660.12
Courtyard by Marriott-Oakland 662.67
Covenant Embroidery 535.00
Cowles, Ryan D. 975.00
Cozymels 109.74
Crabbe, Richard K. 1,000.00
Creative Host Services 25.45
Crosby, Edward Danforth 100.00
Crosby, Scott 200.00
Crowne Plaza Cedar Rapids 3,912.42
Cumberland Farms 482.87
Cutter, Kerry E. 50.00
Dahls Foods 2.10
Dallas Love Field National Airport 6.00
Daniels Restaurant 114.75
Davenport Fairfield Inn 111.99
De Witt, Mark Allan 800.00
Deana Watts 12,002.39
Deer Park Water 293.60
Dell Business Credit 23,414.96
Delta Airlines 600.20
Denham Insurance Agency 393.13
Denver International Airport 254.00
Des Moines Register 24.00
Des Moines Super 8 49.99
DeWitt Painting 593.60
Dewitt, Jeremy 1,601.39
DHL Express 7.91
Diamond Rental - Party SLC 128.67
Diehls Super Market 25.59
Direct Results Radio 45,844.00
Discover 502.38
DJ Dad/MC Mom 100.00
Dolby, Mike 995.00
Dollar Rent A Car 903.62
Dollar Rent a Car Eppley 498.19
Dollar SLC Airport 507.95
Don Strange of Texas Inc. 11,380.00
Dorr, Emily R. 500.00
Dorsey, Nancy 268.14
DOT 30.00
Drushel, Derek M 30.00
DTR Adv. Inc. dba Adv. Results Marketing 75,000.00
Dumas, William J. 20,950.20
Dunkin Donus and Baskin Robbins 13.18
E-Z Rent-a-Car 82.52
Eat N Park #48 150.03
EFMark Bank 1.50
El Charrito Caminante 17.00
El Jacalito Restaurant 61.29
El Pollo Rico 14.28
El Rancho Inc. 33.24
El Toros 912.91
Elam, Mark 10,000.00
Encore Productions Corp 1,030.00
Enterperise Rent a Car of Los Angeles 251.00
Enterprise 132.28
Enterprise Chesterfield 219.43
Enterprise Leasing Co of St Louis 124.08
Enterprise Leasing Company 59.94
Estipona, Jim 260.00
Evans Expressmart 157.21
Everhart, Lee A. 700.00
Express Stop 406 42.26
Extended Stay Hotel 590.15
Exxon 10.58
ExxonMobil 41.95
F.R.E.E. 3,662.18
Faiella, Michael 5,045.89
Fairfield Inn & Suites 1,622.14
Fairfield Inn & Suites Council Bluff 134.39
Fairfield Inn - Columbia 769.23
Fairfield Inn - Cranberry 1,105.10
Fairfield Inn - Manchester 4,639.02
Fairfield Inn Albuquerque 106.16
Fairfield Inn Ft. Collins 296.05
Fairfield Inn Savannah 130.00
Famous Daves 129.90
Farmers Alliance 25.00
Federal Express 1,497.80
FedEX Kinkos 2,624.46
Fill and Food 37.02
FILPAC LLC 3,132.00
First National Bank of Lake Jackson 75,801.65
Fisher, Joseph T 40.76
Flying J Travel Plaza 10.00
Four Points Sheraton 6,132.25
Fowler, Brandon 100.00
Frazee, Jeffrey 11,579.63
Friendlys #0302 69.53
Frontier Airlines 812.41
Frys Electronics 893.13
Fuddruckers #0201 24.16
Garfield, Paul 16,597.51
Gates Linwood & Main 15.11
Gateway Express 218.69
Gateway Food Court 3.06
Gateway Hotel & Conference Center 556.49
Gators 25.00
Gentry, Brian R. 7,949.45
George M. Stevens & Son Co. Insurance 500.00
Giant #743 42.56
Gib Leonards Rental Car 134.68
Git N Go 05 29.19
Git N Go 25 23.50
Git-N-Go 28.00
Global Resources 649.99
Golovin, Karl N 18,743.48
GOT Corporation 3,000.00
Grand Hotel 1,363.16
Grassroots Solutions Inc. 49,825.54
Greenspan, Jeffrey 15,482.70
Greenville County Republican Party 2,125.00
Greenville Fairfield Inn 1,271.60
Greenville-Spartanburg Airport 1.00
Guadalahonkys 32.74
Gulf Mini Mart 8.85
Hampton Inn 1,308.38
Handrahan, Shannon 180.00
Hanover Insurance Co. 500.00
Happy Chef 11.00
Harland Checks 206.00
Harvest Print & Copy Center 4,342.56
Hawes, Matthew W. 2,565.30
Hayes, William 59.28
Hedquist Productions Inc. 5,513.93
Hertz 331.05
Hertz - Eppley 313.30
Hertz Ballwin 1,269.63
Hertz Car Rental 145.00
Hess 29501 16.22
Hess 40235 40.03
Hess 46501 6.73
Highland Park Station 23.23
Hilton Garden Inn Elko 88.08
HMSHOST 62.13
Hofbrauhaus 145.00
Holiday Inn Arlington 538.04
Holiday Inn Express 154.43
Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites 361.00
Home Depot - Annandale 52.33
Homewood Suites 129.96
Hopper, Deborah D 5,182.04
Houstons 65.56
HP Home & Home Office Store 1,023.53
Huber, Karl R. 568.00
Hudson News Greenville 4.11
Hunt Technical Services Inc. 7,123.88
Hurley, Marion M. 200.00
Hy-Vee 46.27
Hy-Vee Gas 33.07
Hyatt Hotels Chicago 10,424.14
Hyatt Regency Chicago 337.20
Hyvee Food & Drug 1,391.15
I-80 Spaghetti Works 267.72
IHOP #0504 138.91
IHOP #1451 30.95
Ikea 411.09
Image Design Communications LLC 71,859.86
InPlay 29.17
International Mailing Systems Inc. 72,207.84
Iowa Christian Alliance 1,000.00
Iowa Events Center 6,655.38
Iowa Secretary of State 1,000.00
Irving Blue Canoe 553.14
Ivers, Drew Russell 802.61
J. Seehusen Associates Inc. 28,000.00
Janes, James L. 200.00
Jared, Jeff 19,719.63
Jet Blue Airways 1,132.60
JMD Inc. 47.03
Joe T Garcias 179.15
Joes Crab Shack West Des Moines 40.40
Johns Original Photography 234.00
Johnson, Eleanor Pauline 36.00
Jones, Alex 1,300.00
Jordan, Burt 1,000.00
Justice Band 700.00
Kalabus, Christopher 75.00
Kansas City International Airport 2.00
Kiks Chevron 20.00
Kimball, Spencer W 200.00
Kmart #3971 37.34
Knapp, Avery J. 500.00
Kudzu Communications Inc. 3,000.00
Kugler, Brad S 900.00
Kum & Go 0024 22.21
Kum & Go 0037 69.07
Kum & Go 0066 27.65
Kum & Go 0074 20.00
Kum & Go 0134 87.76
Kum & Go 0142 18.00
Kum & Go 059 49.36
Kum & Go 201 89.72
Kum & Go 2035 30.18
Kum & Go 422 50.55
Kuziw, Jerry 500.00
Kwik Shop 99.27
La Carreta 93.97
La Quinta Inn - Clute Lake Jackson 178.54
Laine Melton 1,572.10
Lam, Justine B 10,940.50
Lamars Donuts 4.11
Langford, Penny 626.00
Las Vegas Courtyard 199.39
Lautenschlager, Ray 7,326.39
Lawless, Dolores M. 25.00
Leahy, Roger 1,418.32
Lee, Amanda S. 6,390.56
Lemaster, Austin Thomas 50.00
Leonards Restaurant 4.99
Lewis, Dan 937.73
Lewis, Torrey Quentin 35.00
Lineweaver, Wendy 182.00
Lions Den 45.83
Listmart Inc. 493.18
Little Johns Burgers 4.75
Lloyd, Brandon S. 7.50
Logans Roadhouse 282.99
Londot, Carol B. 36.00
Lone Star #3623 118.65
Lori Pyeatt 4,449.53
Loves Country Truck Stop 61.78
Lowes - Ames 74.18
Lowes Home Centers Inc. 359.15
Lukis, Imants 520.00
Mackey, Timothy 15.50
Mail House Inc. 15,664.79
MailServ LLC 537.74
Main Post Office 10.75
Malibu Seafood 27.55
Malmborg, John Bartlett 450.00
Mamamias Pizza & Pasta 27.00
Manchester Boston Regional Airport 629.40
Manchester Police Department 325.92
Manchester Republican Committee 500.00
Marriott Coralville Hotel 498.09
Marriott Des Moines Downtown 2,474.71
Marriott Hotels & Resorts 1,328.00
Marriott San Antonio Downtown 380.87
Marriott Suites Chicago OHare 395.53
Marriott West Des Moines 733.73
Marthas Exchange Restaurant 63.80
Maxines Restaurant 47.06
Mayn, Tarey 450.00
MBA Communications LLC 17,000.00
McCarty, Ryan Christopher 77.76
McCray, Ian 500.00
McDonald, John S. 200.00
McDonalds 19.78
McGrade, Kathleen 500.00
McIver, Jean B. 12,850.96
McKeon, Robert Brian 100.00
McMahon, James 150.00
McNeill, Michael R 100.00
Media Distributors 87.39
Media Partners Worldwide LLC 45,000.00
MEI Computer & Graphics 425.00
Meis Asian Bistro 176.30
Melville, David B 200.00
Menards - Clive 117.44
Mi Cocina 204.98
Mi Mexico 200.37
Michael E. Lavelle Esq. 2,500.00
Michaels at Shoreline 1,499.61
Michel, Andrew D. 1,904.40
Michigan Republican Party 925.00
Micro Center 1,475.96
Microtel Inn & Suites 76.57
Milbrae Chevron 22.32
Miller, Cheryl 46.52
Milltowne Grille 9.50
Moore, Neal L. 7,989.14
Moore, Sherrel 116,751.66
Moores BP 32.00
Morton, John L 100.00
Motel 6 0030 153.16
MPrinting Graphics & Advertising 344,208.65
MSE Branded Foods 6.54
Muncy, Archer M. 300.00
Murphy USA #5801 42.93
Murphy USA 7005 35.40
Murphys Taproom 105.93
Murray Hotel 305.28
Music Center of Norwich 308.66
Mutzig, William D. 150.00
Myron, Kimberly 350.00
National Mailing Services 2,084.20
National Press Club 539.89
Neal, Allan 939.89
News & Gifts 5.78
Nikel, Jeremy C 16.50
Noble, Doug 50.76
Nora L. LeBlanc 5,187.39
North & South Food Court 8.52
Northern Regional Police Dept 600.00
Northwest Air 730.20
NTTA Toll Tag 138.30
Oden, Ray P. 2,000.00
Office Depot 1,257.61
Office Depot - SC 14.55
Office Max 50.85
Office Max #30 529.94
Office Max #645 64.49
Old Chicago Restaurant Bettendorf 48.73
Olive Garden 1554 171.64
Olson, Heather R. 2,756.28
Olympic News 5.65
On The Border Mexican Grill & Cantana 31.78
Oriental Trading Company 432.72
Outback Steakhouse #4715 92.40
P&D Quick Stop 31.00
Palio DAsti 3,500.21
Palmetto Family Council 6,600.00
Palo Alto-Los Altos Courtyard 1,067.56
Panera Bread #3413 19.07
Pantry 3079 37.11
Pappas Bar-B-Q #07 10.26
Pappas Burger 46.41
Paris Le St Louis Cafe 109.16
Park Place 12.00
Party Time Rental 23.38
Pasadena Inn 534.75
Paul, Peggy J 668.83
Payless Car Rental 76.04
Paypal 12,263.16
Pearlman, Howard B 900.00
Penna Turnpike 8.00
Perkins Restaurant 42.37
Peters Cut Rate Liquor 258.75
Petro Pointe 118.70
Phoenix International Airport 8.00
Pikalo, Oleksiy 50.00
Pines of Florence 312.04
Pitts, Clifford R 2.06
Pittsburgh International Airport 1.00
Pizza Hut 28.78
Pizza Pit-Ames 16.46
Plantation House 205.89
Plymouth Post Office 10.89
Potts, Teri 21.25
PR Newswire Association LLC 180.00
Pratt Audio-Visual Cedar Rapids 175.60
Pyeatt, Matthew 476.40
Queen City Mobil T 6.74
Quest Communications 1,801.00
QuikPrint 307.46
QuikTrip #00515 122.00
Quiktrip #00538 286.71
QuikTrip #00554 44.92
Quiktrip #00559 5.37
QuikTrip #00566 24.90
Quiznos Sub Store #9305 121.05
QWEST 1,203.77
R/S/M Inc. 13,250.00
Racetrac #626 33.41
Racey, Ann E. 0.00
Rackspace Managed Hosting 4,831.55
Radio Friendly: Songs by American Pirate 100.00
Radisson Hotel Pittsburgh Green Tree 348.61
Rasmussen, Donald A. 9,730.96
RBS National Bank 78.00
Rebel Oil #42 22.72
Record Printing 5,611.85
Red Rossa 18.29
Reifert, Will 675.00
Reinert, Eileen A 4.50
Renaissance Hotels & Resorts 672.39
Renaissance Worthington Hotel 18,783.74
Reno/Sparks Fairfield Inn 126.27
Republican Broadcasting Network 150.00
Republican Party of Iowa 28,000.00
Republican Party of Texas 3,250.00
Residence Inn 468.33
Residence Inn by Marriott 1,609.55
Revelations Cafe 21.19
Rick, Kate 3,033.36
Rio Grande Cafe 146.40
Riverside Hotel 660.45
Road Ranger 147 30.15
Robinson, Richard 21.00
Rochester Oil Inc. 424.99
Rock Bottom #1073 111.64
Rollins, Keith 100.00
RonPaulStuff.com 675.00
Route Solutions Inc. 3,238.00
Ruby Tuesday 57.33
Ryans of Des Moines 18.63
S & S Barbecue 58.27
Sablaturas Office Supply 104.09
Salesforce.com 6,622.75
Sams Club 1,477.72
Schrempp, Scott 59.76
Schroeder, Roman 296.80
Schuberg, Greg J. 1,000.00
Schwartz, Jeffrey I 100.10
Scott, Martha J. 775.00
Screenscape Studios 2,677.91
Seehusen, Joe 8,438.33
Sercely, Matthew D 920.00
Shelby Dairy Queen 9.82
Shell 221.97
Shell V-Power 30.02
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers 964.76
Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel 1,332.85
Sherwood Company 6,150.90
Shortstop 62.53
Siam Orchid 43.75
Sidewalk Cafe at Ballys 117.27
Silver Express 15.99
Sindbads 1,231.69
Sleep Inn Londonderry 108.00
Snyder, Kent 90,674.61
Southern Tri-Star 60.00
Southwest Airlines 26,283.40
SPALTI 56.54
Specialty Sound Systems 500.00
Spectrum Monthly & Printing Inc. 3,452.00
Spinx 15.06
Spinx #140 40.50
Sprint 3,453.26
Sprint 763 80.00
St. Jean, Peter M. 3,140.00
Standish, Brandon M 5,217.95
Staples 2,565.31
Staples - SC 8.98
Staples-NH 25.07
Staples-VA 2,524.08
Star Shuttle & Charter 3,706.06
Starkers Restaurant 129.12
Starrett, Kevin K 3,861.25
State of Utah 500.00
Stewarts Food Store 70.36
Stickers Image Design 339.45
Stuart 66 32.38
Subway #2479 4.06
Subway #4480 8.25
Subway #4768 8.01
Sunoco #7544 27.87
Sunoco #7659 38.68
Supermart Conoco 32.00
Survey Monkey.com 312.10
SVP A Trust 300.00
Swift Stop #4 46.97
T-Mobile 4,109.60
Tara Sharma 4,200.00
Tara Thai 314.59
AN IRAQ TURNAROUND: "An astonishing turnaround occurred in the Senate on Tuesday: 70 senators voted to fund the Iraq war with a fresh $70 billion and no strings attached. Think about this a moment. Last winter, after Democrats captured the Senate and House, it seemed likely they'd succeed in limiting or ending the Iraq war, probably by setting a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops. After all, both President Bush and the war itself were highly unpopular. The Democratic triumph in the election made that clear, even to those who doubted opinion polls. And Democrats made the anti-Iraq crusade their top priority in the new Congress. Now, the 70-vote approval of the war by the Senate represents the breathtaking dimension of their failure."
Or of General Petraeus's success.
Coincidence???
Hmmm, maybe their elected officials have somehting to do with it????
There was a sharp falloff in aid after Hamas was elected
But, of course, it's all the Jews fault
Iraq: Cautious optimisim from another Democrat
Posted by: McQ
It is just impossible to deny any longer:
U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly returned from a second trip to Iraq in five months encouraged that the mission there is going better and that by 2009 the U.S. military's role could be primarily as trainers and advisers.
"I feel we've made progress, and the other part is I feel we can see an end game in sight," Donnelly, D-Ind., told reporters on a conference call Tuesday from Washington. "It isn't we just keep plugging away in the hopes something will turn out right. Gen. (David) Petraeus is working a plan and we seem to be heading toward a place where the Iraqis can be self-sustaining and we'll have a smaller presence in the background."
Donnelly's findings were in stark contrast to his visit to Iraq last July, when he said the only positive thing that happened in that country since the beginning of the war in March 2003 was the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
The usual naysayers will show up here to take issue with Donnelly's words, but it is their words which sound more and more hollow each time they utter them.
First Knock out Terror Machine – Then Talk to Hamas
DEBKAfile Exclusive Military Analysis
December 18, 2007, 10:03 PM (GMT+02:00)
Jihad Islami vehicle hit in Israeli air raid
Jihad Islami vehicle hit in Israeli air raid
After a mother and toddler escaped miraculously with scratches from a Qassam explosion outside the door of their Kibbutz Zikkim home, and Sderot residents roundly abused visiting defense minister Ehud Barak, the Israeli Air Force was ordered into action Monday night and Tuesday morning, Dec. 17-18. Eleven senior Jihad Islami operatives were killed in Gaza City, including Majd al Harazin, head of Jihad Islami’s military arm in Gaza and Karim Dahlul, director of Qassam missile production.
The Israeli military spokesman maintained the Shin Bet had provided precise intelligence on three command levels of the Iran-funded and trained jihad group – the military chiefs, the Qassam missile squads and their manufacturing bosses.
On the West Bank, the Jihad Islami’s northern commander was shot dead in Kabatia outside Jenin. Later Tuesday, a Hamas command center was targeted in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younes. Two operatives were killed. During the day several rounds of heavy missile and mortar fire was directed against Israel locations. No one was hurt.
After the Hamas-Jihad Islami terror machine was allowed to build up to formidable proportions, even a large-scale Israel military operation in the Gaza Strip will not easily stifle the missile and mortar campaign grinding down the Israeli population. However, the longer it is delayed, the harder it will be.
In the course of 2007, Palestinians in Gaza fired 2,359 missiles and mortar shells into Israel, double the 2006 figure. The current estimate is that, barring a full-scale counter-terror offensive in Gaza involving the call-up of reserves, the 2008 figure will soar past 4,000, and may well include volleys from the West Bank as well as Gaza.
In this offensive, the IDF’s mission would entail liquidating the Hamas terrorist war infrastructure, clobbering the 12,000-strong armed Palestinians - many of whom may go to ground in the dense civilian population, demolishing their command centers, missile foundries and arms arsenals, and severing their smuggling routes from Egyptian Sinai to Gaza. This campaign would not be short or painless.
Israel’s chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi put his finger on a key question when he asked what happens the day after the war. In other words, to whom would the IDF hand the Gaza Strip?
He had no answers. Ashkenazi knows there is no point in handing Gaza back to Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, which lost the territory to a Hamas coup in June. Abbas and his associates are good at begging aid, but hopeless at securing or otherwise governing territory.
NATO is strapped for troops to serve in Afghanistan and will have none to spare for Gaza. A Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian force has no precedent and would be an unknown quantity, assuming that the three governments agreed to form such a force.
Since the 15,000 UN peacekeeping force took over in south Lebanon after the 2006 war, not only Hizballah but the pro-Iranian-Syrian camp in Lebanon is laughing. They have prospered and gained strength, militarily and politically, under the protection of an international shield. This scenario would be replicated in the Gaza Strip.
It would be pointless to list the blunders committed in seven years by the governments headed by Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert in handling the Palestinian and Hizballah terrorist challenges. What counts now is charting a way forward out of the current predicament for the IDF and policy-makers to pursue – first in Gaza, then in the West Bank, before the latter territory goes the way of the former.
By now, Hamas rule is too entrenched to overthrow without the IDF capturing the entire Gaza Strip. It is important to stress that the siege-cum-sanctions strategy imposed by Israel and other nations has been ineffective in unseating Hamas in Gaza in the same way as this strategy failed to cow Iran.
Returning to the Gaza Strip is generally seen as a non-option for Israel. On the premise that, after conquering the enclave, Israel will have no one to pass it to, the only course remaining is to engage the defeated Hamas stripped of its military might in talks on stiff terms for handing it back.
There was a brief moment when the former national security adviser Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland rightly urged the Olmert government to seize the chance of engaging Hamas in talks for informal truce arrangements, rather than going to war. That moment occurred after Hamas won the Palestinian general elections in early 2006 and sought legitimacy. Iran and Syria had not yet brought the radical group completely under their thumb.
But the prime minister missed that moment, hesitating to come down on the side either of military action or negotiation.
Today, Israel’s options have shrunk. Hamas and its partners are at peak strength and vitality. Saudi Arabia and up to a point Egypt have joined their protectors. Hamas’ offers of an informal truce are tricks to win a brief respite from the limited in-and-out sorties carried out by Israeli forces, especially those targeting their leaders.
Israel’s policy-makers refusal to commit the IDF to a serious operation leaves Hamas and Jihad Islami with the initiative for escalating violence at will, trusting they can vanquish the irresolute “Zionist entity” by persistence.
On the West Bank, conditions on the ground are shaping up into the Gaza model but are still containable as long as the Palestinian Authority is not expected to fight terror. The promise that one day, the Palestinian Authority will have this capability is no better than a pipe dream. So far, with all the generous aid poured out by the most powerful Western forces, Abbas and his Fatah control only a part of one West Bank town, Ramallah.
Keeping the lid on the West Bank continues to be solely up to Israel’s military and security forces, which have performed excellently until now in keeping terror at bay. The tactics employed by the Americans in Iraq would be useful both on the West Bank and eventually in Gaza after its pacification: Ignoring the Palestinian Authority, Israel should engage local powerhouses for long-term ceasefire arrangements - if necessary, by forking out large sums of money to purchase calm.
Subduing the enemy and negotiating long-term ceasefire accords from a position of strength appear to this analyst as the only feasible option left to Israel at this time. It is not ideal and the cost will be high, but seven years of Israeli government mistakes carry a price.
Debka
Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle
By: Martin Kady II and Ryan Grim
Dec 17, 2007 07:34 PM EST
This much is clear: Democrats in Congress buckled under pressure from the White House to hold spending near the administration’s specified limit, and they’re poised to give the president more war money with no strings attached.
But the buckling didn’t stop there.
Democratic policy priorities that liberals hoped would be included in the omnibus spending legislation were also left on the cutting-room floor.
Under a veto threat, Democrats removed the reversal of a long-standing anti-abortion provision, abandoned long-sought provisions that would have loosened travel and trade restrictions on Cuba and deleted a line item demanded by unions that would have required federal contractors to pay union wages in disaster areas like New Orleans.
What remains is a smattering of modest policy advances and spending increases on health care, education and transportation that Democrats are touting as the appropriations bill makes its way to the president.
While Democratic leaders have been forced to make the difficult concessions that will enable Congress to adjourn before Christmas, liberals are starting to snipe away, believing their party caved in too easily to an unpopular president.
“We should have sent him more appropriations bills and made him veto all of them,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “We’re letting him off easy. … That’s all I’ll say.”
A large coalition of environmental groups aren’t letting Democrats off the hook, though.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club, among others, are urging a ‘no’ vote on the omnibus, which they say gives away too much.
Usually the party in power can sneak in various policy riders with an end-of-year omnibus budget bill, but the president has made it clear he’s not going to look the other way, and he’s uninterested in any compromises.
And the reality is that in a divided government, the priorities of the liberal base are likely to suffer for now.
“A lot of the policy priorities were kept out of there,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), citing the exclusion of pro-labor measures and the genetic anti-discrimination legislation he has been backing. It would prevent insurers or employers from discriminating based on genetic information.
“There are a number of smaller policy things that got in,” he said.
Once the Senate adds about $70 billion for Iraq, there’s a chance that dozens of anti-war House Democrats will bail on the omnibus bill and vote against final passage to express their displeasure over the war money.
Outside the huge omnibus measure, Democrats seem likely to grant controversial immunity protection to telecoms involved in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act program, a move bound to anger civil liberties advocates.
And Democrats have been unable to enforce their own pay-as-you-go rules on the alternative minimum tax legislation.
Earlier, the party was forced to remove hate crimes provisions from the defense authorization bill, killing a provision backed by the Congressional Black Caucus, a linchpin of the Democratic base.
On the energy front, environmental groups are angry that Democrats have had to back away from renewable electricity standards and promised repeals of tax cuts for the oil companies.
There are a few victories.
The policy riders stuffed into the omnibus bill include the reversal of a long-standing prohibition that prevented the District of Columbia from spending money to implement a needle-exchange program.
The bill instructs the Justice Department’s inspector general to monitor the controversial “national security letters” that the FBI has sent out and it forbids spending on “lavish banquets and conferences.”
Democrats also cut back on abstinence funding while deleting language that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly opposed regarding English-language-only workplaces.
The bill prevents commercial shale production, which some environmentalists oppose, and cut the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s media budget by nearly half.
Democrats, too, picked up small wins on immigration, removing riders that would have punished states and cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
These and other small gains, though, don’t add up to enough to mollify a disgruntled liberal bloc.
“Where is everything we fought for? Where is our backbone?” wondered a top Senate Democratic aide. “What’s the point of being in charge and spending months writing these bills if we just end up folding to the administration?”
Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) were quick to point out all the priorities funded in the omnibus, repeating the line that this budget is “Bush’s number, our priorities.”
Indeed, Democrats will close the year touting a historic increase in fuel mileage standards, hikes in Pell grants, lobbying and ethics reform, and the first minimum wage increase in a decade.
And last week the Senate cleared a major overhaul of the Federal Housing Authority, a move designed to show Congress is reacting to the mortgage crisis.
“We worked within the president’s numbers, but with our priorities,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who hails from the more moderate wing of the Democratic caucus.
“We can leave town having acted responsibly. It’s not the perfect outcome, but this is divided government.”
Rather than apologize for falling short with their base, however, Democratic leadership aides were unapologetic, believing they need to get more Democratic senators elected so that Reid has better than a 51-49 margin to work with in 2009.
“One thing that’s painfully clear is we need more senators committed to the American people than protecting the president,” said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. “Not senators who are endorsing the status quo.”
Personal Presidential Elimination Process: The Case Against Ron Paul
I’ve been cataloging my quest to settle on a GOP Presidential candidate to support in 2008 (so far I’ve stick with Fred Thompson mainly by default). I took on McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Tancredo in this post. I went back to make the case against Huckabee in more detail in this post. With Andrew Sullivan having endorsed Ron Paul, it’s the latter’s turn. Unlike Andrew, I’m afraid I can’t work up any enthusiasm for Paul.
1. As Michael Medved observed, Paul’s campaign has attracted “an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.” It may not be a case of birds of a feather, but it’s at least a case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. Moreover, “the behavior of Ron Paul supporters (spamming blogs that reference their candidate with fund-raising appeals and flaming anyone who actually dares to express substantive disagreement) frequently alienates far more potential friends than it attracts.” (Link) You’ll almost certainly find some flames in the comments to this post!
2. “Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.” (Link) Sullivan thinks this is “the only rational response” to the Iraq mess. Getting into Iraq was a huge mistake. Cutting and running, however, could be an even bigger one. (See my Examiner column):
As an Army brat growing up during the Vietnam War, I saw the damage our strategy of just declaring victory and going home did to Army morale and prestige, to the tone of our national politics and our nation’s standing in the world. Later, we cut and ran from Lebanon. More recently, we cut and ran from Somalia. I have no doubt that this pattern of cutting and running emboldened al-Qaida. We simply cannot afford to cut and run from Iraq, lest our foes be emboldened to new and even more devastating attacks. A global hegemon that keeps running away when the going gets tough will not command any respect.
3. Paul’s into conspiracy theories, like his claim that Bush is out to create an “eventual merging of North America into a border-free area.” As Ron Chusid wrote:
Paul is the only one up on that stage who isn’t totally clueless about national security and Iraq, but unfortunately his propensity to going along with the conspiracy theories of the extremist right limits his ability to be taken seriously.
4. Sullivan argues that:
Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place.
I support all those principles too. But as John Hawkins writes:
In Paul’s case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.
The Club for Growth explains:
Unfortunately, his stubborn idealism often takes Ron Paul further away from achieving the limited-government, pro-growth philosophy he advocates. This is certainly the case with school choice, free trade, tort reform, and entitlement reform, in which he votes against vital free trade agreements, competitive school choice initiatives, and tort reform proposals.
“While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect,” Mr. Toomey continued. “In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited-government policies, but his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.”
To be sure, I agree with Jonah Goldberg that there’s “something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.” I agree that Huckabee would be a lousy choice. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and Paul’s the wrong choice too.
5. The Club for Growth’s analysis suggests that Paul’s become something of a pork lover (and hypocrite?):
“Ron Paul’s record contains some very laudable components,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government.”
6. According to the Club for Growth, “Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.”
7. Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist. Yet, concerns that national regulation of commerce was necessary to prevent economic Balkanization is one of the basic reasons we have a Constitution rather than Articles of Confederation. Paul has consistently opposed federal tort reform. Of course, so has Fred Thompson. (See Walter Olson)
8. He’s a crank on economic issues and saying so brings out the worst in his supporters, as David Frum found out.
BTW, email responses to this post may be quoted in full in this space, including the sender’s name and/or email address. You’re on notice. As for comments, you’re reminded that my policy on comments states: “I reserve the right to delete comments (or trackbacks to sites) that are off-topic, uncivil, obscene, racist, sexist, or just because I’m feeling cranky, and to ban those who make them.” Part of the case against Paul is that he’s the only candidate whose supporters’ past behavior prompts me to take these preemptive measures.
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/personal_presidential_elimination_process_the_case_against_ron_paul/
Just because a veto is threatened, doesnt mean that legislation won't happen. There will be A FISA bill, after they're finished negotiating legislation
Dark Ages Moment of the Day
Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 1:43:40 pm PST
Modern reconstructive surgery meets the Dark Ages: Why one Muslim girl became a born-again virgin for her wedding night.
When Aisha Salim marries her fiance in Pakistan next March, it will be the wedding of her dreams.
Wearing a veil and gown, she will be every inch the fairytale virgin bride and as befits her strict Muslim religion, after the ceremony, she will hand her blooded wedding-night sheets to her in-laws as proof of her virginity.
But far from being the traditional untouched bride that many Muslim families demand, she is a modern-day university graduate who has smoked, drunk, made love to - and even lived with - a previous English boyfriend. To disguise the fact that she has had sex, she has paid for painful surgery to “restore” her virginity.
It is a drastic and costly measure but as she takes her husband’s hand in marriage, she knows it is one which may - quite literally - save her life. The horror and outrage that would ensue if it was discovered she had already slept with a man would be so damning that her own strictly religious relatives might kill her rather than face public shame.
“My virginity was restored in a delicate operation just last week, and I honestly view it as life-saving surgery,” says Aisha. “If my husband cannot prove to his family that I am a virgin, I would be hounded, ostracised and sent home in disgrace. My father, who is a devout Muslim, would regard it as the ultimate shame.”
“The entire family could be cast out from the friends and society they hold dear, and I honestly believe that one of my fanatically religious cousins or uncles might kill me in revenge, to purge them of my sins. Incredible as it may seem, honour killings are still accepted within our religion.”
That's the kind or "reasoning" by you that earns the moonbats their name.
Why the Worst Is Probably Over in Iraq
Print Mail
By Reuel Marc Gerecht
Posted: Friday, December 7, 2007
MIDDLE EASTERN OUTLOOK
AEI Online
Publication Date: December 7, 2007
Download file Click here to view this Outlook as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.
No. 5, December 2007
The success of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency surge has convulsed American commentary on Iraq as much as it has reduced violence in the country. What had seemed gospel in some quarters--Iraq's "civil war" is unstoppable and American armed forces cannot do anything to diminish the fratricidal conflict--looks less certain today.
The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack--both sincere, thoughtful Democrats--were pilloried on the Left for their July 2007 New York Times op-ed, "We Just Might Win," which concluded that the surge was working and deserved support.[1] Today, just a little more than four months later, some of the people who hurled animadversions at O'Hanlon and Pollack probably wish they had been a bit more measured in their criticism of the two scholars. Bartle Bull, the foreign editor for the British magazine Prospect, has probably gone the furthest in his assessment of where the surge has taken us. In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished," Bull declares victory for the Americans and the Iraqi government. He makes several points to support his contention, but his key commentary is this:
Understanding this expensive victory is a matter of understanding the remaining violence. Now that Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved--break-up? No. Shia victory? Yes. Will violence make the Americans go home? No. Do Iraqis like voting? Yes. Do they like Iraq? Yes--Iraq's violence has largely become local and criminal. The biggest fact about Iraq today is that the violence, while tragic, has ceased being political, and is therefore no longer nearly as important as it was. Some of the violence--that paid for by foreigners or motivated by Islam's crazed fringes--will not recede in a hurry. Iraq has a lot of Islam and long, soft borders. But the rest of Iraq's violence is local: factionalism, revenge cycles, crime, power plays. It will largely cease once Iraq has had a few more years to build up its security apparatus.[2]
I think Bull is right, although the gains could be reversed if the United States were to draw down its forces precipitously. This seems, however, unlikely. President George W. Bush is surely loath to turn victory into defeat by resurrecting the premature "Iraqification" approach of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Generals John Abizaid and George Casey. Petraeus appears intent on reducing forces in Iraq, but given the success of his counterinsurgency efforts, he certainly has both the clout in Congress and the personal desire to ensure that reductions do not come too rapidly. And given the increasing unwillingness of Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.)--the major Democratic presidential candidates--to talk consistently about troop withdrawals and timetables, the power of antiwar Democrats to change "the facts on the ground" seems weak.[3]
Iraq may finally be beyond demolition, and if it is, then the odds are pretty good that Bush will finish his presidency with a viable democratic government in Mesopotamia that has the support of an overwhelming number of Iraqis.
Iraq may finally be beyond demolition, and if it is, then the odds are pretty good that Bush will finish his presidency with a viable democratic government in Mesopotamia that has the support of an overwhelming number of Iraqis. Iraqi democracy may come too late for many American liberals and conservatives who think either representative government cannot happen on Middle Eastern Muslim soil or, if it does happen in Iraq, it will not be sufficiently liberal to have been worth the effort.[4] Even knowledgeable Middle Eastern commentators have gotten into the habit of referring to the principal Shia militias of Iraq as mere tools of the clerical regime in Tehran, which has been the standard line of the anti-Shiite governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.[5] This is an odd position to take when the best known and most feared of these militias, the Mahdi Army, is motivated by a powerful mix of Arabism, Iraqi nationalism, and Shiite self-consciousness.[6] Iraq's democratic government certainly is not what the Bush administration or many of its supporters expected in 2003, but the Middle East's first fully Muslim experiment in representative government could well prove more durable precisely because it is not at all what the Bush administration expected. It has been a violent birth whose survival depends upon the backing of the country's working-class, staunchly religious Shiites, who have been the principal targets of al Qaeda's suicide bombers.
The Sunni Arab Situation
There are two principal factors indicative of democracy's success in Iraq. First, the Sunni Arab community prob-ably now knows that it will lose egregiously if it again seeks a head-to-head confrontation with the Shiite community. Arab Sunni hubris--the great catalyst for the mayhem and killing in post-Saddam Iraq--may finally be broken. It is difficult to believe there are any Sunnis, including the religious fanatics of al Qaeda, who now think they won the Battle of Baghdad in 2006-2007. Iraq's Sunnis have also learned, as Fouad Ajami pointed out, what Palestinians learned long ago: the support of Sunni Arab states is overrated.[7] Despite Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's and Jordanian king Abdullah II's alarms about a menacing Shiite arc forming across the region, these states could not forestall the Shiite triumph in Baghdad. Although journalists like to focus on a supposedly soon-to-close window of opportunity for the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to make concessions to Sunni Arabs, the situation may well be the reverse.[8] More likely, the Sunnis now have a never-quite-closing window, since the last thing they want is to restart a conflict that inevitably will lead to "unofficial" Shiite militias or an increasingly deployable and battle-hardened Shiite-led Iraqi army overrunning remaining Sunni redoubts in Baghdad.
If the Sunnis completely lose Baghdad, they will permanently exile themselves from the heart of Iraq's social, cultural, and intellectual life. And the city of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, or the still ethnically-mixed Mosul do not similarly excite the Iraqi Arab heart and mind. To the extent that the surge and the Sunni Arab awakening against al Qaeda in Anbar have empowered provincial Sunni tribal elders, it seems unlikely that these gentlemen, who have often had a tense relationship with whatever power was in Baghdad, would want to jeopardize their new prominence by unleashing another war with the Shia, so long as the Shia do not attempt to dominate western Iraq. Neither the Shiite militias nor the Shiite-led Iraqi army have shown any inclination so far for such westward conquest, and it is difficult to foresee them marching on this region unless western Iraq's Sunni Arabs either directly attack the Shia or again give aid and comfort to a reenergized al Qaeda. Iraq's Arab Sunnis may be in the process of becoming, at best, a confederation of sheiks and little urban potentates, which diminishes the odds that they can combine to project sufficient military power to intimidate anyone except each other.
Unlike the Iraqi Shia, who have a highly developed hierarchical clerical establishment that has greatly assisted the development of national cohesion among the Shiites, the Sunni Arabs have a much less organized religious establishment. The most renowned Sunni clerics have never enjoyed the personal charisma and loyalty that the Shiite grand ayatollahs of the holy city of Najaf command.[9] Even second-tier Shiite ulama, who represent the hawza--Najaf's senior clerics--across Iraq, usually command more of a following than any first-tier Sunni jurisprudent. The Shia have great clerical families--the Sadr and Hakim clans are now the two best known--that have an aura and the potential for leadership far beyond the most prestigious clerical families on the Sunni side. Without an Arab Sunni strongman in Baghdad rallying, or oppressing, Sunni Arabs; without Baghdad's intellectuals giving them a cause (chiefly pan-Arabism); and without Baghdad the city serving as a home (think the French and Paris), Iraq's Sunni Arab community has no center.
The Middle East's first fully Muslim experiment in representative government could well prove more durable precisely because it is not at all what the Bush administration expected.
This could change. As bad as Iraq's constitution may be, it still gives the Sunnis a good deal of throw weight if they choose to use it. And the potential for Sunni Arabs to stop most legislation if they ally with the Kurds is substantial. A Sunni Arab-Kurdish alliance would certainly require alteration in the Sunni Arab mindset--they would have to admit in deed, if not in theory, that Iraq is not an Arab nation. (It would probably also require the Kurds to show restraint in their quest to reduce the Arab population in Kirkuk and its environs.) So far, however, the Sunni Arabs have largely chosen to play the spoiler, pout, and try to get the American Embassy and the Western and Arab press to depict them as the most aggrieved party in Iraq.
It is quite understandable why Iraq's Arab Sunnis would regularly tell foreign correspondents and American military officers that the political window of opportunity for the Shia is closing. The surge has made the Americans again the strongest force in Iraq, and if the Arab Sunnis, who have done an abysmal job of fighting in Baghdad, can get the Americans to force the Shia to give them something that they themselves cannot obtain on their own, so much the better. For American journalists who have invested themselves in the failure of Iraq; for American military officers who, for understandable reasons, would like to see a quick political solution to post-Saddam Iraq's many problems; and for Democrats who would like to deny the Bush administration any achievement (and U.S. officials who defined the surge as a means to allow time for "political reconciliation" have made it easy to question the surge's ultimate efficacy), the depiction of an Iraq where the Shia must soon make concessions to avoid an irreparable national crackup is obviously appealing.
One should never underestimate the Sunni "Will to Power." This sentiment, combined with its historical corollary that "Shiites are Sheep," nearly led Baghdad's Sunni community in 2007 to the choice of exile or annihilation. Baghdad's well-educated technicians and professionals, the majority of whom are probably Sunni, were driven in great numbers into exile by the calamitous decision of former Baathists, Sunni fundamentalists, and Iraq's Sunni clergy to fight Shiite preeminence in Iraq. It is certainly possible that Baghdad's centripetal eminence among the Sunnis could work its baleful influence on the Sunni Arabs of Anbar, who have only indirectly, through extended families, friends, and waves of refugees, largely felt the vengeance of the Shiites of Baghdad. The Anbaris might be in a time warp, believing like many Sunni Baghdadis did after the fall of Saddam Hussein that Shiites are no match for well-armed Sunni Arab fighters. Sunnis may now believe, in part thanks to American aid, that they are better prepared to defeat the Shia or at least fight them to a standstill. If this is true, then the surge has only produced a brief respite from a final showdown between the two Arab communities.
However, this view would mean that the Anbaris really have not been paying attention. Even Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, the two primary (Sunni) Arab satellite stations, which often did their best to depict the Arab Sunnis of Iraq and their "anti-occupation" cause in the best light, have not failed to depict the defeat of the Sunnis in Baghdad. It is probably a better bet that the Iraqi Arab Sunni community knows that any renewed offensive only offers diminishing returns. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that parliamentary government will become the new rendezvous point for the community. The Sunnis will undoubtedly hate it. They will publicly rail against its sectarian injustices (some of which are unquestionably real), and try to convince the Americans--and many in the Bush administration probably need little convincing--that "one man, one vote" democracy is a disaster for Iraq since it does not sufficiently protect minority voting rights (that is, the ability of the Sunni Arab minority to veto any legislation it does not like).
But the odds are decent that Mesopotamia's Sunni Arabs will reconcile themselves to the new Iraq without the official reconciliation legislation that the Bush administration and the Democratic party have viewed as essential elements of success. It is likely that the political Shiite elite, who are often depicted in the press as being selfishly stubborn in their resistance to the American-backed reconciliation initiatives--chiefly the de-de-Baathification and oil-distribution bills--are reflective of the vast majority of Iraq's Shiites.[10] Some form of these bills will likely pass eventually, but only after the Sunni Arab community proves to the Shia that the violence of the past, in particular the Sunni Arabs' tolerance of insurgent and extremist attacks, is over. In the eyes of the Shia, the Sunni Arab about-face against al Qaeda is surely a good thing, but one motivated by the fact that al Qaeda started doing to Sunni Arabs what it had been doing to the Shia since 2003. Maliki's government offered monetary aid to Anbar in 2006 and 2007 but encountered difficulty within the Shiite-led government. Intra-Sunni feuding, between the Iraqi Islamic Party governor of Anbar (the Iraqi Islamic Party is a nontribal, Baghdad-centered organization) and the region's tribal elders, has also been a significant factor in slowing disbursement of federal funds to the province.[11] Americans, who have a hard time thinking consistently in Iraqi terms, see "political reconciliation" as politically astute magnanimity. But the Shia, Iraqi to the core, are unlikely to show weakness so soon after the Sunnis have been defeated in battle. This is, in part, undoubtedly why the Shiites are anxious about the Americans giving aid to the Anbaris: they do not want to see the Sunni "Will to Power" reenergized. They do not want to confront Sunni soldiers materially or organizationally aided by the Americans. This fear is probably misplaced, but Shiite hesitancy about this American-supported project is understandable. For the Sunnis, it will most likely turn out to be a direct and simple choice: better democracy than death.
A Stronger Shia Center
The second reason Iraq has seen the worst, survived, and is likely to remain a functioning democracy is that the Shiite center has held, actually gaining ground in 2006 and 2007. It is unlikely now to be felled by internecine Shiite strife. Moqtada al-Sadr, the scion of Iraq's greatest clerical family, the preeminent leader of the Mahdi Army, and perhaps America's only great antagonist in Iraq, is a powerfully charismatic character who has realized that his status inside the Iraqi Shia community is insufficient to either overwhelm it through force of arms or lead it through his personal magnetism. The greatest fear that one had of Sadr in August 2004, when he threw the Mahdi Army against American forces only to have it badly mauled, was that he was a millenarian Shiite who saw his role in Iraqi history in transcendent terms. Sadr is not an easy character to read: he has not once expounded at length on the political future of Iraq--beyond saying that he wants Iraq free of American troops and wants Sunni and Shiite Arabs to live as brothers. However, by his actions, Sadr has clearly indicated that he understands the limitations on his undeniable personal and family appeal and power. Since the August 2004 military debacle, the Mahdi Army has not openly challenged U.S. armed forces. When American military units entered the Shiite Baghdad ghetto named for Sadr's martyred father, the Mahdi Army did not attack. Shiite militants allied with or under the command of Sadr have used Iranian-supplied explosive devices to attack Americans on patrol, but Sadr has kept his distance from backing anything more aggressive. When the surge started and Sadr announced that his men should lay down their weaponry for six months, he was clearly indicating that he did not think a confrontation with the United States and Maliki's government, which has backed the surge, was wise.
It is understandable why Iraq's Arab Sunnis would tell foreign correspondents and American military officers that the political window of opportunity for the Shia is closing. If the Arab Sunnis can get the Americans to force the Shia to give them something that they themselves cannot obtain on their own, so much the better.
This is not just a military calculation: Sadr's allies in parliament have repeatedly walked away and then returned to parliament. Sadr has never suggested that the democratic process is illegitimate. He may not have told us what his democratic philosophy and platform are, but he is hardly alone in this, since the insurgency has consumed Iraqi politics and obviated the need for either Shiite or Sunni political parties to spend much time explaining their missions. Compared to 2004, however, Sadr seems politically and religiously much less militant.[12] He no longer appears to be at war with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's preeminent traditional Shiite cleric, who is the only figure who can command the loyalty of more Iraqis than Sadr. Sadr's men are all over Najaf--indeed a foreigner cannot stay in Najaf long without Sadr's blessing--but the tension between Sadr and Sistani appears to be much less, with stories circulating regularly that Sadr now shows the grand ayatollah much of the deference that the Shiite world's most respected cleric deserves from any believer. Sadr may still consider Sistani a transplanted Iranian who does not deserve the loyalty of Iraqi Shiite Arabs--nonideological Arabism and Iraqi nationalism run deep among many of Sadr's followers--but his actions no longer indicate that he is at war with Iraq's old-fashioned clerical establishment. Sadr may not be a man of peace--he grew powerful by defending the Shia of Baghdad from the depredations of the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (while the American forces under Abizaid did little to protect them), and many of his most dedicated followers, who, like him, are children of Saddam's terror, have obviously developed a taste for violence against both Sunnis and Shiites--but he seems unwilling to divorce himself from the Shiite community, which remains by and large loyal to Sistani and the idea that the Iraqi government should be elected.[13] As long as this is true, and Sadr's commitment to this appears to be growing, then he is not a serious threat to democracy's survival in Iraq or to the American armed forces' primary mission to protect Iraqi civilians from Iraqi killers.
The Iraqi clerical establishment--which is the mainstay supporting peaceful political relations among the Shia, the democratic government in Baghdad, and the American troop presence in the country--has held under enormous pressure from within and without. The year 2006 was awful for the Iraqi Shia: the demolition of the shrine at Samarra; a ferocious onslaught of Sunni suicide bombers that seemed to be collapsing Shiite civilian life in the capital; the merciless Battle of Baghdad, which threatened to empower the most radical among the Shia; a noticeable Iranian push to gain influence amid the turmoil; the utter failure of Abizaid and Casey to deploy a counterinsurgency strategy against the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda; the accompanying widespread, destabilizing fear that the Americans were withdrawing; and the growth of Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the south of the country as the British position completely collapsed in Basra--all combined to threaten the cohesion of the Shiite community.
But the community did not crack. Although it is very difficult to gauge the grassroots health of Iraq's clerical Shiite establishment and the mosques and religious schools allied with Najaf throughout the country (Western reporting on this has never been good, and the awful violence of 2005-2007 essentially shut down the occasional reporting on Najaf and its networks), the hawza under Sistani seems to be regaining strength. According to Iraqis affiliated with Sistani, religious students--the talaba--are returning to Najaf in greater numbers, and revenue flows within Iraq and from the larger Shiite world are increasing again and stabilizing. The all important pilgrimage trade with Iran is flourishing. Sistani remains a major point of reference for both Shiite and Sunni politicians and will continue to be until he dies.[14] He is once again publicly encouraging Sunni-Shiite fraternity and meeting with Sunni clerical delegations.[15] The Shiite-on-Shiite violence in southern Iraq, although worrisome, does not appear to be escalating into a national violent struggle between the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC)--formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)--led by Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, and the Mahdi Army. The big push for Shiite secession in the south, originally led by SCIRI, has lost steam. SIIC may well make another play for Shiite federalism. Its greater strength in the south of the country might allow it more assured electoral results and oil wealth. However, the Shiite victory in Baghdad has probably guaranteed that Shiite politics in Iraq will recentralize. This may be a slow process. The unspeakably poor, miserable city of Basra--the only place in southern Iraq with a genuine and powerful localism--may well resist Baghdad's writ for some time. Intra-Shiite feuding in the city, aided by the Iranians, could keep Basra and other areas in the south a mess for years. However, national elections, the growing power of the Iraqi army, the centripetal eminence of a "Shiite Baghdad," and the hesitancy of Najaf to back Shiite federalism will make it increasingly difficult for southern Shiites to maintain their distance from Baghdad. And SIIC, which was once a subsidiary of Tehran, continues its evolution into something decidedly more Iraqi. It is still difficult to know exactly what the Supreme Council stands for--the Sunni insurgency derailed the need for greater political and philosophical clarity among the Shia, and SIIC's aligned newspapers and website do little to give the reader a firm idea of what the Supreme Council's philosophy of government will be.
Hakim's organization, however, has no intention of trying to overturn the established system of representative government. More than any other Shiite group, SIIC is dependent upon Najaf's political blessing to maintain its appeal since it cannot compete successfully with Sadr for the hearts and minds of Baghdad's poor, to whom Sadr is the dominant politico-religious force. The Supreme Council defines itself religiously, and Sistani more than anyone else defines the ethical standards for those who believe. And the grand ayatollah has firmly ruled that "one man, one vote" democracy will be the final arbiter of the nation's politics.[16] For SIIC to try to change the rules--to stage a coup d'état--is political suicide, especially since Hakim cannot even pretend to be an independ-ent religious authority, and he has shown no signs of wanting to cede his political preeminence in SIIC to his uncle Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sa'id al-Hakim of Najaf, the only Hakim family member who could plausibly assert a religious leadership of SIIC or the Shia of Iraq based on clerical accomplishment and Arab blood. (A testy relationship exists within the Hakim family between those who fled to Iran and founded SCIRI and those who stayed in Iraq, like Grand Ayatollah Hakim and his immediate family, and suffered horribly under Saddam Hussein.) Simply put: the SIIC, which self-consciously and wisely took "revolution" out of its name, cannot survive unless it backs the religious Shiite status quo, which Sistani leads.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the revolutionary mullahs were able to humble and meld with the traditional clergy, which had originally been skeptical about Ruhollah Khomeini and his revolution. The clergy became both the most effective force for revolutionary change and the most effective brake against long-term revolutionary excess. (Iran's revolution, although terrifying, was far less bloody than either the French or Russian revolutions.) In Iraq, the Shiite clergy, a more conservative institution than its Iranian counterpart, has thrown itself solidly behind the democratic experiment, and it has worked hard to ensure that the Shiite community does not collapse into self-destructive internecine conflict. And unless the Sunnis do something extremely stupid--like declare war on the Shia--it now seems unlikely that this consensus could be broken by any armed Shiite force. (If the Shia are forced to begin the conquest of western Iraq, then one could imagine a Shiite general arising who would not owe his political strength to the Shiite center backed by the hawza.) Although this progress might be reversed if the Americans again repeat the mistakes of premature "Iraqification" and rapidly drew down their forces, the surge has likely made lasting success the more probable scenario. It is by no means clear that the Bush administration understands the dynamic working here--it is the collapse of Sunni hubris, not the triumph of Sunni-Shiite "reconciliation," that is the key to long-term success. But it appears now that Iraqis grasp this reality, and, in the end, that is what matters.
Reuel Marc Gerecht (rgerecht@aei.org) is a resident fellow at AEI.
AEI editorial assistant Christy Hall Robinson worked with Mr. Gerecht to edit and produce this Middle Eastern Outlook.
Download file Click here to view this Outlook as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.
Notes
1. Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, "We Just Might Win," New York Times, July 30, 2007. See, for example, George Packer's belittlement of O'Hanlon's and Pollack's op-ed on his blog Interesting Times on The New Yorker's website: "O'Hanlon and Pollack on the Surge," July 30, 2007, available at www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/07/ (accessed November 27, 2007); and "O'Hanlon and Pollack (2)," August 1, 2007, available at www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/ (accessed November 27, 2007). Although demeaning, Packer's commentary was positively civil compared to the vitriol let loose elsewhere.
2. Bartle Bull, "Mission Accomplished," Prospect 139 (October 2007): 28-32.
3. For confirmation of this view, see the highly critical op-ed by John Podesta, Larry Korb, and Brian Katulis, "Strategic Drift: Where's the Pushback against the Surge?" Washington Post, November 15, 2007. See also a thoughtful critique of Demo-cratic antiwar weakness by Tom Oliphant, "The Trap That Is Iraq," Guardian (London), October 24, 2007. Senator Obama has alternately pledged a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, refused to define the speed and numbers of a withdrawal, and pledged to withdraw one brigade a month after becoming president. Considering this vacillation, Senator Obama could conceivably allow his obvious preference for a rapid exit from Mesopotamia to dominate his political and strategic instincts. The senator's constantly evolving stance, however, is certainly evidence that he is sensitive to the reality and responsibility of the United States' counterinsurgency presence in Iraq. If Iraq's physical security continues to improve, then it is a decent bet that the senator, if he wins the presidency, would be more inclined to allow the reality in Iraq--and not his personal convictions or the "exit yesterday" preferences of the Democratic party's base--to dictate troop strength.
4. For an eloquent disquisition on the ugliness of Iraqi democracy, see the classical liberal cri de coeur by John Agresto, who oversaw Iraqi higher education under the early days of the American occupation. John Agresto, Mugged by Reality: The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions (New York: Encounter Books, 2007).
5. See Thomas Friedman, "Channeling Dick Cheney," New York Times, November 18, 2007.
6. I have never met an Iraqi Shiite cleric who felt that Iranian Shiism was the font of the Shiite identity. Hume Horan-- who was the go-between for Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and Iraq's Shiite clergy, and one of the finest Arabists that Harvard's renowned orientalist Hamilton Gibb and the State Department ever produced--regularly remarked about the explicit, respectful distance the Iraqi Shiite clergy took from their Iranian counterparts in Qom. It was clear from conversations and emails between Horan and the author in 2003 and 2004 that the Shiites of the holy city of Najaf, who daily walked past the shrine to the Caliph Ali, the father of Shiism, and witnessed the endless flow of pilgrims from around the Muslim world, viewed themselves, not the Iranians, as the most important players in defining the "true" Shiite identity. For a good, though highly eclectic treatment of Iraqi Shiite sentiments, see Pierre-Jean Luizard, La question irakienne (Paris: Fayard, 2002). See in particular Luizard's commentary on the religious movement among the Shia, which at its core "is probably the 'Iraqi' tendency that predominates, which is to say that this tendency, whether Islamist or not, endeavors to preserve the independence of Iraq vis-à-vis Iran, even if at no time does it call into question the importance of Iran and the necessity of preserving the historical, religious, and cultural ties between the two countries" (188). Translation by the author.
7. Fouad Ajami, "You Have Liberated a People," Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2007.
8. See, for example, the editorial "Iraq's Narrow Window," Washington Post, November 18, 2007; Thomas E. Ricks, "Iraqis Wasting an Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say," Washington Post, November 15, 2007; and Joshua Partlow, "Top Iraqis Pull Back from Key U.S. Goal," Washington Post, October 8, 2007.
9. For an excellent discussion of the evolution of Iraqi Shiite clergy, see Jean-Pierre Luizard, La formation de l'Irak contemporain (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1991).
10. For an account of Shiite stubbornness, selfishness, and parochialism as the primary problem, see, for example, Jonathan Finer, "At Heart of Iraqi Impasse, a Family Feud," Washington Post, April 19, 2006.
11. According to e-mail exchanges between the author, Frederick W. Kagan, and the Public Affairs Office of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, November 21-22, 2007, Iraq's central government spent $97 million in 2006; $107 million was allocated in 2007, but only $52 million was committed as of October, and only $8 million was disbursed by Baghdad. On November 21, 2007, the author exchanged e-mails about the feud between the Iraqi Islamic Party governor of Anbar and the Sunni tribes with Ahmad Chalabi, head of the new metropolitan Baghdad Renewal and Reconstruction Office. According to Chalabi, the Iraqi government has allocated approximately $70 million for Anbar, although it is unclear how much has actually been spent in Anbar and by whom. The disagreements between the Iraqi Islamic Party governor and the tribes were so intense that tribal elders remonstrated with U.S. officials about the governor and asked for American redress.
12. See the reporting on overt and covert American/Sadrist discussions during the surge. Such discussions would not have been possible three years ago. Ned Parker, "U.S. Seeks Pact with Shiite Militia," Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2007.
13. For good commentary on Shiite attachment to elections, see George Packer, "Testing Ground," The New Yorker, February 28, 2005. See also Yitzak Nakash, Reaching for Power: The Shi'a in the Modern Arab World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 144-57.
14. One example is the pilgrimage of the (Sunni) Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashemi to see Grand Ayatollah Sistani. See Sam Dagher, "The Sunni in Iraq's Shiite Leadership," Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 2007.
15. See Kuwait News Agency release, available at www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1861019&Language=en (accessed November 29, 2007). See also Steve Schippert, "Sistani Fatwa: Iraqi Shi'a Must Protect Iraqi Sunnis," The Tank, November 28, 2007, available at http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmZmMGEwZDgzOWViMWFjNzcxZjgwYmQ5NWE0NTU4YmU= (accessed November 29, 2007).
16. See Reuel Marc Gerecht, The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2004), 36, available at www.aei.org/book799.
"but to suggest that oil production was stagnant because of Saddam as opposed to because of his enemies is just silly.
So like Iraq being under siege in all those years didn't have anything to do with oil production?"
You're responding to a point I never made
By "under siege" do you mean the UN sanctions imposed because of their invasion of Kuwait?
I guess you see that as terribly unfair?
IF it were Israelis who decided to annex a neighboring country we all know what your response would be
Iraqi oil exceeds pre-war output
Iraqi oil facility
Iraq's oil infrastructure appears to be getting back on track
Iraqi oil production is above the levels seen before the US-led invasion of the country in 2003, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA said Iraqi crude production is now running at 2.3 million barrels per day, compared with 1.9 million barrels at the start of this year.
It puts the rise down to the improving security situation in Iraq, especially in the north of the country.
But the IEA warned that attacks on Iraqi oil facilities remain a threat.
In southern Iraq, more than 85% of the residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, according to a BBC poll.
The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence.
Sabotage attacks
In its latest monthly Oil Market Report, the IEA puts the Iraqi increase in production down to improved security on the main oil pipeline from Iraq's northern oilfields to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey.
The [BBC] survey's results suggest that only 2% of Basra residents believe that British troops have had a positive effect on the province since they helped the US overthrow Saddam Hussein in March 2003
BBC poll: UK troops blamed
New era, new fears
In recent years this pipeline has been out of action for long periods due to sabotage attacks.
Since the summer there has been a marked downturn in all forms of violence in Iraq.
Analysts point to a number of reasons for this, ranging from the big increase or "surge" in American troop numbers in Baghdad, to Sunni militant groups turning against former al-Qaeda allies.
British forces are due to hand control of security in Basra province to Iraqi forces on Sunday.
The security improvements in Iraq are leading to all sorts of dividends in the country, some of which could be enormously lucrative, said BBC correspondent Crispin Thorold in Baghdad.
Threat remains
While the level of violence has reduced, the threat has certainly not gone away.
Earlier this week, three car bombs exploded in the southern Iraqi city of Amara, killing at least 39 people and injuring more than 100, according to local police.
Iraq has the third-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, but exports plummeted in the face of the insurgency that flared up following the US-led invasion.
Separately, the IEA said world oil demand would grow faster in 2008 than had previously been expected.
Saying markets were proving resilient to near record-high prices due to continuing strong global demand, the IEA now expects oil demand to increase by 1.2 million barrels per day, 200,000 bpd higher than the previous forecast.
The Paris-based IEA represents the world's largest oil consuming nations.
Cue the moonbats explaining how things were much better when SH was still in power
The Delta House Congress
The politics of futile gestures.
Friday, December 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
WSJ
NIE: "Weaponizing isn’t the issue, developing fissionable materials is".
Posted by: McQ
Even Dennis Ross at TNR has figured it out:
I don't question the assumptions or analysis in the NIE, or for that matter, its main conclusion. I accept that the Iranians suspended their covert nuclear weapons program in 2003. But I am afraid that misses the point. Weaponizing is not the issue, developing fissionable materials is. Because compared with producing fissionable material, which makes up the core of nuclear bombs, weaponizing it is neither particularly difficult nor expensive.
In other words, the hard part of becoming a nuclear power is enriching uranium or separating out plutonium. And guess what? Iran is going full-speed ahead on both. With over 3,300 operating centrifuges for spinning uranium gases at its facility at Natanz (and more centrifuges on the way) and the building of a heavy water plant for plutonium separation at Arak, the Iranians will be able to master both by 2010 at the latest.
But, you know, for the chronically apoplectic out there who consider anything which might reflect badly on Bush to be "a good thing" and who've swallowed this NIE thing whole, it won't matter one whit. As Dale pointed out (and Christopher Hitchens), when you define nuclear weapon development as narrowly as did the NIE, almost nothing qualifies. And if that gives one a warm a fuzzy feeling, no matter how false, while embarrassing Bush - well, life just doesn't get any better than that, does it?
Programming glitch
Poll: More in US See Progress in Iraq
By ALAN FRAM – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Growing numbers of people think the U.S. is making progress in Iraq and will eventually be able to claim some success there, a poll showed Tuesday in a sign the politics of the war could become more complicated for Democrats.
With diminishing U.S. and Iraqi casualties and the start of modest troop withdrawals, the public's mood seems to have brightened a bit, the Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed. That is a rarity in what has been a relentlessly unpopular war.
"I still have hopes the people in Iraq will appreciate us being there," said Daniel Laird, 30, a firefighter from Yuba City, Calif., who leans Republican and was questioned in the survey. "It just seems like we are making a difference."
Even so, majorities remain upset about the conflict and convinced the invasion was a mistake, and the issue still splits the country deeply along party lines.
About three-fourths of respondents describe themselves as worried about what's happening in Iraq and nearly six in 10 say they are angry — slight reductions since February, but still strong majorities harboring negative feelings on the eve of an election year. Most Democrats and independents — joined by sizable numbers of Republicans — say they are worried, tired, even angry.
People are most positive are about recent gains in security in Iraq.
The poll showed a nearly even division over whether President Bush's troop increase this year has helped stabilize the country, with 50 percent saying no and 47 percent yes. Just three months ago, only 36 percent said yes.
By 52 percent to 41 percent, most said the U.S. is making progress in Iraq. When AP-Ipsos last asked that question in September 2006 — a time when vicious sectarian attacks resembled a civil war — just 39 percent saw improvements under way.
While far greater proportions of Republicans than Democrats think progress is being made, even growing numbers of Democrats agree. The portion of Democrats saying the troop increase has helped stabilize the country has nearly doubled since September to 26 percent, and the number saying the U.S. is making progress has shown similar growth.
For many Democrats, though, the gains are seen as tentative.
"Yes, there's been progress, but I don't think it will be long-term," said Regina Pitts, 51, a Democrat from Fairview, Tenn. "We can't stay there forever and babysit."
By some measures, peoples' longer-range views of U.S. accomplishments are also becoming more optimistic.
By 55 percent to 42 percent, more said they think history will consider the war a failure than a success. While most remain negative about the conflict's legacy, in September only 34 percent predicted success.
Just one in five Democrats and four in 10 independents think the war will be a long-range success, well less than the three-fourths of Republicans who think so.
Overall, only 38 percent think the 2003 invasion was the right decision, including three-fourths of Republicans, a third of independents and one-seventh of Democrats — a negative perspective that has barely shifted all year.
Even so, the slowly improving views about progress raise the question of whether Iraq will give Democrats the slam-dunk political advantage in next year's presidential election that many in the party have long assumed it will.
Democratic voters are still strongly against the war and the party's presidential candidates compete for ways to criticize it. Such a tactic, though, might prove less effective when it is time to appeal to the more moderate voters who will participate in next year's general election.
So far, the public's improved mood has helped Bush — slightly.
Thirty-six percent now approve of the overall job he is doing — up four percentage points from last month, but still a poor showing for a president. Eight in 10 Republicans, three in 10 independents and one in 10 Democrats approve. His highest marks — 42 percent approval — are for handling foreign policy and terrorism.
Congress' approval remains mired at 25 percent — near its January low of 22 percent.
Bush sent 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, with most focused on reducing violence in and around Baghdad. U.S. forces in the country exceed 160,000, though Pentagon officials have said that figure could decline to 135,000 next summer — about where it was before the troop increase.
Besides the beefed up U.S. presence, the leader of the Mahdi Army militia, Muqtada al-Sadr, has ordered his fighters to temporarily stand down. And thousands of Iraqis, chiefly Sunni Arabs, have become U.S. allies in the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.
As a result, violence has dropped considerably since June and there have been signs that Baghdad is becoming less chaotic. U.S. casualties have fallen from 101 in June to 37 in November, according to an AP count, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the country, says there has been a 60 percent decline in violence over the past half year.
Among Iraqi civilians, the number of deaths from war-related violence have dropped from 1,640 in June to 718 last month, according to the AP.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,009 adults conducted from Dec. 3-5. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
On the Net:
* http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com
Free Carbon Offsets
Can it be true? It can and it is! You may have seen other sites offering carbon offsets for $10, $20 or more a month. Well, with FreeCarbonOffsets.com, you can get carbon offsets absolutely free!
How can I get my carbon offsets? Just click on the certificate link on the left, fill out the form, click go, and within seconds you will have a beautiful personalized certificate downloaded right to your computer. This certificate is suitable for framing, and allows you to show others that you are doing your part to save the environment.
What will be done to improve the environment for my carbon offsets? Click on the FAQ link on the left to find out just exactly what we at FreeCarbonOffsets.com will be doing in exchange for your carbon offsets.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q:
Is this really free?
A:
Yes! Absolutely free, no strings attached. Zilch, Nada, Free.
Q:
How can you do this for free?
A:
We at FreeCarbonOffsets.com feel strongly that carbon offsets should be available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. We will take the steps to see that the offsets that you acquire through us are properly channeled. We can do it because we care.
Q:
What exactly will you do for my carbon offsets?
A:
There are several steps we will take to do our part to help the environment, based on your level of participation:
* 1-100 offsets: We will try our hardest to turn off the water for an extra ten seconds while we brush our teeth.
* 101-1000 offsets: We will think about possibly using one less square of toilet paper every time we use the rest room. So you don't have to!
* 1001-10000 offsets: At this level, we will think about not going out to lunch for one day. Gas savings, plus savings on one less burger made that day!
* 10000+ offsets: Premium offsets. We will consider not taking a shower for a whole week!
http://freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do;jsessionid=38DF6C29D8A3BB2DC13A8A58381D4EE9
AGW hysteria builds
Posted by: McQ
How about it folks - are you up for a baby tax?
Couples who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.
The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.
And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.
It's only going to get worse you know.
WalMart and a lot of other big corporations have realized that being green is good business.
They're using a number of energy saving changes that are having a much larger impact environmentally than any "ecowarrior"
Alan Dershowitz at the Hudson Institute
Bill Katz has filed the following report with us:
Professor Alan Dershowitz, of the Harvard Law School, spoke before friends of the Hudson Institute in New York [yesterday]. Hudson Institute is a major think tank that conducts research to advance global security, prosperity and freedom.
Among other things, Professor Dershowitz revealed that Noam Chomsky, the radical leftist, had once been his camp counselor. Apparently, Counselor Chomsky did no lasting harm to Counselor Dershowitz.
Another thing Professor Dershowitz revealed tells us much about former President Jimmy Carter. It seems that when Carter appeared at Brandeis to plug his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, he pledged to answer any questions that students e-mailed him afterward. Many took him up on the offer, and Carter did answer every question... except one. That one was this: Did you advise Yasser Arafat to reject the peace offer Israel made at Camp David, at the end of Clinton's term? According to Professor Dershowitz, some 15 students e-mailed that question, and they were the only students not to be answered.
Hmm.
Professor Dershowitz also recalled his visit to the University of California at Irvine, which is a hotbed of anti-Israel agitation. He spoke to a large crowd, and first asked those who considered themselves pro-Israel to raise their hands. About 250 hands were raised. He then asked them if they would accept a Palestinian state, side by side, living in peace with Israel. Every hand went up.
Then he asked how many considered themselves pro-Palestinian. About 150 hands were raised. Finally, he asked this group whether they would accept a Jewish state of Israel, living side by side in peace with a new Palestinian state. Not a single hand went up.
That says it.
I guess you missed the report ( with pix ) of the Christian church repoening.
Doura celebrates church re-opening
BAGHDAD - Nov. 15 marked an important day for the residents of the Doura neighborhood, as Iraqi Christians returned to conduct worship services at St. John's Church.
Bishop Schlemon Warduni, Auxiliary Bishop of the Chaldean Church, came to St. John's to give the first mass since May 5. The church is located in the heart of a southern Baghdad neighborhood known for violence and as an al-Qaeda stronghold.
With Christians, Muslims and Iraqi Security and Coalition Forces on hand, Bishop Warduni delivered a mass prayer for peace and unity for all of Iraq. The Christians in the congregation took communion to conclude the service, culminating a day more than six months in the making.
"This service is a reflection of the current security situation in Doura," said Harker Heights, Texas native Col. Ricky D. Gibbs, commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. "Only a few weeks ago, AQI had the Iraqi populace in the grip of terror, but they've been pushed out and the people have returned to worship."
Tired of their Christian friends being forced out by al-Qaeda, Muslim leaders sought a way to bring these families back into the community. Lt. Col. Stephen Michael, the commander of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, said the Muslim community played a significant role in the events of the day.
Prejudice exists everywhere- look at how Romey's religious choice is being dealt with here
I guess you werent' around when Kennedy was running for office and the discussion among the dems was about his being catholic- how the Vatican would be running our country
YOu forget about Perot running and getting a large vote??
How did that happen??
Don't; you think having increased relative security improves the odds for reconciliation?
The end result has been mapped out since the beginning.
Again the Petraeus report goes into detail, and for those that actually read it, is not a whitewash. The real problems are acknowledged and the chances for failure acknowledged
Why is it that virtually every liberal or progressive proposal for socioeconomic or political change in the United States is still-born,
Umm, maybe because most of them are horrible ideas that go against the ethics of most Americans???
Please give examples
.Murtha was right in '05 and he's right today!
LOL, even though he is saying completely different things now then he did then
"“Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things,” said Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of Appropriations defense subcommittee. “We can’t win militarily.”
The purpose of the surge was to establish stability and reduce violence ( done ) the next phase is for the Iraqis to arrange a political reconciliation
If they don't d that, you have a point.
To leave now after the military success we've had would be idiotic.
You and Reid and all the other pathetic moonbat idiots claimed that the surge has failed even before it started
Now Murtha admits it's done well and your stupidly go on spouting the same dense talking points as if nothing has changed
Too funny
Lashing Justice
Published: December 3, 2007
Muslims who wonder why non-Muslims are often baffled, angered, even frightened by some governments’ interpretation of Islamic law need only look to the cases of two women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan threatened with barbaric lashings.
In Saudi Arabia, a woman who was gang-raped was sentenced to 90 lashes. The reason? Before the rape, the woman, who was then 19, had been in a car with a man who was not a family member — a crime under the kingdom’s legal code, which is based on a strict Wahabi reading of Islamic law. Punishing the victim of a brutal rape is reprehensible. Then a Saudi appeals court more than doubled her lashings to 200 and added six months’ jail time, apparently because she had the audacity to publicly challenge the court’s ruling. Her lawyer had his license to practice suspended.
In Sudan, a British primary school teacher was originally threatened with 40 lashes, a fine, or six months in jail after her class of 7-year-olds voted to name a teddy bear Muhammad. The government accused her of insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is one of the most common names among Muslims, including the student who suggested it for the teddy bear. On Thursday, the court reduced the teacher’s sentence to 15 days in jail, but found her guilty and ordered her deported.
Saudi Arabia and Sudan have notoriously bad human rights records and the cases have ominous political overtones. The Khartoum government — so willing to punish the crime of naming a teddy bear — is responsible for the genocide in Darfur. The case was widely seen as a warning against Westerners who protest that mass slaughter. In the Saudi case, the girl was a member of the country’s persecuted Shiite minority, and experts said her sentence was harsh even by Saudi standards.
Khartoum’s few friends, in the Arab League and China, should make clear that such cynical games will only increase its isolation. The world should expect better from Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, who has introduced some — but not nearly enough — political and judicial reforms. The king has a hallowed responsibility in Islam as Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina. What one Muslim leader, Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain, said about the Sudan case can also be applied to the Saudis’: “How does this help the cause of Islam? What kind of message and image are we portraying about our religion and our culture?
NYT
I know your head must be close to exploding to find out your hero was wrong. Haven't you read any of his comments?
Here's the quotes:
"Murtha: Surge is working
But he says Iraqis must play a larger role in security
Friday, November 30, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken congressional critics of the Iraq war, yesterday said he saw signs of significant military progress during a brief trip to the Middle East last week. But he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration must develop an exit strategy.
"I think the 'surge' is working," Mr. Murtha, a Democrat, said in a video conference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops at the beginning of the year. "But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them."
Mr. Murtha has been a strong critic of the White House war policy and has been calling for a troop withdrawal plan.
He said violence has dropped significantly in recent months, with a dramatic decline in civilian deaths. About 711 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press. That figure compares with 2,155 deaths in May.
U.S. forces also have seen a major decline in casualties. The military yesterday reported its 35th death in November, the lowest monthly number since March 2006. More than 120 troops died in May of this year, just as the troop surge was reaching its height.
Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the powerful House panel on defense spending, said the latest military successes aren't a surprise. During the war's early stages, he sent a letter to President Bush, warning that the United States needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq.
He described the most promising signs of progress as the turnaround in the once-volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis frustrated by the violent excesses of insurgent groups have started working closely with the United States.
Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional," Mr. Murtha said. He spoke of the frustrations expressed by the top American military and civilian commanders in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who have been pushing Iraqi leaders to use the lull in violence to make political progress, especially in relations between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Mr. Murtha also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who told him that Iraqi forces likely would take a much a greater security role in 2008. The Pennsylvania lawmaker said he had heard similar promises from the prime minister before.
"The American people are impatient," Mr. Murtha said. "He's got to do something to move forward."
As a reminder of how contentious the war debate is in Washington, a White House spokeswoman yesterday chastised Congress for failing to provide billions of dollars in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year.
"They only have six legislative days left in the session. Their focus should be on funding the troops, making sure the intelligence gap remains firmly closed, and by passing a budget, which is something that our country, our democracy, should be able to do," Dana Perino said during a press briefing.
"They complain about Iraq; the Iraqis were able to pass a budget. It's almost completed. Ours is nowhere near completed."
Mr. Murtha said such language is "the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult to come to an agreement because it just alienates people in our party."
He noted that Congress has already approved a $459 billion defense appropriations bill for 2008, and, this month, the House approved $50 billion in temporary spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Democrats attached a timeline that would pull U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year.
The bill has stalled in the Senate, and President Bush has said he would veto it.
Ms. Perino said yesterday that congressional failure to approve an acceptable war funding bill could jeopardize the Pentagon's budget, warning that as many as 100,000 civilian employees may be in danger of losing their jobs in the coming months.
Mr. Murtha said he may be willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal if the White House shows some flexibility. He acknowledged that the U.S. military would be unable to handle the logistics of pulling its heavy equipment from Iraq by the end of 2008.
On Tuesday morning, the lawmaker expressed his ideas with the Bush administration's "war czar," Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.
Mr. Murtha's four day-trip took him to a Thanksgiving dinner with troops in Kuwait. He also made stops in Turkey and NATO headquarters in Belgium. He was joined by his wife, Joyce.
In Kuwait, he met with troops from Pennsylvania. Their morale is good, he said.
"They want to finish the job," he said. "But, on the other hand, they want to get home."
Jerome L. Sherman can be reached at jsherman@post-gazette.com or 202-488-3479.
Rep. Murtha finds that surge is working and falsely claims he believed it would
Rep. John Murtha, having returned from a trip to Iraq, acknowledges that the U.S. military surge is working. Murtha also reports that the morale of the Pennsylvania troops he met with is good and that they want to finish the job.
Unfortunately, Murtha opposes letting them do so. Murtha still insists that the U.S. pull out of Iraq. He is now willing to compromise on the timing, not because we're succeeding but because of the difficulties associated with getting all of our heavy equipment out of Iraq by the end of 2008. They don't call him "fighting Jack Murtha" for nothing.
Though unmoved by our success, Murtha isn't above taking credit for it. Murtha says he's not surprised by our military success, and that he sent a letter to President Bush early in the war stating that the U.S. needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq.
Yet in 2006, Murtha wrote on his blog that "our military has done everything it can do militarily." They don't call him "honest Jack Murtha" for nothing.
Sounds not too different from our Congress
Are you familiar with the book " MAstering Leptin? "
A lot of the stuff in the Zone was misleading too because he used glycemic index rather than gylcemic load ( which gives a better idea of the effect of the food on glucose levels )
Sears ahd carrots as a very high glycemic index food while it's glycemic load is not bad at all
Just saw this:
I am not sure about red wine but a friend of mine told me that he had started taking resveratrol based on a doctors suggestion about six weeks ago. My friend was experiencing chronic fatigue
and was having trouble sleeping. I asked him how it was working out and he said that he was taking a type of resveratrol called biotivia transmax and that after two weeks the results were subtle but undeniable. He said that he had more energy during the day, had a reduced appetite and was more alert throughout the day and was sleeping less but waking up more refreshed. So based on his experience I decided to give it a try. I have had similiar results after just one week. It is only recently that I have heard about it anti-aging benefits.
There is something to this resveratrol, I have no idea if I will live longer but I can tell you that I am living better now.
I couldn't believe it the first time I saw that there was dextrose in salt
UFB
Sugar blues was a great book- the precursor to the Zone diet and other low carb diets
CNN: Corrupt News Network
A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.
December 1, 2007
THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest.
So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?
In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.
Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday's debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN's performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent.
Corruption is a strong word. But consider these facts: The gimmick behind Wednesday's debate was that the questions would be selected from those that ordinary Americans submitted to the video sharing Internet website YouTube, which is owned by Google. According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions -- whoever initially formulated and recorded them -- actually are theirs.
That's where things begin to get troubling, because CNN chose to devote the first 35 minutes of this critical debate to a single issue -- immigration. Now, if that leaves you scratching your head, it's probably because you're included in the 96% of Americans who do not think immigration is the most important issue confronting this country. We've got a pretty good fix concerning what's on the American mind right now, because the nonpartisan and highly reliable Pew Center has been regularly polling people since January on the issues that matter most to them. In fact, the center's most recent survey was conducted in the days leading up to Wednesday's debate.
HERE'S what Pew found: By an overwhelming margin, Americans think the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing the United States, followed by the economy, healthcare and energy prices. In fact, if you lump the war into a category with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, 40% of Americans say foreign affairs are their biggest concern in this election cycle. If you do something similar with all issues related to the economy, 31% list those questions as their most worrisome issue. As anybody who has looked at their 401(k) or visited a gas pump would expect, that aggregate figure has increased dramatically since Pew started polling in January. Back then, for example, concerns over the war outpaced economic anxieties by fully 8 to 1. By contrast, just 6% of the survey's national sample said that immigration was the most important electoral issue. Moreover, that number hasn't changed in a statistically meaningful way since the first of the year. In other words, more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election.
So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. So, what's good for Dobbs is good for CNN.
In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs.
That's corruption, and it's why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour "debating" an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal -- and, more important, why GOP voters had to sit and wait, mostly in vain, for the issues that really concern them to be discussed. That's particularly true because that same Pew poll reported findings of particular relevance to Republican voters, the vast majority of whom continue to support the war in Iraq.
According to this most recent poll, a substantial number of Americans believe the surge is working. As Pew summarized their findings, "While Iraq remains a deeply polarizing issue across party lines, there has been improvement in how both Democrats and Republicans view the war. At the lowest point in February, barely half of Republicans (51%) said things were going well. Today, 74% of Republicans say the same. And while Democrats remain far more skeptical than Republicans, the proportion of Democrats expressing a positive view of the Iraq effort has doubled since February (from 16% to 33%).
"Independents' assessments of how the military effort is going remain far closer to the views of Democrats than of Republicans. Currently, 41% of independents offer a positive assessment, while half say things are not going well. In February, 26% of independents expressed a positive view of the situation in Iraq."
Those are significant swings of opinion, yet the poll also found that more than half of Americans still favor withdrawing American troops. That disconnect is a real issue for the GOP candidates, all but one of whom support the war. Unless we're going to believe that the self-selecting YouTube questioners were utterly different from the rest of American voters, it seems pretty clear that CNN ignored these complex -- and highly relevant concerns -- for an issue that served its ratings interests -- immigration -- or ones that made for moments of conventional television conflict, like gun control, which doesn't even show up in surveys of voters' concerns.
THIS is intellectual venality, but it pales beside the wickedness of using some crackpot's query about the candidates' stand on Biblical inerrancy to do something that's anathema in our system -- to probe people's individual religious consciences. American journalists quite legitimately ask candidates about policy issues -- say, abortion -- that might be influenced by their religious or philosophical convictions. We do not and should not ask them about those convictions themselves. It's nobody's business whether a candidate believes in the virgin birth, whether God gave an oral Torah to Moses at Sinai, whether the Buddha escaped the round of birth and rebirth or whether an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.
The latter point is relevant because CNN's noxious laundering of this question through the goofy YouTube mechanism quite clearly was designed to embarrass Mitt Romney -- who happens to be a Mormon -- and, secondarily, to help Mike Huckabee -- who, as a Baptist minister, had a ready answer, and who happens to be television's campaign flavor of the month.
Beside considerations like these, CNN's incompetent failure to weed out Democratically connected questioners pales.
In any event, CNN has failed in its responsibilities to the political process and it's time for the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties to take the network out of our electoral affairs.
timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Not too hard a task
PEGBOT:
NO COMMENT ON YOUR BOY MURTHA"S ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING?????????
LOL, Murtha's quote short circuiting moonbats though process all over the web
Here's the deal:
Murtha has been bleating on for years ( along with Reid and others ) that military victory was impossible.
Now that they are forced to admit that the surge is working, they move the argument to " well political reconciliation will never occur "
How do they have any credibility left??
They were wrong before and they might be right now, but w/o giving the process the chance to fully run out, it's a stupid argument
THe surge was designed to quell the sectarian violence and allow the political process to proceed
Read the Petraeus report
PS,
I'm not a Republican or a Bush lover. I have problems with a lot of what he has done