SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23810)1/11/2004 1:05:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793745
 
You mean it's not about "occupation"

Reminds me of someone who is demanding a divorce, and when their spouse walks out, starts hollering, "wait a minute, wait a minute! Where do you think you are going?"



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23810)1/11/2004 2:50:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793745
 
Here is "Part Two." We will see if he can reach a conclusion, or if he stalls.

January 11, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
War of Ideas, Part 2
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

While visiting Istanbul the other day, I took a long walk along the Bosporus near Topkapi Palace. There is nothing like standing at this stunning intersection of Europe and Asia to think about the clash of civilizations — and how we might avoid it. Make no mistake: we are living at a remarkable hinge of history and it's not clear how it's going to swing.

What is clear is that Osama bin Laden achieved his aim: 9/11 sparked real tensions between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim East. Preachers on both sides now openly denounce each other's faith. Whether these tensions explode into a real clash of civilizations will depend a great deal on whether we build bridges or dig ditches between the West and Islam in three key places — Turkey, Iraq and Israel-Palestine.

Let's start with Turkey — the only Muslim, free-market democracy in Europe. I happened to be in Istanbul when the street outside one of the two synagogues that were suicide-bombed on Nov. 15 was reopened. Three things struck me: First, the chief rabbi of Turkey appeared at the ceremony, hand in hand with the top Muslim cleric of Istanbul and the local mayor, while crowds in the street threw red carnations on them. Second, the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who comes from an Islamist party, paid a visit to the chief rabbi — the first time a Turkish prime minister had ever called on the chief rabbi. Third, and most revealing, was the statement made by the father of one of the Turkish suicide bombers who hit the synagogues.

"We are a respectful family who love our nation, flag and the Koran," the grieving father, Sefik Elaltuntas, told the Zaman newspaper. "But we cannot understand why this child had done the thing he had done . . . First, let us meet with the chief rabbi of our Jewish brothers. Let me hug him. Let me kiss his hands and flowing robe. Let me apologize in the name of my son and offer my condolences for the deaths. . . . We will be damned if we do not reconcile with them."

The same newspaper also carried a quote from Cemil Cicek, the Turkish government spokesman, who said: "The Islamic world should take stringent measures against terrorism without any `buts' or `howevers.' "

There is a message here: Context matters. Turkish politicians are not intimidated by religious fundamentalists, because — unlike too many Arab politicians — they have their own legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected. At the same time, the Turkish parents of suicide bombers don't all celebrate their children's suicide. They are not afraid to denounce this barbarism, because they live in a free society where such things are considered shameful and alien to the moderate Turkish brand of Islam — which has always embraced religious pluralism and which most Turks feel is the "real" Islam.

For all these reasons, if we want to help moderates win the war of ideas within the Muslim world, we must help strengthen Turkey as a model of democracy, modernism, moderation and Islam all working together. Nothing would do that more than having Turkey be made a member of the European Union — which the E.U. will basically decide this year. Turkey has undertaken a huge number of reforms to get itself ready for E.U. membership. If, after all it has done, the E.U. shuts the door on Turkey, extremists all over the Muslim world will say to the moderates: "See, we told you so — it's a Christian club and we're never going to be let in. So why bother adapting to their rules?"

I think Turkey's membership in the E.U. is so important that the U.S. should consider subsidizing the E.U. to make it easier for Turkey to be admitted. If that fails, we should offer to bring Turkey into Nafta, even though it would be very complicated.

"If the E.U. creates some pretext and says `no' to Turkey, after we have done all this, I am sure the E.U. will lose and the world will lose," Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, told me in Ankara. "If Turkey is admitted, the E.U. is going to win and world peace is going to win. This would be a gift to the Muslim world. . . . When I travel to other Muslim countries — Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia — they are proud of what we are doing. They are proud of our process [of political and economic reform to join the E.U.]. They mention this to me. They ask, `How is this going?' "

Yes, everyone is watching, which is why the E.U. would be making a huge mistake — a hinge of history mistake — if it digs a ditch around Turkey instead of building a bridge.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23810)1/11/2004 3:13:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793745
 
David Broder will be writing this kind of quality all the way to November.




The Politics Of 'Holy Moly' In Iowa

By David S. Broder

Sunday, January 11, 2004; washingtonpost.com

DES MOINES -- Teresa Heinz Kerry was speaking the simple truth when she remarked here the other day, "Iowa gets better as you meet more and more of its people."

The wife of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was addressing a luncheon of perhaps 300 women interested in Kerry's candidacy in the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses, and the remark could have been categorized as pandering. But the famously outspoken philanthropist was, as usual, giving voice to a deeper personal conviction.

She had not seen the caucus process before, she said, adding -- in a tone that bordered on resignation -- that it had been hard for her to accept that so many of those she met "might not caucus for my husband. You might go away with fear and disappointment that they might be right" in choosing to support someone else, she said. "But you leave with hope."

Why? "Because of the dignity with which they treat the process," she said. "What is most lethal in our country now is the cynicism" toward politics and politicians that she said she finds almost everywhere. That cynicism is blessedly absent among the caucus-goers in Iowa.

True, they are a self-selected, small sample of the population. In 2000 only 61,000 attended the Democratic caucuses to choose between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Some expect that number to double this year, but even if it does, it would still be less than a quarter of the 572,000 registered Democrats in Iowa.

Coming back to Iowa after a long absence, I was struck, as I have been before, by the extraordinarily conscientious way that those few souls approach what they see as their serious responsibility in starting the process that leads, a year later, to the inauguration of a president. They sort and weigh personal attributes and policy positions, then do it again, before finally deciding which hopeful they will stand up to support.

I thought about Ivan Weber, a Des Moines lawyer I had met earlier that day. Many of his friends were supporting Howard Dean, he told me, but he had ruled out the former Vermont governor. Why? "It bothers me that he says he is for open government, but he closes up the records of his own administration. I think, too, he's got that small-state psychology of thinking what works well there will work well everywhere. The country is not like Vermont."

He had listened to five of the nine candidates in person -- some of them more than once. He had a particularly favorable impression of two -- Kerry and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the man he had come back to see again when I met him. Kerry, he said, "has a wonderful background but somehow, he seems almost too smooth." And, like Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Kerry has been in Washington a long time. "As Edwards says," Weber soliloquized, more to himself than to me, "if you've been in Washington for 20 years, as they have, aren't you part of the problem?"

Gradually, methodically, he seemed to be talking himself into an Edwards vote.

Of course, others are much more instinctual, even impulsive, in their choices. Sally Troxell, a self-described "super-volunteer" in dozens of civic causes, recalled how she first heard Howard Dean being interviewed on a Sunday morning TV show while she was cooking bacon in her kitchen. "I heard the voice before I started listening to the words, and I said to myself, 'This guy sounds real.' Then I started listening to what he was saying, and I said, 'Holy moly, he is for real.' And I didn't even agree with him -- he was talking about guns and I want to get rid of them. But he explained his position that each state should decide for itself, and he didn't try to hide it."

Later, in a face-to-face conversation, she pressed Dean to agree that corporations should treat stock options as expenses on their books, and once again he differed with her, explaining that he had learned that options were vital for start-up ventures in such places as Silicon Valley. It was another "holy moly" moment.

"I haven't felt this way about a candidate or a cause in 35 years," Troxell exclaimed.

Thirty-five years? I asked.

"Yes," she said. "Since SDS," referring to the Students for a Democratic Society, the New Left campus organization of the 1960s.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is right. These people are so straightforward, so un-cynical, they are irresistible. It's a great place to start the process.

">davidbroder@washpost.com

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23810)1/11/2004 4:14:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793745
 
Good example of why we don't want to be tied into the IJC.


w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m


Last update - 08:23 11/01/2004
U.S. shares Israel's concerns about Hague fence talks
By Aluf Benn and Arnon Regular

The U.S. is privy to Israel's concerns about the upcoming discussions on the security fence at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. American officials believe these anticipated discussions will set a negative precedent, and politicize international law.

The U.S. government is currently considering its steps on the international court hearings. It is leaning toward submitting a brief of its position on the case, and perhaps even taking part in the discussions, Israeli sources say.

The UN General Assembly decided last month to ask the ICJ to rule on the "legal implications of the construction of a wall on conquered Palestinian land." Israeli officials are working on the assumption that the ICJ verdict will be hostile to Israel and the Sharon government is currently making preparations for a legal, diplomatic and public relations battle designed to deny that the ICJ has authority to reach a decision on the separation fence.

For its part, the Palestinian Authority has retained international legal authorities to represent its opposition to the fence at the international court discussions. The PA has formed a large team of legal experts: the panel will be headed by the PLO's UN observer Nasser al-Kidwa, and one prominent member will be Dr. Anis al-Qassem, an expert on international law of Palestinian origin who now lives in Jordan and was involved in the drafting of the PA constitution.

Palestinian sources indicate that the team is already preparing presentations to the ICJ and that it is receiving logistical and research support from the PLO's "Negotiations Department," which operates in Ramallah under the supervision of PA minister and veteran negotiator, Saeb Erekat.

Alan Baker, legal adviser to Israel's Foreign Minister, met last Thursday in Washington with U.S. State Department Legal Adviser William H. Taft IV. Both participants agreed on the possible dangers of the ICJ discussions. The hearings "would create a bad precedent," Israeli officials insist.

Baker was informed at the meeting that the Americans are currently formulating strategies for the ICJ discussions and are considering turning to other countries for support. Israel is already trying to persuade other countries to support its position: One Foreign Ministry official recently traveled to Australia, which voted in the UN against taking separation fence discussions to the Hague.

This Wednesday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will meet with a special steering committee that has been formed to handle Israel's affairs in the "fence trial" in The Hague. The panel is headed by Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23810)1/11/2004 4:19:23 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793745
 
We sure have been round and round on this one. I doubt if we will ever know the truth.

Jan. 9, 2004, 6:23PM - Houston Chronicle

Betrayal behind Israeli attack on U.S. ship
By ADM. THOMAS MOORER

Moorer was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from 1970 to 1974. He is joined in the independent commission of inquiry by Gen. Ray Davis (recently deceased); Rear Adm. Merlin Staring; former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Ambassador James Akins.

After State Department officials and historians assembled in Washington, D.C., last week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups.

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship -- the USS Liberty -- killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.

U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled, not once, but twice, through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I personally confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.

To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel's attack on this American ship. No official investigation of Israel's attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members.

A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel's attack was "a case of mistaken identity."

Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include:

· Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.

· Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.

· Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded.

As a result, our commission concluded that:

· There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.

· In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States

· The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.

· The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.

What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military intelligence services.

The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship.

These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense.

Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government.

The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.
chron.com