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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/9/2005 8:38:45 AM
From: longnshortRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
I say he was a sucessful politician, how many people have won the Presidency of the United states TWICE?



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/9/2005 8:23:38 PM
From: Brumar89Respond to of 81568
 
Get on board THE BUSH BANDWAGON

(Bush has already been remarkably successful. And people all over the world are realizing it. )

Mark Steyn

Come on, lads. You don’t want to be the last to leap aboard the bandwagon. The New York Times are running front page stories with headlines like “Unexpected Whiff Of Freedom Proves Bracing For The Middle East”. Daniel Schorr, the dean of conventional wisdom at National Public Radio, was for once almost ahead of the game, concluding his most recent editorial with a strange combination of words that had never before passed his lips in that particular order: “Bush may have had it right.”

Did he simply muff the reading? Did he mean to say: “Bush may have had it - right?” But apparently not. Ever since, the same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?” Even America’s media naysayers have suddenly noticed that they can hardly hear their own generic boilerplate about what a Vietnam quagmire the new Iraq is over the sound of raven-tressed Beirut hotties noisily demanding Lebanon’s freedom in the streets of Beirut.

Over at Britain’s Guardian, meanwhile, the poor chaps are desperately trying to give credit to anyone but the reviled Bushitler. Here’s how Timothy Garton Ash opened his disquisition: “Has Osama bin Laden started a revolution in the Middle East?” Well, that’s one way to look at it. Maybe he could share the Nobel Peace Prize with Michael Moore and MoveOn.org.

Now the torrents of Arabia cascade on, from Baghdad to Beirut, Cairo, Riyadh and beyond. Those of us who argued three years ago that Iraq was the place to start the dominoes falling and that the Middle East was ripe for liberty, for democracy, for one man, one gloat – whoops, sorry, vote… Anyway, those of us who told you so way back when long ago gave up trying to figure out why the media, the Dems, the Europeans and Canadians were so wedded to “stability” uber alles. But we had a feeling that their enthusiasm was unlikely to be shared by the actual subjects of Assad and co. And we were right: it turns out America’s Zionists know the Arab people better than Europe’s Arabists do – better than all those ex-ambassadors to the Middle East now shilling for Saudi-funded think-tanks who pop up on TV discussions to recycle Arab League talking points.

That’s not to say we’re in the final reel with happy endings all round. The nations of Eastern Europe weren’t all liberated on the same template. Syria could be the Middle East’s Romania – where the opportunist second rank decides to whack a dictator who’s outlived his usefulness and pass themselves off as the forces of freedom. Or Syria could be the Czech Republic – where the head thug’s heart is no longer in it and he negotiates a graceful retreat. But, either way, I doubt if Boy Assad’s presidency will be with us for much longer.

What’s happened in the last couple of weeks is that Bush has persuaded the French and the Saudis that Assad is a loser, and there’s no downside to putting the skids under him. And the way things are going most Middle East regimes would rather pile on Damascus lest Bush turn his attention elsewhere. Last week’s Arabic News reported that Colonel Gaddafy has “underscored the need to launch full freedom in Libya”. And to show he’s serious he’s introduced yet another spelling of his name: as the headline put it, “Qathafi Wants Freedom To Prosper In Libya”. Qathafi: that’s a new one on me. I’ve seen him spelled Khadafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Qudhafi, Kadafi, Gheddafi, Kaddafi, Qadhdhafi and a couple dozen others, but clearly this latest one is an indication that, like Mubarak in Egypt, he’s under pressure to move to a multi-candidate electoral system and is planning to run as all of them: Gadafi (Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Qadafi (Sword Of The Infidel Slayer-Liberal Democratic Alliance), Gaddhafi (New Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Khaddaffy (Khonservative Phartty)…

Whether Qathafi really “wants freedom to prosper in Libya” is doubtful. But the fact that in the month since the Iraqi election he and President Mubarak and Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and King Abdullah of Jordan all feel obliged to sign on rhetorically is a big step. It may even ensure the survival of at least a few of them. For three decades, radical Islamism prospered because there was no other big idea to counter it. And the more the EU and UN and Arab League fetishized “stability” – the stability of the Assads and Arafats - the less chance there was that any alternative concept would ever arise. Bush and the Iraqi people changed all that.

In January I wrote that 2005 would be “the most important year in the region since Churchill drew the map of the modern Middle East in 1922”. The melancholy fact is that many of the changes underway today could have been with us a lot earlier if the Great War’s peacemakers hadn’t botched the job 80 years ago. The stagnant Middle East of Assad, Arafat and the House of Saud is the malign legacy of the prototype progressive transnationalism – the League of Nations mandates that helped deliver the peoples of the region into the hands of a uniquely disastrous bunch of unreliable western client rulers.

The new political settlements that emerge in the Middle East will be messy and flawed and problematic, but they will still be an improvement. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader who says that in Iraq the Arabs’ Berlin Wall has fallen, is also the guy who not so long ago was saying “We are all happy when an American soldier is killed.” He will never be an ideological soulmate of Dick Cheney.

But so what? The Swedes and Irish aren’t soulmates of Cheney either, but a free society with a representative government is in America’s long-term interest, just as a nominally pro-American dictator holding his people back is not in America’s long-term interest. To firm up Daniel Schorr’s tentative endorsement, Bush got that right, and one day, if he’s not already, Walid Jumblatt will be grateful he did.
The Irish Times, Monday March 7th 2005



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/9/2005 8:25:09 PM
From: Brumar89Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
Get on board THE BUSH BANDWAGON

(Bush has already been remarkably successful. And people all over the world are realizing it. )

Mark Steyn

Come on, lads. You don’t want to be the last to leap aboard the bandwagon. The New York Times are running front page stories with headlines like “Unexpected Whiff Of Freedom Proves Bracing For The Middle East”. Daniel Schorr, the dean of conventional wisdom at National Public Radio, was for once almost ahead of the game, concluding his most recent editorial with a strange combination of words that had never before passed his lips in that particular order: “Bush may have had it right.”

Did he simply muff the reading? Did he mean to say: “Bush may have had it - right?” But apparently not. Ever since, the same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?” Even America’s media naysayers have suddenly noticed that they can hardly hear their own generic boilerplate about what a Vietnam quagmire the new Iraq is over the sound of raven-tressed Beirut hotties noisily demanding Lebanon’s freedom in the streets of Beirut.

Over at Britain’s Guardian, meanwhile, the poor chaps are desperately trying to give credit to anyone but the reviled Bushitler. Here’s how Timothy Garton Ash opened his disquisition: “Has Osama bin Laden started a revolution in the Middle East?” Well, that’s one way to look at it. Maybe he could share the Nobel Peace Prize with Michael Moore and MoveOn.org.

Now the torrents of Arabia cascade on, from Baghdad to Beirut, Cairo, Riyadh and beyond. Those of us who argued three years ago that Iraq was the place to start the dominoes falling and that the Middle East was ripe for liberty, for democracy, for one man, one gloat – whoops, sorry, vote… Anyway, those of us who told you so way back when long ago gave up trying to figure out why the media, the Dems, the Europeans and Canadians were so wedded to “stability” uber alles. But we had a feeling that their enthusiasm was unlikely to be shared by the actual subjects of Assad and co. And we were right: it turns out America’s Zionists know the Arab people better than Europe’s Arabists do – better than all those ex-ambassadors to the Middle East now shilling for Saudi-funded think-tanks who pop up on TV discussions to recycle Arab League talking points.

That’s not to say we’re in the final reel with happy endings all round. The nations of Eastern Europe weren’t all liberated on the same template. Syria could be the Middle East’s Romania – where the opportunist second rank decides to whack a dictator who’s outlived his usefulness and pass themselves off as the forces of freedom. Or Syria could be the Czech Republic – where the head thug’s heart is no longer in it and he negotiates a graceful retreat. But, either way, I doubt if Boy Assad’s presidency will be with us for much longer.

What’s happened in the last couple of weeks is that Bush has persuaded the French and the Saudis that Assad is a loser, and there’s no downside to putting the skids under him. And the way things are going most Middle East regimes would rather pile on Damascus lest Bush turn his attention elsewhere. Last week’s Arabic News reported that Colonel Gaddafy has “underscored the need to launch full freedom in Libya”. And to show he’s serious he’s introduced yet another spelling of his name: as the headline put it, “Qathafi Wants Freedom To Prosper In Libya”. Qathafi: that’s a new one on me. I’ve seen him spelled Khadafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Qudhafi, Kadafi, Gheddafi, Kaddafi, Qadhdhafi and a couple dozen others, but clearly this latest one is an indication that, like Mubarak in Egypt, he’s under pressure to move to a multi-candidate electoral system and is planning to run as all of them: Gadafi (Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Qadafi (Sword Of The Infidel Slayer-Liberal Democratic Alliance), Gaddhafi (New Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Khaddaffy (Khonservative Phartty)…

Whether Qathafi really “wants freedom to prosper in Libya” is doubtful. But the fact that in the month since the Iraqi election he and President Mubarak and Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and King Abdullah of Jordan all feel obliged to sign on rhetorically is a big step. It may even ensure the survival of at least a few of them. For three decades, radical Islamism prospered because there was no other big idea to counter it. And the more the EU and UN and Arab League fetishized “stability” – the stability of the Assads and Arafats - the less chance there was that any alternative concept would ever arise. Bush and the Iraqi people changed all that.

In January I wrote that 2005 would be “the most important year in the region since Churchill drew the map of the modern Middle East in 1922”. The melancholy fact is that many of the changes underway today could have been with us a lot earlier if the Great War’s peacemakers hadn’t botched the job 80 years ago. The stagnant Middle East of Assad, Arafat and the House of Saud is the malign legacy of the prototype progressive transnationalism – the League of Nations mandates that helped deliver the peoples of the region into the hands of a uniquely disastrous bunch of unreliable western client rulers.

The new political settlements that emerge in the Middle East will be messy and flawed and problematic, but they will still be an improvement. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader who says that in Iraq the Arabs’ Berlin Wall has fallen, is also the guy who not so long ago was saying “We are all happy when an American soldier is killed.” He will never be an ideological soulmate of Dick Cheney.

But so what? The Swedes and Irish aren’t soulmates of Cheney either, but a free society with a representative government is in America’s long-term interest, just as a nominally pro-American dictator holding his people back is not in America’s long-term interest. To firm up Daniel Schorr’s tentative endorsement, Bush got that right, and one day, if he’s not already, Walid Jumblatt will be grateful he did.
The Irish Times, Monday March 7th 2005

terrorism has increased four folds since 9/11. Deaths in Iraq are being reported every day. You finally accept Iraq is part of the WOT. Good. But you think we should retreat in that war.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/10/2005 9:22:01 AM
From: lorneRespond to of 81568
 
U.N. must accept Hezbollah, Annan says

By EDITH M. LEDERER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Tuesday, March 8, 2005
seattlepi.nwsource.com

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations must recognize Hezbollah as a force to be reckoned with in implementing the U.N. resolution calling for the withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon and the disarmament of the country's militias, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday.

He was responding to a question about the disarmament of Hezbollah, which showed its strength Tuesday at a huge pro-Syrian rally in Beirut attended by hundreds of thousands of people who chanted anti-U.S. slogans. Two huge banners read in English: "Thank you Syria" and "No to foreign interference."

Annan said the world needs to accept that in every society different groups may hold different views.

"Of course, we need to be careful of the forces at work in Lebanese society as we move forward," he said.

"But even the Hezbollah - if I read the message on the placards they are using - they are talking about non-interference by outsiders ... which is not entirely at odds with the Security Council resolution, that there should be withdrawal of Syrian troops," Annan told reporters.

"But that having been said, we need to recognize that they are a force in society that one will have to factor in as we implement the resolution," he said.

The rally by the Hezbollah vastly outnumbered anti-Syrian rallies of the past weeks. The Syrian-backed Lebanese guerrilla group, which is funded by Iran, is the best armed and best organized faction in Lebanon and enjoys strong support among Lebanon's Shiite Muslim community.

Many of the signs at the rally in Riad Solh square denounced U.N. Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for Syrian troops and intelligence agents to leave Lebanon immediately and demands the disarming of militias, referring to Hezbollah.

Syrian soldiers entered Lebanon in 1976 to try to quell a civil war that began the previous year. They remained through 14 years of fighting that ended in 1990, and some 14,000 are still there, though they began redeploying from central Lebanon toward the border began late Tuesday.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/10/2005 9:23:32 AM
From: lorneRespond to of 81568
 
Divided They Fall...
Like Bosnia, Like Lebanon

Does the Fate of Lebanese Christians Await the Bosnian Serbs?
truthinmedia.org

PHOENIX - Lebanon's Hezbollah Islamic terrorists blew up a civilian car with a roadside bomb on August 18, killing two Christian adolescents, a brother and a sister, and wounding a third child. All victims were members of the Nasr family of Jezzine, Lebanon's last remaining Christian enclave.

The killing of the two young Christians shocked this community of 80,000 in southern Lebanon, encircled and targeted by Hezbollah for years. Yet the world media, which treated most attacks on Israeli civilians or the Bosnian Muslims as front page news, shrugged off the killing of the Lebanese Christians as if they were non-persons.

To most people of the Jezzine Christian enclave, however, the Nasr family is a symbol of "martyrdom." In 1977, the father and one of his children were killed in a massacre of the village of Aishiye. In 1982, Nabil, his brother, the Aishiye Battalion commander, was killed in an operation in Kfar-Rouman. Another brother, Maroun, took over the battalion command and continued to defend the Aishiye area. Two years later Maroun was killed in an ambush in Birket Jabbour. His brother, Assaad, took over and fought for another two years before being killed on a mission. Now two of Assaad's children have been killed and one wounded.

"The family has no more children to send to the front to die for this country," a Jezzine source told the Lebanon Bulletin of August 18.

In retaliation for the killing of the two Nasr children, the (Christian) South Lebanese Army (SLA) shelled the predominantly Muslim port of Sidon. Seven civilian casualties resulted from this bombardment. In Beirut, the Hezbollah and pro-Syrian forces vowed revenge. In Jezzine, the SLA sources threatened further retaliation "deep inside Syrian-occupied Lebanon."

And so it goes... The 16-year Lebanese civil war may have "officially" ended in October 1990, but you'd never know it in Jezzine and the rest of southern Lebanon. Killings go on and the civilian casualties mount. The only difference is that now all this is happening in relative obscurity.

"The Christians of Jezzine are paying the price of the persecuted Christians of Lebanon, the Middle East, and ultimately all Christians worldwide," said Pierre Elias, a spokesman for the New York-based World Lebanese Organization (e-mail: wlo@wlo-usa.org), in an August 20 press release. "Hezbollah and Syria are attempting to ethnically cleanse the last free enclave of the Christian community."

As was the case in Western Bosnia and the Krajina regions of the former Yugoslavia, the U.S. government has contributed to the demise of the Lebanese Christians. First, the so-called "Kissingerian policy" toward Christians frustrated the U.S. Lebanese relations in the early 1970s. Karim Pakradouni, a Phalangist Lebanese politician, blamed the former U.S. Secretary of State (Henry Kissinger) for "setting the psychological ambiance of the (civil) war in Lebanon."

But the worst and the final blow to the Lebanese Christians was delivered in 1989-1990 by the George Bush administration. "The American foreign policy purposely endorsed Syria's plans in Lebanon, and gave the green light for Damascus to invade the Christian enclave," writes Dr. Walid Phares, in his book, "Lebanese Christian Nationalism - Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance."

Why would a predominantly Christian nation (America) abandon the Christians in Lebanon to atrocities by the Muslim aggressors from Syria? Two reasons. First, the "American nation" does not conduct U.S. foreign policy; the New World Order elite does. Second, 1990 was the year in which the NWO leaders decided to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson about who was the boss. To do so, they needed Syria's support. Sacrificing the Lebanese Christians was the price the Bush administration paid to get Syria to join the Gulf War coalition.

But the anti-Christian sentiments had been discernible at the State Department even before the Gulf War. Dr. Phares points out in his book the evidence of "an American interest in promoting Arabism," and the "existence of an anti-Lebanese Christian trend within the decision-making circles of the American Foreign Service." Some U.S. diplomats even referred to the Lebanese Christians as "fascists."

The Serbian Christians should take note of the same demonization approach used by the same U.S. (State Dept.) officials to ensure defeat of another group of (Lebanese) Christians as they did against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia. And how the "divide and conquer" U.S. tactics currently being practiced against the Serbs in Bosnia helped ignite the intra-Christian fighting in Lebanon - a prelude to the Christians' ultimate defeat at the hands of the Syrian invaders.

"Up until the last decade of the 20th century, the (Lebanese) Christian community... had prided itself on hundreds of years of solidarity," Dr. Phares writes. But the October 1990 civil war changed that record. "Thus the Christian Civil war cost them far more than the destruction of many lives and towns; it may well have marked the end of their political role in Lebanon, and, more importantly, their cultural identity." For, the new regime in Lebanon is "ideologically Arab, spiritually Muslim, and politically Syrian," Dr. Phares notes.

Yet, just like the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, the Lebanese Christians were once a dominant group. In 1975 they formed 54% of the population of about 3 million, according to WLO's Mr. Elias. During the civil war 1975-1990, some 160,000 perished and more than 350,000 became emigrated - another parallel with the fate of the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.

And just like the Serbs in Western Slavonia and the Krajina, the Lebanese Christians suffered treachery by their supposed "friends." Thousands of them were cleansed in the Shuf and Aley areas (central Mount Lebanon) in 1983, as a result of the unilateral withdrawal of Israel. The Druse, fundamentalist Muslims, and PLO forces - all backed by Syria, massacred thousands of Christians before besieging the town of Deir el-Qamar. Which only goes to show us that friendships based on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" are rather shallow indeed.

Today there are about 1.5 million Christians in Lebanon versus some 1.7 million indigenous Muslims, Mr. Elias says. But with the Palestinian camps, and one million Syrian workers brought in by Damascus, the Christians are now vastly outnumbered in their own homeland. In the Jezzine area there are about 80,000 people. If you add the security zone controlled by the South Lebanon Army and Israel, there are about 120,000 Christians in the last enclave.

The Bosnian Serb leaders would do well to remember what happened to the Lebanese Christians. They should also stare long and hard at our map of Bosnia circa 1998 which may result from their current factional squabbles. The Serbs, who had owned 64% of the land before the Bosnian war, may be jammed into an eastern Bosnia Christian enclave with only a fraction of their former territories. And the centuries old Serb ancestral lands in western Bosnia are likely to become a part of the first Muslim state in the history of Europe.

Parallels and similarities with Lebanon's Jezzine Christians are striking. And frightening. Christians worldwide can ignore them only at their own ultimate peril.

Americans, for example, only need to recall the 241 U.S. marines, sailors and soldiers who were killed in Beirut on October 23, 1983 by a Muslim terrorist-driven truck to appreciate the full weight of our government's subsequent treachery in condoning the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Yet here is the Clinton administration doing more or less the same thing again in helping the Bosnian Muslims and the Kosovo (predominantly Muslim) Albanians grab the land which had belonged to the Christian Serbs for centuries. Clinton's officials are also mum about the plight of the Lebanese Christians.

The message is clear: Washington's foreign affairs establishment is not only un-American; it is anti-Christian.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (58856)3/10/2005 3:50:00 PM
From: lorneRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Chinu....AT LAST! FINALLY! Unfortunate this didn't happen in the USA first but a good first step by so called moderate muslims.

Muslims issue bin Laden fatwa
From correspondents in Madrid
11mar05
thecouriermail.news.com.au

SPAIN'S Islamic Commission said today it was issuing a decree against al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in the name of whose network last year's Madrid train bombings were claimed.

"We are going to issue a fatwa (religious decree) against bin Laden this afternoon," said Mansour Escudero, who leads the Federation of Islamic religious entities (Feeri) and is co-secretary general of the Spanish governmenmt-created commission.

The commission invited Spanish-based imams (clerics) to condemn terrorism at Friday prayers, when the whole country will be remembering the 191 people who were killed in the train blasts and the 1900 injured exactly 12 months ago.

The attacks have been blamed on mainly Moroccan Islamic extremists loyal to bin Laden.

"We have called on imams to make a formal declaration condemning terrorism and for a special prayer for all the victims of terrorism," Mr Escudero said.

The commission has also drawn up a document designed to "thank the Spanish people and the government for their attitude towards Muslims" since last March 11, in particular for not taking "disproportionate" measures similar to those which the September 11 attacks sparked in the United States.

The commission called on Muslims to take part in Friday's commemorative programme being organised by Spanish authorities and community groups and to work with them to ensure terrorism was defeated.

According to Muslim associations, there are some 230,000 immigrant Muslims in Spain, mostly in the north-eastern region of Catalonia, in addition to some 260,000 native Spaniards who profess the faith.