I have just returned from a back roads trip to The Outer Banks area of N.C. Beautiful region. Lots of history, scenery and excellent sea food. Some of what I am posting is, admittedly, old news.
Al Gore won the Nobel prize in a new category - "Scary Unscientific Verbiage." His name now resides alongside Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter who were given the award for their peace contributions commitment to intellectual honesty.
There is no doubt humans impact the environment. Rachel Carson helped get rid of DDT. Consequently, multitudes die needlessly from Malaria. Bill and Linda Gates are spending millions of their Capitalistic earnings trying to solve the problem.
Because of the impact of widespread media stories we rush to conclusions disregarding proven and tested scientific fact. Trial lawyers sue drug and industrial companies for alleged sins only to find retroactively many of the assertions by lawyers were, in fact, based on spurious science and questionable testimony of "expert" witnesses. Meanwhile trial lawyers become winers as they pocket millions in fees.
Media hype and single issue do-gooders' rantings and accusation supplant science. Corporations cave because associated costs are not worth the defense effort, figuring who would listen anyway. In reaching this point of trial by public hysteria we will be worse off down the road because irrational behaviour dictates the path and who knows where that ultimately leads?
Compliments to Al Gore because he has had an impact on awareness but the consequences of the response are likely to do more harm than good as we discovered responding to Rachel Carson's concerns.
Ne'eman points out the ludicrous position Olmert and Israel could be engineered into regarding Rice's forthcoming Annapolis meeting. (See 1 below.)
Peter Zeihan discusses the significance of Russia's role in Iran as we seek to block Iran's ultimate goal of become a hegemony enjoying increased, if not dominant influence in that region of the world. He outlines what Russia's ultimate goal is and how it hopes it can achieve some re-balancing. (See 2 below.)
Intrigue with respect to Israel's raid on Syria continues. (See 3 below.)
Rush scores over the Democrat's Digby O'Dell! Sen. Reid looks like the buffoon he is as a result of being boxed around the ears! The article, cited below, parrots Rush's claim, ie. Reid engaged in a clumsy attempt to curtail free speech and it backfired.
When it comes to believing in "free" markets Democrats distrust the collective thinking of the unfettered, preferring instead the imposition of government thinking and solutions. Liberals profess they are for the "little man" and they are as long as the "little man" submits to their control achieved through entitlements and other " government gifts." (See 4 below.)
Wes Pruden points out the folly of Sec. Rice's Annapolis meeting but there is always the possibility the world will tire and eventually press Israel and a weakened and appeasing Olmert will cave. (See 5 below.)
After Putin's visit to Iran, Olmert felt compelled to get a reading on Putin's intentions so he flew to Moscow and Olmert got a briefing that allayed his concerns. The problem is Putin uses Iran and Israel as pawns in his attempt to get the U.S. to bend and GW, seeking a diplomatic victory as his term in office draws near, may need to put pressure on Israel in order to get from Putin what GW needs. (See 6 below.)
Dick
1) Back To The Future: Annapolis 2007
By Yisrael Ne'eman
It is hard to believe that in preparation for the Annapolis peace conference the Palestinians are successfully picking up where they left off after the Camp David 2000 (and Taba 2001) peace initiative failure starring then Israeli PM Ehud Barak, the late Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat and then US President Bill Clinton. The Palestinians could have had a thriving state by now but they insist that every last one of their demands be met. They are dictating terms of a final accord, not negotiating compromises. Last time Arafat & Co. threatened and implemented a violent response because Israel did not accept 100% of their stated conditions. The same threat is being made again.
Today the PA chairman or president, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is supposedly in a much weaker position than Arafat was seven years ago. Then Arafat controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza Strip. As of June Gaza was overrun by the Islamist extremist Hamas and Jihad factions in a military overthrow of a freely elected Palestinian government and parliament (even if Hamas was and is the dominant political party). As often mentioned, should Israel leave the West Bank, it would be just a matter of weeks before Hamas would complete their rout of the secular Fatah and expel them completely from all the Palestinian areas. Paradoxically, it is the pathetic weakness of Abbas and his emergency Fatah government which gives him strength.
He is considered too weak to make concessions and therefore Palestinian demands concerning a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders (with the possibility of a land swap of a few percentages of the total) have gained credibility even with the Americans. Jerusalem will be divided with Arab neighborhoods going to a Palestinian state (seen as reasonable by many Israeli Jews) but it is far from sure that the Jewish Quarter and Western Wall will remain in Israel since the Palestinians demand the Old City for themselves, or at best the world community is speaking about some sort of international arrangement for the entire "holy basin" of Jewish, Christian and Moslem holy sites (Temple Mount included). Lack of defensible borders will have a definite impact on Israeli security should such a massive withdrawal be implemented. And it does not matter what "security arrangements" will be agreed upon by the Palestinians, they will be violated as they were in the 1990s. Arafat initiated an overall low intensity conflict in September 2000 (known as the Second Intifada) to force Israel into further concessions. And can anyone trust either the Palestinians or the international community to ensure security and free access to all the holy sites?
Over the past seven years the Israeli denial of Palestinian refugee return appeared to be the only issue where common sense (and Israeli policy in this case) was making inroads. Compensation in one form or another was being discussed in the international community. But here we managed to shoot ourselves in both feet when Vice Premier Haim Ramon decided to discuss refugee return with Abbas during the pre-Annapolis preparations, raising Palestinian expectations of a reversal of American foreign policy as expressed by Pres. Bush's letter to PM Ariel Sharon in April 2004. Later Congress joined the president and came out completely against any Palestinian refugee return to Israel proper. Even European and Arab countries began to accept this perspective.
Abbas has made clear he will not take responsibility for any agreement with Israel but rather will send it to a referendum by "the people." Very interesting since they voted a landslide victory for Hamas in the January 2006 elections and in Gaza supported the violent overthrow of the hybrid Abbas led but Hamas dominated government.
So with whom is Israel negotiating? Not Abbas and Fatah, but the Hamas. Unless Israel self-destructs there will be no Palestinian agreement. The international community is "strengthening" Abbas and Fatah by forcing Israel to make concessions. Their weakness is Hamas' strength. Any Palestinian can figure out the necessity of supporting Hamas to pressure Israel to give in to Abbas/Fatah demands.
As this charade continues, it appears that Yossi Beilin of the left wing Meretz faction may have a point when insisting that Israel deal directly with the Hamas. After all, who needs the facade of the Abbas scarecrow? Better Hamas should be completely intransigent out of choice than we should be railroaded into an agreement (by choice of course) detrimental to Israel's security in the name of strengthening a phantom partner who will be unable to enforce any security clauses.
Middle Eastern logic exists, whether the Jews can figure it out or not.
2) The Russia Problem
By Peter Zeihan
For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.
Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.
The Iraqi Preoccupation
After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.
That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output -- about one-quarter of the global total -- under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.
So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq -- and find some way to share influence.
Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran -- intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation -- and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.
Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border -- with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.
Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor -- and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.
Option One: Parity
The Russian geography is problematic. It lacks oceans to give Russia strategic distance from its foes and it boasts no geographic barriers separating it from Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. Russian history is a chronicle of Russia's steps to establish buffers -- and of those buffers being overwhelmed. The end of the Cold War marked the transition from Russia's largest-ever buffer to its smallest in centuries. Put simply, Russia is terrified of being overwhelmed -- militarily, economically, politically and culturally -- and its policies are geared toward re-establishing as large a buffer as possible.
As such, Russia needs to do one of two things. The first is to re-establish parity. As long as the United States thinks of Russia as an inferior power, American power will continue to erode Russian security. Maintain parity and that erosion will at least be reduced. Putin does not see this parity coming from a conflict, however. While Russia is far stronger now -- and still rising -- than it was following the 1998 ruble crash, Putin knows full well that the Soviet Union fell in part to an arms race. Attaining parity via the resources of a much weaker Russia simply is not an option.
So parity would need to come via the pen, not the sword. A series of three treaties ended the Cold War and created a status of legal parity between the United States and Russia. The first, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), restricts how much conventional defense equipment each state in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, and their successors, can deploy. The second, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), places a ceiling on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that the United States and Russia can possess. The third, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), eliminates entirely land-based short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles, as well as all ground-launched cruise missiles from NATO and Russian arsenals.
The constellation of forces these treaties allow do not provide what Russia now perceives its security needs to be. The CFE was all fine and dandy in the world in which it was first negotiated, but since then every Warsaw Pact state -- once on the Russian side of the balance sheet -- has joined NATO. The "parity" that was hardwired into the European system in 1990 is now lopsided against the Russians.
START I is by far the Russians' favorite treaty, since it clearly treats the Americans and Russians as bona fide equals. But in the Russian mind, it has a fateful flaw: It expires in 2009, and there is about zero support in the United States for renewing it. The thinking in Washington is that treaties were a conflict management tool of the 20th century, and as American power -- constrained by Iraq as it is -- continues to expand globally, there is no reason to enter into a treaty that limits American options. This philosophical change is reflected on both sides of the American political aisle: Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have negotiated a new full disarmament treaty.
Finally, the INF is the worst of all worlds for Russia. Intermediate-range missiles are far cheaper than intercontinental ones. If it does come down to an arms race, Russia will be forced to turn to such systems if it is not to be left far behind an American buildup.
Russia needs all three treaties to be revamped. It wants the CFE altered to reflect an expanded NATO. It wants START I extended (and preferably deepened) to limit long-term American options. It wants the INF explicitly linked to the other two treaties so that Russian options can expand in a pinch -- or simply discarded in favor of a more robust START I.
The problem with the first option is that it assumes the Americans are somewhat sympathetic to Russian concerns. They are not.
Recall that the dominant concern in the post-Cold War Kremlin is that the United States will nibble along the Russian periphery until Moscow itself falls. The fear is as deeply held as it is accurate. Only three states have ever threatened the United States: The first, the United Kingdom, was lashed into U.S. global defense policy; the second, Mexico, was conquered outright; and the third was defeated in the Cold War. The addition of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states to NATO, the basing of operations in Central Asia and, most important, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have made it clear to Moscow that the United States plays for keeps.
The Americans see it as in their best interest to slowly grind Russia into dust. Those among our readers who can identify with "duck and cover" can probably relate to the logic of that stance. So, for option one to work, Russia needs to have leverage elsewhere. That elsewhere is in Iran.
Via the U.N. Security Council, Russian cooperation can ensure Iran's diplomatic isolation. Russia's past cooperation on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility holds the possibility of a Kremlin condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A denial of Russian weapons transfers to Iran would hugely empower ongoing U.S. efforts to militarily curtail Iranian ambitions. Put simply, Russia has the ability to throw Iran under the American bus -- but it will not do it for free. In exchange, it wants those treaties amended in its favor, and it wants American deference on security questions in the former Soviet Union.
The Moscow talks of the past week were about addressing all of Russian concerns about the European security structure, both within and beyond the context of the treaties, with the offer of cooperation on Iran as the trade-off. After days of talks, the Americans refused to budge on any meaningful point.
Option Two: Imposition
Russia has no horse in the Iraq war. Moscow had feared that its inability to leverage France and Germany to block the war in the first place would allow the United States to springboard to other geopolitical victories. Instead, the Russians are quite pleased to see the American nose bloodied. They also are happy to see Iran engrossed in events to its west. When Iran and Russia strengthen -- as both are currently -- they inevitably begin to clash as their growing spheres of influence overlap in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In many ways, Russia is now enjoying the best of all worlds: Its Cold War archrival is deeply occupied in a conflict with one of Moscow's own regional competitors.
In the long run, however, the Russians have little doubt that the Americans will eventually prevail. Iran lacks the ability to project meaningful power beyond the Persian Gulf, while the Russians know from personal experience how good the Americans are at using political, economic, military and alliance policy to grind down opponents. The only question in the Russian mind pertains to time frame.
If the United States is not willing to rejigger the European-Russian security framework, then Moscow intends to take advantage of a distracted United States to impose a new reality upon NATO. The United States has dedicated all of its military ground strength to Iraq, leaving no wiggle room should a crisis erupt anywhere else in the world. Should Russia create a crisis, there is nothing the United States can do to stop it.
So crisis-making is about to become Russia's newest growth industry. The Kremlin has a very long list of possibilities, which includes:
* Destabilizing the government of Ukraine: The Sept. 30 elections threaten to result in the re-creation of the Orange Revolution that so terrifies Moscow. With the United States largely out of the picture, the Russians will spare no effort to ensure that Ukraine remains as dysfunctional as possible.
* Azerbaijan is emerging as a critical energy transit state for Central Asian petroleum, as well as an energy producer in its own right. But those exports are wholly dependent upon Moscow's willingness not to cause problems for Baku.
* The extremely anti-Russian policies of the former Soviet state of Georgia continue to be a thorn in Russia's side. Russia has the ability to force a territorial breakup or to outright overturn the Georgian government using anything from a hit squad to an armored division.
* EU states obviously have mixed feelings about Russia's newfound aggression and confidence, but the three Baltic states in league with Poland have successfully hijacked EU foreign policy with regard to Russia, effectively turning a broadly cooperative relationship hostile. A small military crisis with the Balts would not only do much to consolidate popular support for the Kremlin but also would demonstrate U.S. impotence in riding to the aid of American allies.
Such actions not only would push Russian influence back to the former borders of the Soviet Union but also could overturn the belief within the U.S. alliance structure that the Americans are reliable -- that they will rush to their allies' aid at any time and any place. That belief ultimately was the heart of the U.S. containment strategy during the Cold War. Damage that belief and the global security picture changes dramatically. Barring a Russian-American deal on treaties, inflicting that damage is once again a full-fledged goal of the Kremlin. The only question is whether the American preoccupation in Iraq will last long enough for the Russians to do what they think they need to do.
Luckily for the Russians, they can impact the time frame of American preoccupation with Iraq. Just as the Russians have the ability to throw the Iranians under the bus, they also have the ability to empower the Iranians to stand firm.
On Oct. 16, Putin became the first Russian leader since Leonid Brezhnev to visit Iran, and in negotiations with the Iranian leadership he laid out just how his country could help. Formally, the summit was a meeting of the five leaders of the Caspian Sea states, but in reality the meeting was a Russian-Iranian effort to demonstrate to the Americans that Iran does not stand alone.
A good part of the summit involved clearly identifying differences with American policy. The right of states to nuclear energy was affirmed, the existence of energy infrastructure that undermines U.S. geopolitical goals was supported and a joint statement pledged the five states to refuse to allow "third parties" from using their territory to attack "the Caspian Five." The last is a clear bullying of Azerbaijan to maintain distance from American security plans.
But the real meat is in bilateral talks between Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two sides are sussing out how Russia's ample military experience can be applied to Iran's U.S. problem. Some of the many, many possibilities include:
* Kilo-class submarines: The Iranians already have two and the acoustics in the Persian Gulf are notoriously bad for tracking submarines. Any U.S. military effort against Iran would necessitate carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.
* Russia fields the Bal-E, a ground-launched Russian version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Such batteries could threaten any U.S. surface ship in the Gulf. A cheaper option could simply involve the installation of Russian coastal artillery systems.
* Russia and India have developed the BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile, which has the uniquely deadly feature of being able to be launched from land, ship, submarine or air. While primarily designed to target surface vessels, it also can act as a more traditional -- and versatile -- cruise missile and target land targets.
* Flanker fighters are a Russian design (Su-27/Su-30) that compares very favorably to frontline U.S. fighter jets. Much to the U.S. Defense Department's chagrin, Indian pilots in Flankers have knocked down some U.S. pilots in training scenarios.
* The S-300 anti-aircraft system is still among the best in the world, and despite eviscerated budgets, the Russians have managed to operationalize several upgrades since the end of the Cold War. It boasts both a far longer range and far more accuracy than the Tor-M1 and Pantsyr systems on which Iran currently depends.
Such options only scratch the surface of what the Russians have on order, and the above only discusses items of use in a direct Iranian-U.S. military conflict. Russia also could provide Iran with an endless supply of less flashy equipment to contribute to intensifying Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq itself.
For now, the specifics of Russian transfers to Iran are tightly held, but they will not be for long. Russia has as much of an interest in getting free advertising for its weapons systems as Iran has in demonstrating just how high a price it will charge the United States for any attack.
But there is one additional reason this will not be a stealth relationship.
The Kremlin wants Washington to be fully aware of every detail of how Russian sales are making the U.S. Army's job harder, so that the Americans have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions as regards Russia's role. Moscow is not doing this because it is vindictive; this is simply how the Russians do business, and they are open to a new deal.
Russia has neither love for the Iranians nor a preference as to whether Moscow reforges its empire or has that empire handed back. So should the United States change its mind and seek an accommodation, Putin stands perfect ready to betray the Iranians' confidence.
For a price.
3)The nuclear watchdog is checking US spy satellite images of Syrian site hit by Israeli warplanes on Sept. 6 for signs of secret nuclear activity
Diplomatic sources reported US intelligence agencies sent satellite images to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Its experts have found nothing to substantiate the claim that the site hit was a secret nuclear facility.
Intelligence sources report the credibility of data Israel presented to Washington before the air strike continues to be questioned in some Washington quarters. They contend, even if the target was a nuclear facility under construction, it would not have posed a threat for years. One purpose of this argument is to belittle Israel’s intelligence findings and detract from questions about how other agencies and the nuclear watchdog missed them. Another is to put the Bush administration on the spot for approving the Israeli air attack in order to deter it from a military strike against Iran.
Two days after President George W. Bush said an Iranian nuclear bomb could lead to World War III, The Washington Post reported Syria had begun dismantling the remains of a bombed site near the Euphrates River in an attempt to prevent it coming under international scrutiny. It bears the “signature,” said the paper, “of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.”
The WP adds: The bombed facility is different from the one Syria displayed to journalists last week to support its claim that Israel bombed an empty building.
Intelligence sources have reported from "Day One" of the bombing the structure Israel bombed was located between the Euphrates and Lake Assad and that the Syrians misled correspondents by showing them a site at Deir al-Azur. Military sources also refuted Damascus’ claim Israeli bombers had ejected unmarked fuel tanks over Turkey. They were dropped by the Turkish air force, as Syrian president Bashar Assad was informed during his visit to Ankara this week. The genuine Israel fuel tanks with Hebrew markings were shown this week by Al Arabiya TV.
The “no comment” line to which the US and Israel are sticking is having the desired effects, which are:
1. To keep Syria in the dark about the amount of intelligence garnered by the US and Israel on its nuclear activities.
2. To entangle the Assad regime in its own untruths, which are spun in an effort to conceal the location that was struck and disguise its true nature. The Syrian version is crumbling piece by piece each time another authentic element is published, at the heavy cost to Assad’s prestige at home and abroad.
4) The Media's Dilemma
By Thomas Lifson
Rush Limbaugh’s political jiu-jitsu masterstroke came to a climax, when the ebay auction for the letter sent by 41 Senate Democrats to the CEO of his syndicator Clear Channel ended. The bid had already toppped two million dollars, with the purchase price to be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, benefiting the education of children of deceased Marines and federal law enforcement personnel. Because Rush Limbaugh has offered to match the purchase price, the total donation exceeded four million dollars.
The Mainstream Media have virtually blacked out the story, but now that the auction is over and a highly impressive sum as been paid, will they continue to ignore it? After all, the auction of a grilled cheese sandwich claimed to display the image of the Virgin Mary fetched only $28,000 and received widespread publicity in the US and overseas. Someone paying several million bucks for a contemporary letter is pretty big news, even without the charity angle. And this is no food product bearing a resemblance to sacred art, this is a historic document signed by 80% of the majority caucus of what is commonly alleged to be the world’s greatest deliberative body.
Rush Limbaugh outsmarted the Democratic Leadership of the Senate and cornered the media. If the media does not cover the auction results, they will look ridiculous. The letter is easy enough to explain that it will inevitably be discussed at water coolers, sports events, churches, parties, and other get-togethers. But if the media does cover it, they must include some explanation for the high price, and that will make Reid and the Democrats look silly or worse. Capitalizing on their rhetoric, the letter is to be delivered in an attaché case made by a company carrying the name Halliburton.
In case your media diet does not include talk radio and the conservative commentariat, the backstory is fairly simple, which makes the auction all the harder to ignore.
The blowback from the “General Betray Us” MoveOn.org left the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies smarting, and they were anxious to demonstrate to their own supporters that conservatives behave reprehensively. Accordingly Media Matters (which Hillary bragged she “helped start” took out of context a phrase Rush Limbaugh spoke, “phony soldiers” and alleged he had smeared good patriotic American soldiers and veterans who disagree with him.
In an effort to promote the fabricated media storm and perhaps force change on Rush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got 40 other Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Mark P. Mays, CEO of the syndicator of Rush’s show, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.
Instead of cowering, Mr. Mays turned the letter over to Rush, who came up with the brilliant plan to make the Democrats regret their hasty attempt to intimidate a private citizen who is their critic. Invoking the majesty of the United States Senate to intimidate a private citizen demonstrates a remarkable degree of self-absorption. A simple thought experiment:
What if Newt Gingrich, while he was Speaker, had enlisted 80% of the House majority as signatories of a letter to the CEO of General Electric asking Jack Welch to apologize for a sin of NBC News? Do you think Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman would have ignored it? How about CBS and ABC? There was no Media Matters back then, but fax machines were in widespread use. How long would it take for everyone to be pointing out that broadcasting is a regulated industry, and that the evil politicians were muzzling the free press?
Reid & Company never for a moment imagined anyone would characterize their act as bullying a free press and possibly even raising First Amendment issues. Because Clear Channel hold many radio licenses from the federal government, it is very vulnerable to pressure from the government, and the words “chilling effect” do not seem outrageously out of place in evaluating the intended consequence of the Senate Majority Leader’s letter. Interviewed on Hannity & Colmes Thursday evening, Rush called the letter “neo-Stalinist.”
The letter is, in fact, an important historical document, representing an attempt to silence the single most prominent private citizen critic of the Democratic Party, written on official stationery of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and bearing the signatures of the vast majority of his caucus, including the front-runner and other candidates for the Party’s presidential nomination. Should the purchaser be so-minded, it may someday be donated to the Smithsonian Institution, National Archives or some other nonprofit library or archive.
The mainstream media have taken a beating in viewership and readership and in credibility the past two decades that Rush Limbaugh has been on the air, and the Democrats are perpetually outraged that he dominates the entire medium of talk radio, while no liberal host has ever been able to mount a halfway comparable performance on the public airwaves.
Arrogance combined with the emotion of hate leads to dangerous mistakes. Reid and the media which gave initial credence to the Media Matters-generated smear of Rush have stepped in something whose smell may linger in the history of American politics.
5) Off we go again, to process peace
By Wesley Pruden
One of these days an attempt to make lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians will succeed, but it might be on the day after that roomful of monkeys with typewriters finish the manuscript of "War and Peace."
Condoleezza Rice is in Jerusalem this morning, trying to "spark the region" with the news that the United States will set up an international peace conference next month in Annapolis. It's all about a legacy for George W. Bush. Organizing a Palestinian state is essential, she said, and it has the highest Bush priority.
"Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," the secretary of state told reporters after four hours with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinians, now without a state. "The United States sees the establishment of a Palestinian state, a two-state solution, as absolutely essential to the future, not just for the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the Middle East and indeed for American interests."
The dilemma, diplomatically unspoken, is that the Palestinians — and their regional enablers — don't actually want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, and if they stall, delay and dodge long enough, the rest of the world will grow weary with intransigence and tell the Israelis to shut up already and let the barbarians, who send women and children to blow themselves up along with whoever may be unlucky enough to be standing nearby, take it all.
Civilized men and women, both of the West and of whoever among the Palestinians who yearn for something better than they have, must keep trying. We can hope, as Miss Rice predicts, that there's "going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state. We frankly have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op." But the rest of us are entitled to think that a photo op, with the pols standing around looking for a cucumber sandwich and trying to look useful, is all that Miss Rice will accomplish in Annapolis.
Negotiators for both Israel and the Palestinians already disagree on what they want to talk about, much like the famous argument between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho about the shape of the table at those long-ago "peace" talks to strike an end to the Vietnam War. The parties finally agreed on the table and an agreement that enabled Mr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to fly to Oslo to pick up their Nobel Peace Prizes. Then the Communists took South Vietnam. (Nobel laureates get to keep their peace prizes; there is no money-back guarantee.)
But Israel can't afford to make sucker deals. The Palestinians want a detailed laundry list of goodies, with delivery dates carved in a hard wood if not in stone, and iron-clad solutions to "core issues," agreed on now. The Israelis want a measured approach, with what the diplomats call "confidence-building steps" before anyone carves anything in wood or stone. The laundry list, agreed on now, would give the game to the Palestinians. They could behave as they have in the past, stalling, delaying and dodging, confident that the rest of the world will blame the Jews for the Palestinians not living up to the bargain.
Who can blame the Israelis for smelling a mouse, if not a rat? Condi Rice first told the reporters yesterday that there won't be an attempt to solve everything in Annapolis, "but it does need to be a serious and substantive and concrete document that demonstrates there is a way forward." She later "clarified" her remarks. She did not mean that the Annapolis conference should give the Palestinians everything they want.
Mr. Abbas emerged from his talkathon with Miss Rice with a list of what the Palestinians want in exchange for a promise to quit killing Jews: restored borders, settled refugees and a piece of East Jerusalem, which would become the capital of the Palestinian state. That's a lot to ask from a man who doesn't believe in Christmas and Santa Claus.
6) Olmert: I returned from Moscow reassured
By Ronny Sofer
Prime minister concludes visit to Russia on positive note. 'I am very satisfied with my meeting with the Russian president,' he says. Olmert's associates explain he got the impression that Putin administration is not interested in seeing Iran turn into nuclear super-power.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Friday that he was very satisfied with his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Olmert and his small entourage returned to Israel on Friday morning following a one-day visit to Moscow.
Snap Visit
Putin to Olmert: We know how worried you are over Iran. Russian leader tries to allay Israel's concerns about Islamic Republic's nuclear program, tells Israeli PM during Moscow meeting that he is 'ready to share results' of recent visit to Tehran
Full story
"There is someone to talk to in Moscow, and there are things to talk about. The last word on the Iranian nuclear issue has yet to be said," one of the entourage members noted.
The prime minister met with the Russian president for three hours on Thursday, a day after the latter's return from a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
Putin invited Olmert to move from the discussion room to his private office, where they met from 5 pm till 8 pm.
"The Russians were very good hosts, and the president warmly welcomed the prime minister," an entourage member said. "The prime minister believes that a great part of the diplomatic work is being done through interpersonal meetings between heads of state.
"This is the network he has created worldwide, and this serves the State of Israel and people of Israel. He can arrive almost anywhere, and in the Kremlin, where he has an excellent relationship with President Putin, he was welcomed in a wonderful manner."
One of the issues the two leaders discussed, according to Olmert's aides, was the Iranian nuclear program.
Olmert briefed Putin on the information Israel possesses about Iran's intentions, including its uranium enrichment activities ahead of the creation of a nuclear bomb.
Aides to Olmert said that he was under the impression that the public Russian rhetoric was different than the reality as Putin sees it.
"What is clear is that the Russians have their own agenda. They view themselves as a super-power, and do not wish to be the passenger sitting beside the American driver. They want to lead processes.
"At the end of the day, however, the Putin administration is not interested in seeing Iran turn into a nuclear super-power, and that is the important thing," said an entourage member.
"The evidence is that nuclear fuel is not being supplied to Bushehr yet, and the question is why. I assume the answer is clear," he continued. "In international diplomacy not everything is seen on the surface. There is a lot of activity down underneath.
"Although the Russians made some commitments to the Iranians, such as the fuel to Bushehr, things are not happening, at least in the meantime. The Russians made it clear to the prime minister that Russia does not want to make things worse for Israel."
Moscow sitting on the fence
Members of the prime minister's entourage rejected claims that Russia had made a decision to abstain from voting on toughening the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council.
"They are sitting on the fence. As far as we know, they have yet to make a deicison on the matter and wish to wait and see how this would suit their policy."
Olmert told Putin that he was skeptical over Iran's claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful uses only. The two leaders also discussed Russia's arms deals with Syria, which are threatening Israel's security.
The prime minister made it clear to the Russian president that these deals could harm the military balance in the Middle East. According to the entourage members, Putin promised once again not to harm Israel's security interests.
t
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment