Hillary's disingenuous cackle is no laughing matter!

Jonathan Tobin suggests the extreme right of the Republican Party may just sit on their hands, assuming Giuliani becomes the candidate, thereby, insuring Hillary Clinton a victory.

On the other hand, after Ramadan and before the various early nominating states vote GW, may have an attack on Iran up his sleeve. Certainly the leaders in Iran think this. If so, and depending upon the results, it could radically influence everything beyond. (See 1 below.)

We keep sending arms to Egypt and supporting Mubarak and then weakly protest assaults in other parts of the world,ie Myanmar, Sudan etc. Diplomacy is hypocrisy spelled with a D. (see 2 below.)

Abbas states, time is not ripe for "final status" agreement. (See 3 below.)

New poll reveals Palestinians in Gaza have become disaffected with Hamas and were an election held today, Hamas would lose. Little wonder, since Hamas' election has simply brought more suffering, chaos and world rejection. This should be a lesson to those who seek to appease in the face of threats that co-ordination and single mindedness can be powerful and effective tools in the fight against terrorism (See 4 below.)

Some would say an article by Tom Delay scathingly critical of Hillary, is the pot calling the kettle black. As for myself, I agree with what DeLay has written about one of the nation's most vulgar, cynical, disingenuous and scuzzy politicians since Huey Long. It is hard to imagine voters may have finally capitulated by reaching that pitiful state of validating the saying "when all else fails lower your standards" and electing her. Certainly her cackle is not something to laugh about.

We shall see won't we. (See 5 below.)

Dick


1) Can the center hold?
By Jonathan Tobin






Hillary and Rudy are both in the lead, but electibility means more to Democrats


With the first of the 2008 caucuses and primaries only months away, the endless presidential campaign is about to be clarified as the long list of candidates without a prayer are winnowed down to the few viable contenders.


In recent decades, the conventional political wisdom has been that the process by which our two major political parties choose a presidential standard-bearer has reinforced the latent extremism on both the left and the right. But, interestingly, in this run for the White House is that, in contrast to the past, it is the centrists — or what passes for centrists these days — who are beating out the ideologues.


Among the Democrats, there is little doubt that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has become the odds-on favorite.


Predictably, the boomlet for her main competition, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), has faded as his inexperience on the national stage became more noticeable and his celebrity overwhelmed his only real asset — the fact that he was a new face among so many familiar ones.

STRAY GESTURES
Clinton backed the war in Iraq when it was backed by most voters, but she has followed the political wind by opposing it now that is deeply unpopular. Despite this, she still indulges in the occasional stray move to the center — such as her recent support for a non-binding Senate measure that called for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which was opposed by other Democrats who saw it as an escalation of the growing conflict with that Islamic Republic.


While she remains on the same side of many issues as the Moveon.org crowd, there's little doubt that she is the most centrist of the viable Democratic candidates. That will allow her to tack even farther to the center once the nomination is assured.


On the other side of the aisle, the outcome Republican race isn't nearly as easy to predict.


The early favorite, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), flopped once he stopped playing the party rebel. But going back to being incorrigible isn't working either. His statement that he believed America was a "Christian nation" in response to a question in an online interview about whether he could support a Muslim president should also reduce his chances of rallying Jewish support to his waning campaign.


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has raised a lot of money but still lags in the polls. He may be a victim of religious prejudice — as many Americans still look askance at his Mormon faith — but sympathy on that point won't win many votes.


The long-awaited debut of film and TV star, and former Tennessee senator, Fred Thompson, isn't generating much excitement either.


Which leaves us with one other formidable Republican candidate: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who, despite his checkered personal history and eccentric personality, as well as his liberal stand on abortion, has led the polls for most of the past year.


Since most Republican voters are more afraid of terrorism than they are of global warming, Giuliani's image as the 9/11 mayor has served him well. Rudy is also the darling of most Republican Jews for his strong stands on the war on Islamist terror, which is linked to his similarly passionate backing of Israel.


Though most Jews will back the Democrats no matter what and care more about domestic issues than Israel, Giuliani does give the GOP a chance to win over more of the minority of Jews (in key strategic states) whose votes will be influenced by the Middle East.


After all, Giuliani can claim to be the man who used the New York City Police Department to bounce Yasser Arafat out of a diplomatic party, while Hillary Clinton still gets the image of the former first lady planting a wet one on Suha Arafat after the terrorist chief's wife claimed that Israel was poisoning Arab children thrown at her.


Seven years of serving New York in the Senate has given Clinton ample opportunity to pander to the pro-Israel community and establish her bona fides with the AIPAC crowd. Nevertheless, there's little doubt that the nomination of Giuliani would energize the most Jewish support for the Republicans since Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter.


That prospect, as well as the probability that Rudy would give Hillary a run for her money in swing states, ought to excite a Republican base that knows that the Democrats are heavily favored to win back not only the presidency in 2008, but to strengthen their majorities in the House and the Senate.


But the possible triumph of Republican centrism and the hope of victory in 2008 isn't being greeted with acclamation among the GOP faithful. Though he may be their best — and perhaps, only — chance to win next year, the truth is that some Republicans would rather see Hillary triumph than allow a pro-choice Republican to sit in the White House.

RUMBLINGS ON THE RIGHT
The rumblings on the right have already begun as the possibility that a splintered and leaderless hard right will allow Giuliani to win a plurality in enough primaries to assure his nomination has become apparent.


According to an Oct. 1 report in The New York Times, key leaders of the Christian right, such as James Dobson, are already indicating that they'll never acquiesce to a Giuliani victory. While some have talked about a third-party challenge, the more obvious consequence is that many evangelicals and others who regard abortion as their No. 1 priority will just stay home in November 2008 if the choice is between Giuliani and Clinton.


Though Giuliani has changed his positions on immigration rights to pander to nativists on the right and flipped from being a backer of New York's punitive gun-ownership laws to a fervent Second Amendment backer, he hasn't done the same on abortion.


That's okay with the libertarian and security wings of the party. But anyone who expects conservative Christians will be pragmatic and vote for a candidate who isn't pro-life doesn't understand them at all.


As super-strategist Karl Rove proved in 2000 and 2004, Republicans can only win if their base turns out. An increase in independents and Democrats voting Republican — let alone, Jewish voters — would not offset the loss of the Christian right.


All this is even more good news for Hillary, who knows that even the most rabid Moveon.org extremists will accept her straying on some issues dear to them because they value victory in November over anything else.


As Democrats proved last year in Pennsylvania, when even the most liberal Jewish feminists held their noses and voted for Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, so as to defeat conservative Republican Rick Santorum, party discipline on the left isn't a thing of the past.


The GOP may claim that extremists — particularly, anti-Israel extremists such as Jimmy Carter — are more influential among Dems than any anti-Zionist Republican. But it appears that ideological hard-liners may prove next year that the triumph of the Republican center will ensure a party crackup of historic dimensions.

2) on Mubarak's Failing Health

In a recent article, editor of the Egyptian opposition paper Al-Dustour Ibrahim 'Issa cited rumors about the failing health of Egyptian President Mubarak. Following the article's publication, 'Issa was summoned for questioning [1] by the authorities, and was subsequently charged with "deliberately spreading false rumors harmful to the public." [2]

The following are excerpts from the article: [3]

"In Egypt, the President is God, and Gods Are Never Ill"

"In Egypt, the President is God, and gods are never ill. That is why President Mubarak, his associates, and his hypocrite [cronies] are concealing the fact of his illness, leaving the country to rumors and guesses. They do not talk, but mislead the public about the state of the president's health. [I believe that] the president does not suffer from a severe illness, but only from the illness of [old] age. But even if he has [nothing more than] a bout of flu, the public has [the right] to know about it.

"The problem is that the West knows [the state of the president's health]. The White House [receives] updates [about it] almost on a daily basis. Tel Aviv knows [about it as well, since it] follows [reports provided by other] Western sources that know details about the President's illness and about his trips [abroad] for treatment. The European intelligence apparatuses [arrange] for him to come and receive treatment [in Europe]... [Only] the Egyptians are [kept] in the dark.

"If the president had not fainted during a televised speech a few years ago, nobody would have known [anything] about the state of his health. Had he not gone to Germany for a long course of treatment, nobody would have mentioned his disease. The [logical] conclusion is that Mubarak's country wants to present the president as a holy man who can do no wrong, who is not subject to oversight, and who has no rivals. This necessarily means that he cannot be ill. More than that, nobody can conceive that he may one day die like an ordinary mortal...

"The Future Of Egypt Hangs On Emotional Decisions Taken by the President at a Time of Illness"

"The matter [of the president's illness] affects both the present and the future of our country. Everyone in [Egypt] and abroad knows that [Mubarak's] family - and in particular his wife, Mrs. Susan Mubarak - has long been urging him to resign and to let the presidency pass to Gamal Mubarak while he is still alive [and able] to supervise [the transfer of power]. The only one objecting to this move is the president [himself], whether out of a desire to cling to his seat and stay in it as long as fate allows, or whether out of fear of causing unrest among the people and among the generals whom he has favored [and cultivated]. [Moreover], the president fears for the life of his son once he decides to transfer the presidency to him...

"This means that the future of Egypt hangs on emotional decisions taken by the president at a time of illness. In addition, his illness means that he is [periodically] absent from the helm, which provides various elements and figures inside and outside the presidential palace with an opportunity to do as they please.

"Perhaps the Frequent Rumors About the President's Illness are Aimed at Establishing [Gamal's] Ascension to Power"

"Moreover, it is possible that the wave of arrests of [Muslims] Brotherhood [members], the harsh security clamp down on privately [owned] newspapers and the postponement of the elections within the NDP... have all been orchestrated by [Gamal Mubarak] as [part of] an onslaught on various sectors in the country. Perhaps the frequent rumors about the president's illness are aimed at establishing [Gamal's] ascension to power as a done deal that nobody can oppose - not to mention prevent.

"According to some medical sources, Mubarak is suffering from a cardiovascular problem which causes his brain to be starved of blood for [several] minutes at a time, and thus causes him to lose consciousness for a period of [several] seconds to [several] minutes. If this is true, it may explain the rumor that the president was seen swaying on his feet and shivering during one of his visits to an official institution.

"You can call your family doctor, or the doctor of one of your relatives or neighbors, and ask him about the effects of a cardiovascular disease on a man of the President's age, and about the implications [of this disease]. I am certain that it is not a fatal illness, and that a man can live with it for many years. [However], the question is whether it affects the country. Doesn't it require the president to take a break [from his duties]?

"I Fear... That the President's Illness Will Exacerbate the Illness of Egypt, Halt Its Progress, and Make It Develop Bedsores That Will... Paralyze It"

"Gamal [Mubarak] thinks that the president should rest and transfer the presidency to him. Other circles in the country are very anxious - afraid to keep silent but also afraid to act. [Still] other circles want everybody to remain quiet and restrained while they hold some of us in prison and threaten us. What I fear most is that the president's illness will exacerbate the illness of Egypt, halt its progress, and make it develop bedsores that will impede [its functioning] and paralyze it."


[1] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 4, 2007; Al-Misriyoun (Egypt), September 4, 2007.

[2] Al-Gumhouriyya (Egypt), September 13, 2007.

[3] Al-Dustour (Egypt), August 30, 2007.

3) 'Abbas understands time is not ripe for final status agreement'

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas understands that the time is not yet ripe for a final status agreement with Israel, the Prime Minister's Office said following a meeting between Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday afternoon.



The Palestinians, Olmert's office said, know that they have a long road ahead before they are ready for such an agreement. However, the PMO expressed satisfaction with the meeting, at which the two leaders agreed to present a joint declaration of principles, rather than a framework agreement, at a US-sponsored peace parley in November.

The compromise drew fire from both ends of the political spectrum. The Likud criticized the meeting, saying in a statement released early Wednesday evening that current government policy could lead to the establishment of a "second Hamastan" in the West Bank that could pose a missile threat to Gush Dan.

No wording [of the agreement] can hide the fact that the Olmert government has promised the Palestinians to withdraw to the 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem, the statement said.

Peace Now also expressed its dissatisfaction with the watered-down plan, saying that unless the issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were addressed at the November meeting, the parley would turn into a "useless media show."

Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin also opposed the decision not to rough out a final status deal. Beilin said there was a "rare opportunity to renew talks on a final status agreement and finish them in a few months."

"Any other alternative will strengthen the extremist elements in the region and will damage Israel's national and security interests," Beilin said.

Wednesday's meeting, which took place in the prime minister's succa, went ahead despite reports from Arab sources that Abbas has agreed to renew talks with Hamas.

The two spoke privately, discussing a list of key subjects they would delegate to separate Israeli and Palestinian teams of advisors. The teams are expected to iron out details pertaining to those key subjects in preparation for the Middle East peace parley scheduled for mid-Novemeber and for a preceding visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, scheduled to predate the parley by a month.

A senior official said just as Olmert was beginning his meeting with Abbas that if the reports about Abbas's planned meeting with Hamas officials in Cairo were true, there was "no point" in continuing negotiations.

The Prime Minister's Office issued a statement saying Israel's stance regarding Hamas was "known and unequivocal."

The statement further emphasized that the government rejected any attempts by the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Hamas and added that all Israeli officials traveling abroad were instructed to ask their foreign counterparts to step up pressure on Abbas against his making any effort to bridge the gap with Hamas.

MK Arye Eldad (NU-NRP) said that "Olmert has crossed all red lines of the Israeli consensus" by negotiating with Abbas amid reports that the latter was renewing contact with Hamas.

Abbas agreed "in principle" to renew mediation between Fatah and Hamas, Israel Radio reported Wednesday, quoting Arab sources.

Abbas reportedly answered a request forwarded by Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who has been in touch with Abbas's loyalists as well as with Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal and other top figures in Hamas.

The pan-Arabic Asharq Alawsat reported that Hamas had also responded positively to Suleiman's mediation attempts.

According to the Egyptian initiative, the talks between Fatah and Hamas would be confidential. Abbas suggested Azzam al-Ahmed, one of his close associates, as the man to head Fatah's delegation in the talks.

Suleiman asked both sides to produce proposals to end the strife, so that he could review them and formulate one joined proposal that would hopefully appeal to both sides. When such a proposal is drafted, the sides plan to hold secret talks in Cairo.

Nevertheless, over the past few days Abbas has reiterated to foreign media outlets that under no conditions would Fatah again share power with Hamas. "It was a bad experience, they ruined it," Abbas was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority government headed by Abbas-nominated independent Salaam Fayad was preparing a plan to battle Hamas's funding sources. Fayad's government estimated that Hamas was feeding off charities, smuggling through tunnels dug under the Philadelphi Corridor in the southern Gaza Strip, and charging commissions from money changers.

Until the violent takeover in June, Hamas also transferred money through the Rafah crossing, the PA government assessed.

But a Hamas senior told Al Hayat that his organization had "a million ways" to receive outside funding and that Fayad's government would not be able to succeed where Israel and the US have failed [i.e. in stopping funds from reaching Hamas.]

In related news, an Islamic Jihad leader said Wednesday that his group would not abide by any agreements reached by Abbas or his allies, and that it would continue carrying out terror attacks within the Green Line. The spokesman said that his group would respect nothing less than a return to the 1948 borders.

The Islamic Jihad official also said his group would not respect any understanding or agreement that would be achieved before the upcoming peace parley.

Sources in Washington said the parley might be delayed by two-to-four weeks, in order to give the sides time to reach some agreement ahead of the talks, Army Radio reported.

4) New poll shows growing discontent with Hamas rule in Gaza

Terror organization to lose elections if new vote were held today in Palestinian Authority, survey conducted by Near East Consulting concludes. Poll also finds that majority of Gazans oppose rocket attacks on Israel, favor a peace agreement with the Jewish state, and do not consider Hamas authority in Gaza to be the legitimate Palestinian government.

Most residents of the Gaza Strip are afraid to openly express their political views following Hamas' takeover of the area in June, according to a poll released Wednesday, the latest sign of public discontent with Gaza's Islamic militant rulers.



The poll found that a majority of Gazans oppose rocket attacks on Israel, favor a peace agreement with the Jewish state, and do not consider the Hamas authority in Gaza to be the legitimate Palestinian government. It also concluded that Hamas would lose elections if a new vote were held today.



The poll was conducted by Near East Consulting, a research firm based in the West Bank. The firm said it surveyed 470 Palestinians in Gaza by telephone on September 25-27. It did not give a margin of error.


Hamas seized control of Gaza in mid-June after routing forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement. Abbas responded by forming a pro-Western government in the West Bank.



According to the survey, 58 percent of respondents said they are now afraid to express their political views following the Hamas takeover, and 60 percent say Hamas' paramilitary police, known as the Executive Force, has done a poor job respecting individual rights.



It also found 52 percent of respondents consider Abbas' government to be the legitimate Palestinian ruling authority, while only 26 percent favor the Hamas government led by Ismail Haniyeh. Sixty-four percent said they trust Abbas, compared with 36 percent who trust Fatah.


In another blow to Hamas, 72 percent said they support a final peace agreement with Israel, and 55 percent called on Hamas to change its position toward the Jewish state. Hamas opposes peace talks and is committed to Israel's destruction.




Nearly three-quarters said they support Abbas' call for new elections - a position opposed by Hamas. It said 42 percent would vote for Fatah, with just 15 percent support for Hamas.


Since the Hamas takeover, the international community has welcomed Abbas' government, while pushing Hamas into deep isolation.


In the poll, 86 percent said they are worried about the state of affairs in Gaza, and 47 percent said they are thinking of emigrating. In comparison, 33 percent said they were considering emigration a month earlier.

5) The Return of "That'll Teach Em" Hillary
by Tom DeLay


Moments after accusing everyone who had the temerity to actually believe her husband was lying about “that woman, Miss Lewinsky” of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” First Lady Hillary Clinton growled to her beaming staff, “That’ll teach them to [insert four letter word that is not “mess”] with us.”

That’s what we used to call the “Hillary charm.” What Mrs. Clinton likes best is jugular-gouging political combat. Unfortunately, Americans usually like their bare-knuckle politics done with a wink and a smile, like her husband always did. Bill Clinton could kiss a baby, squeeze out a crocodile tear for some down-on-her-luck single mom, accuse Republicans of lynching-era racism, and tell a heart-warming story about some inner city education program in 30 seconds. His attacks were so padded with goopy, Oprah-style, self-actualization, so shadily subtle as to be almost subliminal. Hillary, of the spine-tingling bwah-hah-hah phony campaign laugh and the 1000-page socialized medicine scheme, well, she doesn’t do subtle.


Because she can’t hide her viciousness behind a mask of lip-biting insincerity, Hillary instead has erected a massive network of battle hardened operatives to do the “red in tooth and claw” bit for her. The effect is the same – suppress dissent, intimidate detractors, discredit opponents, and enforce, with fascistic efficiency, an iron code of loyalty among friends and docility among foes. It’s really quite something.

Fortunately for all of us, so is Rush Limbaugh.

A few days back, Rush and a caller were discussing Global War on Terror critics who have either exaggerated or entirely invented their military and combat service in order to bolster their credibility. Major news outlets and even U.S. Attorneys have opened damning investigations of many of these people, who Limbaugh and a caller on his radio show rightfully described as “phony soldiers.”

Well, as soon as the words were out of Limbaugh’s mouth, Hillary sicked her network on Limbaugh. The George Soros-funded, Hillary-devoted group Media Matters has been the tip of the spear, charging Limbaugh with unpatriotic slander against the troops. Because, after all, accusing phony soldiers of being phony soldiers is the same as accusing our troops in the field in Iraq of being phony soldiers. The whole thing is trumped up nonsense, of course, which is why the spectacle of the Senate Majority Leader denouncing Limbaugh from the floor of the Senate went over so poorly with the few Americans who still actually pay attention to Congress.

But the far more important story than this little tempest that will go away in three days is, well, the vast left-wing conspiracy out to get anyone opposed to the Clinton Restoration. Media Matters claims it’s a nonpartisan “research and information center.” That’s all well and good, except that Hillary Clinton herself took credit, while speaking at YearlyKos of all places, of starting Media Matters. In her August speech to the left wing fringe gathering, Senator Clinton bragged about “institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress” (CAP is a left-wing think tank effectively owned and operated by the Clinton campaign policy shop).

She refers to these and other groups, mostly funded by socialist billionaire George Soros and designed for the single purpose of electing Mrs. Clinton president next fall, as “the new progressive infrastructure” which, again, “I helped to start.”

She’s not kidding. This recent attack against Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a fire drill for Mrs. Clinton’s “new progressive infrastructure,” a preparation for the real quarry: the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. There is nothing independent, nonpartisan, or disinterested about Media Matters and the rest of the Clinton Shadow Party – they are the tanks and bombers and battleships of Hillary’s campaign arsenal. They will do whatever they are asked, whenever they must, to destroy anyone who stands between her and the Oval Office.

No wonder her laugh sounds like that.