Iran remains a $64 Question But Only For Some!

A little naval humor. (See 1 below.)

Iran and US are in background negotiations and Tony Cordesman concludes Adm. Mullen told Israel the administration wants to pursue diplomacy and Israel does not have the administration's blessing for an attack. Any change in plans resulting in an attack would come after GW is out and McCain is in should he be elected. (See 2 and 3 below.)

Olmert tells those living under Quassam range there is not enough money to protect you. I see you but I just can;t reach you kind of thing. (See 4 below.)

It is generally believed the Palestinians will eventually cast their lot with Hamas and leave Abbas dangling. (See 5 below.)

Livni tells Italy's FM , who is visiting, Hezballah should be disarmed and that it is outrageous to allow a terrorist organization to be part of a legitimate government. Livni has got to be kidding if she believes the West, or anyone else, will disarm Hezballah. (See 6 below.)

Frank Gaffney has a dim view of the West's position vis a vis Islamic Fascism. They have us! (See 7 below.)

Thomas Sowell shakes his head as he writes about disaffected conservatives willing to throw their lot with Obama. (See 8 below.)

Robert Kaplan does not believe the Iranian nuclear matter will be resolved and Israel remains blocked by Sec Gates and U.S. policy and concerns. (See 9 below.)

Since news from Iraq is improving there is less news according to The Rocky Mountain
News, in keeping with my own belief the press will do whatever it takes to help Obama. (See 10 below.)

Back and forth at Tybee so memos will be coming erratically for next few weeks. Dick


1) Three new Navy ships: USS REAGAN


BEAUTIFUL!

When the Bridge pipes 'Man the Rail' there is a lot of rail to man on this monster: shoulder to shoulder, around 4.5 acres. Her displacement is about 100,000 tons with full complement.

Capability

Top speed exceeds 30 knots, powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling

1. Expected to operate in the fleet for about 50 years

2. Carries over 80 combat aircraft

& ;nbs p;3. Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet

Size

1. Towers 20 stories above the waterline
2. 1092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall
&n bs p;
3. Flight deck covers 4.5 acres

4. 4 bronze propellers, each 21 feet across, weighing 66,200 pounds

5. 2 rudders, each 29 by 22 feet and weighing 50 tons

6. 4 high speed aircraft elevators, each over 4,000 square feet

Capacity

1. Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel

2. Carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days

3. 18,150 meals served daily

4. &n bsp; ;Distillation plants provide 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2,000 homes

5. Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,325 miles of cable and wiring 1,400 te lephon es

6. 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets

7. Costs the Navy approximately $250,000 per day for pier side operation

8. Costs the Navy approximately $25 million per day for underway operations (Sailor's salaries included).



US Navy welcomes the USS Bill Clinton

Sunday, July 2, 2006 Vancouver , BC . Headed for Seattle, WA., the US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today.

The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver , BC.



The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton 'for his foresight in military budget cuts' and his conduct while president.

The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots.
It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unar med ) F18 Hornet aircraft which, although they cannot be launched or captured on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence.

As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board.

The 20 person crew is completely diversified, including members of all races, creeds, sex, and sexual orientation.

This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs.!

An on board Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

The ship's purpose is not defined so much as a unit of national defense, but instead in times of conflict, the US S Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada.
The ship may be positioned near the Democratic National Party Headquarters for photo-ops. The Clin-toons Should be very proud.



USS Barack Obama sailing in from Cuba


2)Secret US-Iranian Dialogue Brings Oil Prices down, Shakes up Mid East Alliances


Oil prices suddenly slumped. Under the impact of the secret American-Iranian talks embarked on last month to solve burning issues by diplomatic engagement.

These talks between the US and Iranian delegations, representing President George W. Bush and Iranian supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have yielded ad hoc understandings on controversial issues. One is an agreement not to allow the price of oil to rocket past $150 the barrel.

Exclusive Gulf and Iranian sources disclosed that the bilateral negotiations were deliberately masked by the war fever engineered by Washington in the form of a stream of leaks indicating that a US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations was imminent.

At the same time, neither nation has sheathed its military option. Those understandings are ad hoc and could well break down in the volatile climate generated by hard-line elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which are dead against deals with Washington.

The last in a string of belligerent statements issued by IRGC chiefs came from Ali Shirazy, senior Navy cleric, who said Tuesday, July 8: If the US attacks Iran, “we will immediately strike back at Tel Aviv. Our first target is Tel Aviv and only then will we attack US shipping in the Persian Gulf; their destruction will represent Iran’s crushing reprisal.”

Behind the saber-rattling, however, sources reported common ground was covered for three key objectives:

1. The American side was willing to refrain from military action against Iran before the end of the Bush presidency in January 2009, but could not promise Israel would not act unilaterally. In a bid to hold Israel’s hand, sources in Washington have been putting out semi-official comments that Israel is short of the intelligence and military capability for striking Iran without help.

2. Iran undertook to open the way for the US military to continue to go from strength to strength in fighting al Qaeda and the Sunni guerrilla insurgents in Iraq, to allow President Bush to claim his Iraq campaign had ended successfully before leaving the White House. Military sources report Tehran ordered Iranian intelligence officers working undercover in Iraq to halt attacks on US troops by pro-Iranian militias, including Moqtada Sadr’s Mehdi Army. This has left US and Iraqi government force with free hands for large-scale operations against al Qaeda.

Iranian officers are also sharing useful intelligence on conditions in the field with American commanders.

3. In the background of the secret dialogue is the Bush administration’s ambition to help fellow-Republican Senator John McCain get elected to the White House.

Iran experts comment the revolutionary regime in Tehran has traditionally preferred a Republican over a Democrat in the White House since the days when its founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, helped Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.

Some of these understandings are still work in progress, but the oil price ceiling of $150 was definitely agreed and resulted in the sharp fall in prices Tuesday, July 6 by $3.92 a barrel. Some traders attributed it to an ease in geopolitical tensions related to Iran’s nuclear program and a strengthening US dollar.

Sources question the first part of this assessment, finding no real ease in tensions around Iran’s nuclear program.

Monday, July 8, the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet announced American, British and Bahraini vessels were to launch a new exercise in the Gulf called “Stake Net,” to practice tactics and procedures for protecting maritime infrastructure such as gas and oil installations.

The exercise was launched in response to threats by more than one Iranian military chief to control shipping in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz if Iran was attacked or its regional interests jeopardized.

The ball was picked up by the Revolutionary Guards which launched a retaliatory naval maneuver the next day.

Tuesday, too, the New York Times ran an article called “Nearer to the Bomb” by nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, former chief scientist of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He wrote that all of Iran’s activities, especially in uranium enrichment, are evidence that its “near-term ability to make nuclear weapons is gathering strength.”

He further warned that once Iran begins enriching uranium to weapons grade on an assembly-line basis, “it could transfer this material to groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.” They could then “fabricate low-technology nuclear explosives with yields nearly as high as the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.”

The understandings unfolding between Washington and Tehran have clearly impacted on Syria and Lebanon. One result was last month’s Doha accord for the election of Lebanese president Michel Sleiman, which has produced a new government in Beirut headed by the pro-Western Fouad Siniora with veto power for Hizballah ministers.

Washington has for the moment lowered the heat of political, economic and intelligence pressure on Iran’s close ally, Syrian president Bashar Assad and even Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, permitting them to assume a role in political processes in Lebanon and the Middle East at large.

The bilateral understandings on Iraq have strengthened its Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, but even more dramatically revalued the Syrian president’s international legitimacy, although some aspects of his position are still under discussion between Washington and Tehran.

All the same, a senior Saudi official conversant with Lebanese and Syrian affairs put it this way: “On the face of it nothing has changed in Washington’s attitude towards Damascus, but in reality, it has undergone a transformation.”

The threats to the Assad regime have receded, notably the international tribunal for prosecuting the assassins of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, and Washington has withdrawn its support for Syrian opposition factions.”

The Saudi official further commented: “A US-Iranian earthquake is rumbling under the surface of the Middle East, especially in Syria.”

3) Report: Iran begins war game with warning to U.S. and Israel
By Amos Harel


Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have begun a military exercise with a warning that Israel and the U.S. naval force in the Persian Gulf would be prime targets if Iran is attacked, according to the ISNA news agency.

The report did not say when or where the exercise is taking place but adds that missile squads are involved.

The report quotes guard official Ali Shirazi as saying Tel Aviv and American warships in the Gulf would be among the first targets if Iran comes under attack.

"The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe," Ali Shirazi was quoted as saying in a speech to Revolutionary Guards.

"The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned," the quote continued.

Shirazi, a mid-level cleric, is Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the Revolutionary Guards.

"The Iranian nation will never accept bullying. The Iranian nation is a nation of believers which believes in jihad and martyrdom. No army in the world can confront it," he added.

In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, declined to comment on the threat to hit Tel Aviv, saying only: "Shirazi's words speak for themselves."

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out the military option as part of international efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Leaders of the Group of Eight rich countries expressed serious concern on Tuesday at the proliferation risks posed by Iran's nuclear program.

In a statement issued after G8 leaders met in Hokkaido, northern Japan, on the second day of a three-day summit, the grouping urged Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities.

"We also urge Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA," the G8 said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said major world powers had decided to send European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran for talks on an incentives package they offered last month to induce Tehran to change its nuclear policy.

Sarkozy did not say when Solana would travel to Tehran. Iran formally replied on Friday to the offer by the United States, France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany.

France said Iran's response had ignored the world powers' demand for a suspension of uranium enrichment before talks on implementing the package - a condition rejected on Monday as "illegitimate" by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

U.S. analyst: Mullen made clear Israel has no 'green light' to attack Iran
A senior U.S. strategic analyst says the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, sent Israel an unequivocal message stating that Israel does not have a "green light" from the U.S. to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Professor Anthony Cordesman of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies foreign policy think tank is considered a leading researcher in the area of U.S. national security. In the past he served in senior positions in the Defense Department, and was Senator John McCain's National Security Assistant.

Cordesman is visiting Israel this week, and gave a lecture Monday at Tel Aviv University and at Hebrew University on Sunday. He talked about Mullen's comments last week in Washington when the Admiral said such an Israeli attack would be dangerous and could destabilize the Middle East.

Mullen spoke after returning from a visit to Israel, during which he met with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and other senior IDF officers.

Cordesman said Mullen came to Israel to deliver a message that Israel did not have a green light to attack Iran and that it would not receive U.S. support for such a move.

According to Cordesman, Mullen was expressing the official opinion of the U.S. administration, including that of President George W. Bush and the National Security Council.

Mullen said last week that the president, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff said they are choosing to work for now through diplomatic channels to put pressure on Iran: "The best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message, and that is that you will be isolated and you will have economic hardship if you continue trying to enrich," explained Mullen.

Cordesman explained senior American officers do not make such public statements without permission from the White House.

In his Jerusalem lecture, Cordesman said the U.S. has a plan for a military attack on Iran, but is continuing with diplomatic efforts for now. He estimated that if a change were to be made in the U.S. position on an attack against Iran, it would only be made during the next administration.

4) PMO: Not enough funds to protect all homes in Gaza rocket range
By Fadi Eyadat

The Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday announced that the safeguarding of homes more than 4.5 km from the Gaza border will be postponed due to a lack of state funds.

Raanan Dinur, the director general of the prime minister's office, informed the heads of the relevant communities of the delay in a letter he sent on Tuesday.

The towns and communities bordering the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have been the target of almost daily rocket and mortar strikes by Palestinian militants for over seven years. Since a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas took effect last month, the attacks have significantly diminished.

A few weeks ago, the communities' heads requested that the reinforcement of their houses be expedited in accordance with a government decision in February.

Dinur's letter also stated, however, that houses which are closer to coastal territory will be safeguarded first, while those further away will have to wait for such protection. The senior official stated that budgetary limitations was one of the reasons for this delay.

The head of the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council, Alon Shuster, said in response: "Whoever doesn't understand the meaning of the Israel Defense Forces Southern Command's harsh evaluation of the situation, and estranges himself from the feeling of fear of the mothers in Kibbutz Kfar Aza is not suitable to stand at a central decision-making position at this time."

Jimmy Kedoshim, a member of the aforementioned kibbutz
, was killed by Palestinian mortar fire in May while standing in his garden.

5) Palestinian reconciliation

It may yet take months, but there is every likelihood that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will ultimately reconcile his Fatah movement with Hamas, an interim government of "technocrats" will be formed, and new Palestinian elections will be held.


Abbas was in Damascus on Sunday and Monday to discuss those prospects of reconciliation with President Bashar Assad, who is pushing for Palestinian unity. Arab leaders, though jostling for relative influence, want to see Palestinian factions form a united front.

Abbas is still refusing to meet with Khaled Mashaal, the Damascus-based Hamas leader, until the Islamists reverse what Abbas calls the June 2007 "coup," which ousted Fatah from Gaza. For its part, Hamas wants reconciliation efforts to result in Abbas internalizing the results of the January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, in which it won 74 out of 132 seats.

Fatah is still smarting from this defeat, which led to months of failed efforts at power-sharing. Abbas had sought to retain Fatah's influence, pursue talks with Israel and maintain ties with, and the flow of cash from, the West. Meanwhile, Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas "pragmatist" who became PA prime minister, rejected Quartet requirements that the Islamists renounce violence, recognize Israel and adhere to previous PLO commitments.

THE TWO sides are divided over Fatah's long, often corrupt and autocratic stewardship of the Palestinian cause and over its control of the Palestine Liberation Organization - the internationally recognized arm of the Palestinians. Hamas and Fatah also differ over how best to achieve and articulate Palestinian aims and the role of Islam in the anti-Israel struggle. Then, too, there are the visceral personal hatreds between key figures in both camps.

Fatah never denied the Islamic aspect of anti-Zionism, though it has emphasized Palestinian nationalism since 1964, when it embarked on "the armed struggle." Yet whatever his ultimate motives, Fatah leader Yasser Arafat moderated the group's public position and signed the 1993 Oslo Agreement with Israel, which paved the way for the establishment, in 1994, of the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas, founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1987 during the first intifada, is an offshoot of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood. Islamists believe that every dunam of land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is consecrated in trust for future Muslim generations; that compromise is a sin, and nationalism a heresy. Its 1988 Charter foretells that Muslims will one day obliterate Israel.

WHILE ISRAEL'S presence in Judea and Samaria keeps Hamas's military wing in check, Hamas's leaders prepare for the day when they will take control of the PA. Despite intensive well-funded Western efforts channeled through Abbas supporters to strengthen Palestinian civil society, a vast network of Hamas-affiliated social welfare organizations, supported by donations from throughout the Muslim world, boosts the popularity of an already admired organization. The IDF is expanding its efforts to close Hamas's West Bank institutions and confiscate their property - really a job the PA should have done.

It is hard to believe that anyone - not US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and certainly not Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni - has any illusions about what would happen to Abbas and Fatah were the IDF to withdraw from the West Bank.

As Abbas's prospects dim - a Ramallah judicial body unilaterally "extended" his term beyond January 2009 - Fatah needs the legitimacy unity would bring. And for Hamas, unity is the road to controlling the West Bank.

COULD ABBAS enhance his popularity by reaching a "shelf agreement" with Israel by the December 2008 deadline? It's hard to see how, given that his "moderate" negotiating stance demands Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines as well as the Palestinian "right of return" - signaling the demographic destruction of Israel and unacceptable even to the most pliant of Israeli governments.

If Palestinian negotiators are quietly making far-reaching concessions on borders and refugees to pave the way toward a shelf agreement - without preparing their people for the idea of compromise - Abbas's popularity will plummet further. Conversely, if no deal is achieved, Abbas's leadership will be undermined and Hamas emerge ascendant.

So while Fatah-Hamas reconciliation appears inevitable, the chances of it contributing to Jewish and Palestinian states living side by side in peace and security seem ever more remote.

Does Livni have a Plan B?

6) Livni: We must disarm Hizbullah now

Now is the time to disarm Hizbullah, Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni said Tuesday on a tour of the North with her Italian counterpart, Franco Frattini. Their tour included an observation point overlooking Lebanon in the Har Dov region and a visit to the border-town of Misgav Am.


Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, center, looks through binoculars as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, looks on during a visit to Misgav Am, Tuesday.

"Hizbullah must be disarmed," she said. "We now have an opportunity to disarm Hizbullah, and we must not lose it… if we do not do it now, it will be much more difficult later on."

The foreign minister went on to say that a situation which "allows a terror organization to be a member of a government that is perceived as legitimate is intolerable. While claiming to be a government coalition member, Hizbullah had to explain to the Lebanese residents of these villages why they had to pay the price they did, and in the weeks to come - when I hope we will complete the prisoner exchange - they will have to explain it to them again."

"Hizbullah does not represent the interests of the people of Lebanon," she emphasized.

Livni explained that she had brought the Italian foreign minister on a tour of the northern border to show him the situation in southern Lebanon. This month will mark two years since the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War and UNIFIL forces in Lebanon are currently under Italy's jurisdiction.

"Italy has an important role as a leading force in the Multinational Force," she explained. "I have made it clear that the arming of Hizbullah from the Syrian border with Lebanon must stop. UNIFIL is deployed in southern Lebanon. The situation there has changed, but it is the duty of the international community to insist on full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701."

In response, Frattini said he hoped that with the establishment of a new government in Lebanon, "we will be able to speak with it."

"The implementation of resolution 1701 is the only solution and the best option to resolve the situation in the region," he added.

7) Islamists have the West just where they want us
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.



Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world domination?


Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."


But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?


The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost.


Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear's communists is on the march. It goes by varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical," "extremist" or "political Islam." Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state — the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.


Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:

• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.


Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.


For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors' books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."


Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.


On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!


If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.


To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

8) Conservatives for Obama?
By Thomas Sowell

A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Some Influential Conservatives Spurn GOP and Endorse Obama." In it they quote various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack Obama, rather than on John McCain.

What is going on?

Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the Congressional Republicans in general-- and Senator John McCain in particular-- have so alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a drowning man grasping at a straw.

The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election.

Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a very unreliable flotation device.

If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.

But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs.

Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies.

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well.

Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.

Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the Senate of the United States.

Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.

Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."

Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.

Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.

9) Will Israel Attack Iran?
By Robert Kaplan
Jonathan Rauch examines how Cold War strategies might help us handle Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Will Iran Be Next?



James Fallows discusses the sobering results of a classic war game conducted by soldiers, spies, and diplomats.

As the most pro-Israel administration in Washington since Harry Truman enters its last six months in office, Israel faces a strategic choice. Will it use the possible indulgence of the Bush Administration to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, or will it wait and face an uncertain future with a new American president?

Halting Iran’s path toward the development of a nuclear bomb appears to be one of those seemingly insoluble chess problems. The Iranians may agree to this negotiating proposal or that proposal, all the while playing for time, while they develop sufficient enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. A nuclear arsenal will allow Iran to become a Middle East hegemon like the Great Persia of antiquity, yet it will also encourage countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to develop their own bombs. Iran will represent the heretofore unseen and unconventional combination of being a nuclear-armed state which supports sub-state armies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip.

Enter Israel, which is the only state that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has specifically and repeatedly threatened with annihilation.

Israel recently held massive air exercises hundreds of miles off its coast in the eastern Mediterranean, both honing and displaying to the outside world the complex aerial sortie and air-to-air refueling skills that would be specifically required in an attack on Iran. The exercise was not just a message directed at Iran itself, but at the Europeans - to get serious in helping the United States to force Iran to stop enrichment, or face a military cataclysm that could immediately send the price of oil past $200 a barrel, with collateral effects on world stock markets.

But what if the Europeans don’t get the message? Or what if Iran continues its cat-and-mouse negotiating mixed with intransigence? Israel’s future in this regard is indeed bleak. For even if a moderate Republican realist like John McCain, or even worse, a liberal-left internationalist like Barrack Obama, is elected president, each is likely to subsume Israel to larger geopolitical considerations, rather than hold it up as an icon to be both supported and worshipped in the post-9/11 era, as George W. Bush has done.

Because an air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will roil world financial markets and thus provide Obama with even more of an edge over the Republican party, Israel may be less inclined to attack Iran before the election. On the other hand, after the inauguration, Israel will be in the hands of a new American president who will show it much less sympathy than Bush. That’s why someone might bet on the period between the election and the inauguration -- say December -- as the perfect time for an Israeli attack.

There is a problem, though. Violating, say, Jordanian or Turkish airspace is not really the issue. The issue is that largely because of the on-going Iraq war, the U. S. controls the airspace over the entry points to Iran: in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf. Thus, an Israeli attack on Iran could probably only happen with U. S. connivance. And even if Israel could evade American sensors, few would believe that it honestly did so. As a sort of a last hurrah, one might speculate that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would let Israel bomb Iran with a wink and a nod. But I do not believe that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would do so. And because Gates has emerged as such a critical cabinet member, beloved by both the Pentagon staff and by the media, his word would be crucial.

Gates has shepherded Iraq from nearly a lost cause to a cause that might yet be salvaged. And an Israeli attack on Iran, precisely because it could not occur without both the fact and the appearance of U. S. support, could unleash a fury of Iran-supported bombings inside Iraq. No, Gates would not be on board for an Israeli strike.

Bottom line: precisely because the U. S. dominates the airspace around Iran, it has checkmated itself. Israel will find it very hard to pull America’s chestnuts out of the fire in Iran. An Israeli attack is, in the last analysis, still unlikely. The problem of a nuclear Iran is far from being solved.

10) It's good news, so there's less of it


Media consultant Andrew Tyndall confirms what many have noticed: The major television networks have scaled back their coverage of the Iraq war.

Is this a "If it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead" story? Or is it a "Good news is no news" story?

Violence is down considerably in Iraq since the U.S. troop surge last year. Under the old "if it bleeds it leads" principle of journalistic priorities, a cutback in coverage is to be expected.

On the other hand, doesn't Iraq's rescue from quagmire warrant coverage? No news may be good news, but success should be as newsworthy as failure. When Iraq was diving into civil war, it was news every evening. Now that the decline in violence has opened space for progress, albeit halting, toward national reconciliation, that is newsworthy, especially since the war has been a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Whatever the explanation for the coverage decline, it obviously tends to handicap Sen. John McCain, who supported the surge at the outset.
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News