WW 4? and Ouch!

Norman Podhoretz's book "WW 4 " takes on more meaning. Iran test launches missile that could possibly carry a nuclear warhead and yes, Iran's planes can reach Israel. The problem is, they will never return. Israel would be wise to destroy them now but it will never happen because of the U.S. election.

On the other hand, perhaps the Saudis will allow Israel to fly over their country in order to take out Iran? (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)

What did Edwards do wrong according to David Jeffers? Jeffers asks, If President Clinton can speak at the Democrat Convention why can't Edwards? Ouch!(See 2 below.)

Concrete evidence Syria was developing nuclear facilities under concrete. (See 3 below.)

The confused West, according to a German writer. (See 4 below.)

Last night both candidates were asked to define "rich" and both gave rather innocuous answers. The key point is whether government bureaucrats should define who is rich. The term is subjective and does not always relate to a monetary basis. Being able to live in the U.S. versus Russia should, alone, make one feel rich.

I understand why the question was posed but another man's meat is another man's poison. Is a blind person who makes millions playing the piano richer than one with sight who can see his children? So who is rich? Maybe being rich is in the eye of the beholder! (see 5 below.)

Dick


1) Iran launches first satellite into orbit. Israel: Regional strategic balance altered

An Iranian news network IRNN showed footage of what it called a domestically-manufactured communications satellite named Safir-e Omid being launched in darkness, accompanied by patriotic hymns, Sunday, Aug. 17.

Reports from one Iranian source that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the event. Our military sources stress that confirmation of Iran’s successful launch would represent a strategic breakthrough, testifying to Tehran’s ability to fire ballistic missiles possibly armed with nuclear warheads to distances of thousands of kilometers, against Israel and beyond; Europe and parts of Asia would also be in range. The launching would have paved the way for spy satellites.

If verified, Iran’s space achievement would offset one of Israel’s prime military assets, its superiority in space technology.

According to our sources, Tehran caught Israel, the United States and both their undercover agencies by surprise. They knew Iran was working on a space program but not how close the Iranians were to placing a satellite in orbit.

Our sources believe that the capsule was boosted by the Shehab-5 missile, whose range the Iranians boast is up to 5,000 km and, according to some military experts, reaches 7,000 km.

The Islamic Republic’s reported feat comes at a bad time for Moscow internationally. The Russians emphatically dismiss America’s argument for installing missile interceptors in Poland as a shield against Iranian ballistic missile attack, claiming they were aimed at Russia. The Kremlin accuses the Bush administration using this false claim as a pretext, because Iran had not so far developed a ballistic threat. Now, that proof may have been provided Sunday, Moscow will have to reconsider its position.

1a) Iran says its warplanes are capable of reaching Israel

Iran claimed Sunday it has increased the range of its warplanes, allowing them to fly as far as Israel and back without refueling.
An Iranian fighter jet drops...


State TV quoted air force chief Gen. Ahmad Mighani as saying Iranian warplanes can now fly 3,000 kilometers without refueling. He didn't specify the aircraft type or explain how the range was extended.

Israel is about 1,000 kilometers from Iran.
Such a range could be achieved by using external fuel tanks attached to the wings or fuselage that can be released when empty.

Sunday's report did not refer to Israel by name, but Mighani's remarks come after an IAF air exercise in June that US officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Meanwhile, Iran test launched a rocket it plans to use to carry a research satellite into orbit, state television reported Sunday.

Saturday's test of the two-stage rocket, called the Safir, or Ambassador, was successful, state TV said, as it broadcast images of the nighttime launch.

It said the Omid research satellite will gather atmospheric data from a low orbit but did not give a date for its launch.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program.

In 2005, it launched its first commercial satellite on a Russian rocket in a joint project with Moscow, which appears to be the main partner in transferring space technology to Iran.

Iran first tested a rocket it said was capable of delivering a satellite in February, saying that trial was also successful. It said then that it planned two more test launches before attempting to put its first domestically built satellite into orbit.

The country's fledgling space program, like its nuclear program, has provoked unease abroad. The same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States called the February 4 launch "just another troubling development," saying it was a cause for concern about Iran's continuing development of medium- and long-range missiles.

1b) Saudi Columnist: Bomb Iran Now, Let Chips Fall Where They May

In his August 4, 2008 column in the liberal Arab e-journal Elaph, Saudi columnist Saleh Al-Rashed argued that the Gulf states should urge the West to attack Iran before it acquires nuclear weapons.

Following are excerpts from the column: [1]
A Nuclear Iran is Like a Nuclear Bin Laden

"'There's no avoiding what there's no avoiding' - this adage came to mind when I read the pronouncement by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammad 'Ali Ja'fari, who said: 'My country is easily capable of closing the Straits of Hormuz, the main passageway for oil freighters, if the country is attacked due to its nuclear program.'

"In my estimation, confronting this country, which is trying to gain the time necessary to acquire nuclear weapons, is unavoidable. The possession of nuclear weapons by a state like Iran, which is ideological to the core, is more or less like Osama bin Laden having a nuclear bomb. They are two of a kind. Despite the difference in their turbans and in their religious beliefs, the end result is the same.

"Perhaps it is our bad luck that we [i.e. Saudi Arabia] and the Gulf states would be the first to suffer from a military confrontation with Iran and from its response, and the problem would become even more grave if Iran succeeded in closing the Straits of Hormuz, as the IRGC commander threatened. But our situation with Iran is like that of the sick man who refuses to have his illness treated with cauterization. Yes, the pain of the burning is horrible, but this malady can only be treated through this military confrontation -cauterization.

"History has taught us that ideological countries only pay heed to victory over their ideology… They never accept any halfway situation, even when they find themselves on the brink of disaster."

"Confrontation Is The Solution"; "The Absolute Priority Must Be Our Strategic Security in the Gulf"

"Confrontation is the solution, and there is no solution but confrontation. The game of the carrot and the stick played by the U.S. and E.U. will be to no avail.

"At present, we are suffering from two things: Iran's attempts [to gain] regional hegemony, and its attempts to impose its influence via its sectarian allies - the fifth column of Arab Shi'ite fundamentalists. Imagine what Iran's influence, hegemony, and fifth column would be like if Iran had a nuclear bomb.

"Perhaps it is a strange coincidence that, this time around, our strategic interests coincide with those of Israel. The regime of the mullahs in Iran is our enemy, and at the same time it is an enemy not just of Israel, but of world peace and security.

"I know that the Arab demagogues stand together indiscriminately with anyone who is against Israel and America. But we need to not be swept away by these demagogues as we were in the past. This time, the absolute priority must be our strategic security in the Gulf, which is threatened by Iran - even if this comes at the expense of the Palestinian cause.

"In politics, nothing prevents you from allying with the devil for the sake of your interests. This is what confronting the Iranian danger - which is close - demands of us. This issue, in my estimation, cannot suffer delay or hesitation. Every passing day benefits Iran.

"Thus, we need to push the world powers, and especially the U.S. and the E.U., towards military confrontation to neutralize the Iranian enemy, whatever the cost, before the nuclear bomb makes it too late - even if it is against the will of the Arabs of the north."

[1] www.elaph.com, August 4, 2008.




2) The Edwards Enigma
By David Jeffers

Would a Democrat or someone from the mainstream media (as if there is a difference) help me understand something? Why are all of you picking on poor John Edwards? By your standards, what exactly has he done wrong?

You cannot possibly be mad at him for his adulterous affair! This was just about sex, or do you only use that excuse after the Democrat gets into the White House?

Was it because he lied about his affair? Was not the first black president guilty of lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court for lying in his January 1998 testimony. President Clinton, the day before he left office, admitted to giving false testimony in the Paula Jones case, accepted a five-year suspension of his law license, and paid a $25,000 fine.

Also, how in the world can the mainstream media think that if John Edwards had won the nomination that the Democratic Party would be in a big mess right now? The Philander-in-chief is going to be speaking at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, August 27th, the admitted adulterer himself, and yet the Democratic Party's mouthpiece, aka the mainstream media, think the party would have been in trouble if Edwards were the nominee! In fact CNN's curmudgeon Jack Cafferty reported, "What if he (Edwards) had been the nominee? The whole Democratic Party goes up in smoke."

Am I the only one scratching my head over this?

Oh it only gets better...

Edwards' former campaign manager David Bonior, while answering the question of whether Edwards' political career is over, is quoted as saying, "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."

Is that not just the funniest thing you've ever heard? Mr. Bonior, Hillary Clinton is a liar and she almost won your party's nomination. John Kerry is a well documented liar and yet he won your party's nomination in 2004.

And speaking of the junior senator from Massachusetts, if you cannot have the people's confidence if you lie, then the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would need a waiver. Three words for you Mr. Bonior...Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick, you know, the one who almost won the 1980 Democratic Party nomination.

Here another question: why is the mainstream media pursuing the purported love child between John Edwards and Reile Hunter when both say he is not the father, yet when Bill Clinton had numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape, the public relations wing of the Democratic Party all of the sudden forgot its journalistic duty to investigate?

Did I mention Bill Clinton has a speaking part at the Democratic Convention?

How come you Democrats will not invite John Edwards to speak, I mean you're letting Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper speak! Edwards could easily replace Senator Jay Rockefeller who was denounced by the Obama campaign for insulting John McCain's military service. I mean we're only talking adultery here folks! It's only about sex!

Well, in my research I finally found my answer to the entire problem. John Edwards got caught. That was his major sin. In the Miami Herald, a column titled "Ten years later, it's Clinton" by Leonard Pitts Jr. sheds some light on the conundrum. Mr. Pitts writes:

Ten years later, Edwards is Clinton. Not just because he strayed, nor just because he lied, but because he chose to ignore the eminently foreseeable cost of doing so -- if not to himself, then to his wife and children, whose only sin was to love him and to believe.

Be thankful this man never became president. If he could not put his family's interests before himself, where do you think he would have put ours?


If Edwards is Clinton, shouldn't he have a speaking part at the convention? Or should Bill Clinton be asked not to speak because it will only remind America of Edwards' dalliance.

I only make light of the situation to show the charade that the Democratic Party and mainstream media are trying to portray as reality.

Does anyone actually believe that this would be a story if Edwards were the nominee?

3) Nukes under concrete?
By EPHRAIM ASCULAI
In some old gangster films, as well as probably in real life, there is the scene where the victim is thrown into a building construction mold and drowned in a thick layer of cement. A tell-tale shoe that fell off in the old movies - and more recently the hidden security camera - provides the clues that bring the culprit to justice, even though the body has not been found. The case of Syria's bombed Al-Kibar site holds many similarities to these gangster movie scenarios.

The photographic evidence of the existence of a nuclear reactor under construction at the site was overwhelming: pictures of the reactor under construction, with great similarities to a North Korean plutonium production reactor, and its later camouflage by the construction of a surrounding building that completely enclosed the structure; the intake of water from the Euphrates River and the outlet of returning water from the building back into the downstream of the river, which indicated the existence of a strong energy source at the site. The most damning piece of evidence probably is the way the Syrians razed the site, poured concrete over it and claimed that it was some sort of a military site and not a nuclear reactor.

THIS SHOULD have been enough for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to indict Syria for its violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the IAEA requested an inspection of the bombed site in the hope that it would be able to collect evidence that would clinch the matter. A four-day inspection trip was made in June 2008, months after the Syrians finished their clean-up of the site, but was probably limited by the Syrians to "classical" IAEA inspection methods of visual observations and collection of samples. It is doubtful whether these would uncover much, given the Syrian efforts at a cleanup. The "corpse" still lies buried in the huge amount of poured concrete. It is possible, however, that the IAEA inspectors were getting too close for comfort, since Syria recently announced that it would not permit the inspectors to return to the site.

In addition, the Syrians made an important diplomatic move, seeking a seat on the IAEA Board of Governors, a 35-member forum that could decide that Syria violated its obligations. Since most of the decisions in this body are made by consensus, Syria would thus insure itself against condemnation. Thus, by refusing inspections and gaining the seat of governor, which it has a good chance of doing, Syria is taking out double insurance.

THE TIME has come for the IAEA to take a strong stance on the Syrian issue and state that the burden is now upon Syria to prove that there was no reactor under construction at the site. Syria would have to permit the most intrusive inspections, using advanced technologies, such as thus called for in on-site inspections of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. If Syria is unwilling to do this, it should be censured and, at the very least, banned from becoming a member of the IAEA Board of Governors. Given the attitude of the present Director General of the IAEA, it is doubtful that this will happen.

The United States is also an important actor in the Syrian affair, since it provided the evidence on Syria's misdeeds, and the connection to North Korea. The US is acting against the proposal to let Syria become a member of the Board. If it can persuade North Korea to disclose its connection to the Syrian nuclear reactor, it will put an end to Syria's lies and denials.

4) The West’s Confusion
By Michael Thumann ( Translated By Ron Argentati)

The war in the southern Caucasus is the fourth since September 11, 2001 in a major area of the Middle East shaken by militant Islamists. But have you noticed something? Islamists, and Muslims in general, were completely absent from this conflict.

As the United States and European Union argue about the right global politics, Russia and Iran post successes on Europe’s borders.

The war in the southern Caucasus is the fourth since September 11, 2001 in a major area of the Middle East shaken by militant Islamists. But have you noticed something? Islamists, and Muslims in general, were completely absent from this conflict. Russians and Ossetians fought against Georgians, Christians against Christians. In so doing, they proved to a wide-eyed world that Islam wasn’t necessary in order to stir up a war. All that was needed was ethnic strife and the nationalistic ambitions of both large and small powers.

The West didn’t do any shooting, but was nonetheless present in the minds of those doing the shooting, as well as with advice from afar. The west suffered a defeat. That’s how the Russians see it, and newspaper commentators from Cairo to Kabul and from Moscow to Maskat see it that way as well. Why? “Because Russia knows what it wants,” comes the answer. That’s a huge advantage for Moscow against the many-voiced, strife-torn West in the autumn of the Bush years.

The West thought it right in February 2008 to recognize the breakaway state of Kosovo. Later in April, Europe and the United States denied the Ukraine and Georgia membership in NATO. But they had long since forgotten the Kosovo syndrome. There was a nexus there that Russia clearly and accurately saw, but one that the west rejected.

If the West was willing to recognize an independent Kosovo, Moscow maintained it should also recognize independence for the rebellious separatist states around the Black Sea, where the population was predominantly Russian. Russia had supported these areas in the Ukraine, Moldavia, Azerbaijan and Georgia for years. Vladimir Putin knows exactly where he is going with this. His goal is to sow doubt in every region that wants to distance itself from Moscow.

Europe and the United States, on the other hand, are uncertain and confused. They bicker over whether the Black Sea should be regarded the same as the open ocean surrounded by pro-western states, or whether it should treated as falling under the Russian sphere of influence. Moscow may have further damaged its name in the West, but is making considerable progress toward incorporating the southern Caucasus into Russia’s imperial front yard.

A few hundred kilometers further to the west, another President unpopular with the West was scoring points. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Istanbul on Thursday and Friday. The visit, which he had been seeking since 2005, was extremely important to him, and the invitation finally came.

Ahmadinejad also knows exactly what he wants. He wants to be received with honors internationally in order to break Iran’s isolation by the West. He wants to gain international respect and legitimacy in spite of America’s attempts to characterize Iran as a rogue state. He wants to neutralize Turkey as a player in Middle East power politics: in the fight over Iranian nuclear ambitions, he wants to ensure Turkey doesn’t take the West’s side. He aims to do this with bated breath and well-timed forays.

Western politicians, provided they’re not on vacation, are up in arms against Russia. Ahmadinejad’s foray into southeastern Europe’s largest city stayed off their radar screens. Now they’re left watching and wondering how such a thing could have happened. Quite simply because the West isn’t concerned enough about Turkey; because Turkey is seen (in Europe) through the prisms of immigration and looming European Union membership; because Europe is more concerned about Turkey’s quarrel with “world-olive-power” Cyprus than it is about building good relations with Turkey itself.

Unpleasant surprises for the West are likely to continue. Neither NATO nor the European Union has a clear idea of what is supposed to happen with the Ukraine and its fifty million citizens. The Poles and Baltic States have been warning for years that the Brussels Headquarters have to make concrete proposals. Instead, the West offers the Ukraine half-baked promises and the prospect of remaining a drafty, twilight zone on Europe’s outskirts. In the 17th year of Ukrainian independence, the West still has no idea at all what to do with the country.

But Vladimir Putin does.

5) The candidates define ‘rich’


At last night’s forum at Saddleback Church, the Rev. Rick Warren asked a nearly identical set of questions to Barack Obama and John McCain, but one of the more memorable inquiries was just two words: “Define rich.”

Obama started with a joke at Warren’s expense — “You know, if you’ve got book sales of 25 million….” — which got plenty of laughs. Obama added that those making more than $250,000 a year are in the top 3% or 4% of the population. He added, “Now, these things are all relative and I’m not suggesting that everybody that is making over $250,000 is living on easy street, but the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don’t want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then we’ve got to pay for these things. They don’t come for free.” Obama concluded by saying those who make $150,000 or less will see a tax cut under his administration, and those making more than $250,000 or more will see a “modest increase,” as part of the broader effort to “create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code.”

McCain was asked the exact same question, and I want to republish his response in full, because I think it offers a peek at McCain’s way of thinking.

“Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich is — should be defined by a home, a good job and education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth. But I can tell you for example there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as, quote, ‘rich,’ my friends, who want to raise their taxes and raise their payroll taxes. Let’s have — keep taxes low. Let’s give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let’s give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let’s not have the government take over the health care system in America.

“So I think if you’re just talking about income, how about $5 million. But seriously, I don’t think you can — I don’t think, seriously that — the point is that I’m trying to make here seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is — the point is — the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues. And my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in a way that mortgaged our kids futures. My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don’t know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue, but the point is — but the point is it was $3 million of your money. It was your money.

“And you know, we laugh about it, but we cry and we should cry because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars. so what did they just do in the middle of an energy crisis when in California we are paying $4 a gallon for gas, went on vacation for five weeks. I guarantee you, two things they never miss, a pay raise and a vacation. And we should stop that and call them back and not raise your taxes. We should not and cannot raise taxes in tough economic times. So it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is because I don’t want to raise anybody’s taxes.”

Oh my.

Now, McCain’s been around politics a long time, and he’s learned how to use these interviews to his advantage. He knows to ignore the question asked, and offer the preferred answer, whether it makes sense or not. People will remember what you have to say, not whether you answered or dodged the question.

In this case, it was a two-word question: “Define rich.” Obama answered it. McCain rambled a bit about richness in our lives, which transitioned to misleading rhetoric about small businesses, which transitioned to bizarre complaints about a government take-over of the healthcare system. Before long, we were into bear DNA, congressional recesses, and energy prices. McCain didn’t really like Warren’s question, so he told us all about the various other issues on his mind. The audience didn’t seem to mind.

But somewhere along the line, we got to the answer: $5 million. As far as McCain is concerned, if you make $4.9 million a year, more than 99.9% of the population, you’re not quite rich.

Just how out of touch is John McCain? On the one hand, he’s running ads talking about how “tough” times are “for the rest of us,” but on the other, McCain, one of Congress’ wealthiest members, thinks people who make millions of dollars a year aren’t quite rich, and he doesn’t want to bother them with taxes anyway.

If anything from last night comes back to bite McCain on the butt, it’s this.