Now We Can Spread The Guilt Around!

We have enjoyed relative border stability. Is that about to end? (See 1 below.)

Zelikovsky speaks my sentiments and calls to mind much of what I have been writing. But then far too many liberals are anything but liberal, gracious and/or expansive in their attitude and comments and truly are humorless souls. (See 2 below.)

Selwyn Duke makes the case why Obama stands an excellent chance of being re-elected. Duke may be right but I suspect things seldom work out the way we think, believe or predict. I hope Obama is so fantastic he leaves me no choice but to vote for his re-election. (See 3 below.)

A thank you to GW for his efforts in Iraq, from an Harvard Fellow, Chuck Frielich. (See 4 below.)

Livni responds to and accepts the Saudi interfaith dialogue initiative but says it falls short. Peace is more than words on a paper she reminds her Mid Eastern friends. (See 5 below.)

Obama can squeeze Iran but will he? GW did not but he talked big. Will Obama be just another GW? How Obama has handled his first challenge from Medvedev is disconcerting according to John Bolton. (See 6 and 7 below.)

Political campaigns should give voters a window into the mind of the candidates. We spent billions in the recent campaign, elected a president about which we know very little and soon we will learn whether we got our money's worth. Obama told us words have meaning. Words are also meant to deceive as the early 19th century French foreign minister Talleyrand pointed out with his famous statement, "Language was devised to conceal thought." Which will it turn out to be? Strange way to do business.

The best we can hope for is that Obama will realize what got him elected will also get him defeated so the idea of raising taxes was stupid from the start. It is populist pap. Secondly, he should realize the Bush Administration was not engaged in de-regulation as much as they were in drafting costly regulations that burdened corporations with more rules than most previous administrations. Again, it made for good sound bites, won him votes but it was not factual. Finally, will Obama be a foreign policy push over? That he not be is critical and should he be then he will get us in a mess of trouble - so much so we might even wish GW was back.

A play on MLK's famous line: "Free at last..." So start spreading the guilt! Tom Adkins flat tells it like it needs to be told.


One way for the RNC to get back to its roots is to select Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov of Md as its head. Steele is black, articulate, courageous and clear headed. (See 8 below.)


Dick

1) Border Strife Raises Concerns
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart


Last week, the Mexican government carried out a number of operations in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, aimed at Jaime “El Hummer” Gonzalez Duran, one of the original members of the brutal cartel group known as Los Zetas. According to Mexican government officials, Gonzalez Duran controlled the Zetas’ operations in nine Mexican states.

The Nov. 7 arrest of Gonzalez Duran was a major victory for the Mexican government and will undoubtedly be a major blow to the Zetas. Taking Gonzalez Duran off the streets, however, is not the only aspect of these operations with greater implications. The day before Gonzalez Duran’s arrest, Mexican officials searching for him raided a safe house, where they discovered an arms cache that would turn out to be the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history. This is no small feat, as there have been several large hauls of weapons seized from the Zetas and other Mexican cartel groups in recent years.

The weapons seized at the Gonzalez Duran safe house included more than 500 firearms, a half-million rounds of ammunition and 150 grenades. The cache also included a LAW rocket, two grenade launchers and a small amount of explosives. Along with the scores of assorted assault rifles, grenades and a handful of gaudy gold-plated pistols were some weapons that require a bit more examination: namely, the 14 Fabrique Nationale (FN) P90 personal defense weapons and the seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles contained in the seizure.
Matapolicias

As previously noted, the FN Five-Seven pistol and FN P90 personal defense weapon are very popular with the various cartel enforcer groups operating in Mexico. The Five-Seven and the P90 shoot a 5.7 mm-by-28 mm round that has been shown to be effective in penetrating body armor as well as vehicle doors and windows. Because of this ability to punch through body armor, cartel enforcers call the weapons “matapolicias,” Spanish for “cop killers.” Of course, AK-47 and M-16-style assault rifles are also effective at penetrating body armor and vehicles, as are large-caliber hunting rifles such as the 30.06 and the .308. But the advantage of the Five-Seven and the P90 is that they provide this penetration capability in a much smaller — and thus far more concealable — package.

The P90 is a personal defense weapon designed to be carried by tank crew members or combat support personnel who require a compact weapon capable of penetrating body armor. It is considered impractical for such soldiers to be issued full-size infantry rifles or even assault rifles, so traditionally these troops were issued pistols and submachine guns. The proliferation of body armor on the modern battlefield, however, has rendered many pistols and submachine guns that fire pistol ammunition ineffective. Because of this, support troops needed a small weapon that could protect them from armored troops; the P90 fits this bill.

In fact, the P90 lends itself to anyone who needs powerful, concealable weapons. Protective security details, some police officers and some special operations forces operators thus have begun using the P90 and other personal defense weapons. The P90’s power and ability to be concealed also make it an ideal weapon for cartel enforcers intent on conducting assassinations in an urban environment — especially those stalking targets wearing body armor.

The Five-Seven, which is even smaller than the P90, fires the same fast, penetrating cartridge. Indeed, cartel hit men have killed several Mexican police officers with these weapons in recent months. However, guns that fire the 5.7 mm-by-28 mm cartridge are certainly not the only type of weapons used in attacks against police — Mexican cops have been killed by many other types of weapons.
Reach Out and Touch Someone

While the P90 and Five-Seven are small and light, and use a small, fast round to penetrate armor, the .50-caliber cartridge fired by a Barrett sniper rifle is the polar opposite: It fires a huge chunk of lead. By way of comparison, the 5.7 mm-by-28 mm cartridge is just a little more than 1.5 inches long and has a 32-grain bullet. The .50-caliber Browning Machine Gun (BMG) cartridge is actually 12.7 mm by 99 mm, measures nearly 5.5 inches long and fires a 661-grain bullet. The P90 has a maximum effective range of 150 meters (about 165 yards), whereas a Barrett’s listed maximum effective range is 1,850 meters (about 2,020 yards) — and there are reports of coalition forces snipers in Afghanistan scoring kills at more than 2,000 meters (about 2,190 yards).

The .50-BMG round not only will punch through body armor and normal passenger vehicles, it can defeat the steel plate armor and the laminated ballistic glass and polycarbonate windows used in lightly armored vehicles. This is yet another reminder that there is no such thing as a bulletproof car. The round is also capable of penetrating many brick and concrete block walls.

We have heard reports for years of cartels seeking .50-caliber sniper rifles made by Barrett and other U.S. manufacturers. Additionally, we have noted many reports of seizures from arms smugglers in the United States of these weapons bound for Mexico, or of the weapons being found in Mexican cartel safe houses — such as the seven rifles seized in Reynosa. Unlike the P90s, however, we cannot recall even one instance of these powerful weapons being used in an attack against another cartel or against a Mexican government target. This is in marked contrast to Ireland, where the Irish Republican Army used .50-caliber Barrett rifles obtained from the United States in many sniper attacks against British troops and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

That Mexican cartels have not used these devastating weapons is surprising. There are in fact very few weapons in the arsenals of cartel enforcers that we have not seen used, including hand grenades, 40 mm grenades, LAW rockets and rocket-propelled grenades. Even though most intercartel warfare has occurred inside densely populated Mexican cities such as Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez and Nuevo Laredo — places where it would be very difficult to find a place to take a shot longer than a few hundred meters, much less a couple thousand — the power of the Barrett could be very effective for taking out targets wearing body armor, riding in armored vehicles, located inside the safe house of a rival cartel or even inside a government building. Also, unlike improvised explosive devices, which the cartels have avoided using for t he most part, the use of .50-caliber rifles would not involve a high probability of collateral damage.

This indicates that the reason the cartels have not used these weapons is to be found in the nature of snipers and sniping.
Snipers

Most military and police snipers are highly trained and very self-disciplined. Being a sniper requires an incredible amount of practice, patience and preparation. Aside from rigorous training in marksmanship, the sniper must also be trained in camouflage, concealment and movement. Snipers are often forced to lie immobile for hours on end. Additional training is required for snipers operating in urban environments, which offer their own set of challenges to the sniper; though historically, as seen in battles like Stalingrad, urban snipers can be incredibly effective.

Snipers commonly deploy as part of a team of two, comprising a shooter and a spotter. This means two very self-disciplined individuals must be located and trained. The team must practice together and learn how to accurately estimate distances, wind speed, terrain elevation and other variables that can affect a bullet’s trajectory. An incredible amount of attention to detail is required for a sniper team to get into position and for their shots to travel several hundred meters and accurately, consistently strike a small target.

In spite of media hype and popular fiction, criminals or terrorists commit very few true sniper attacks. For example, many of our sniper friends were very upset that the media chose to label the string of murders committed by John Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo as the “D.C. Sniper Case.” While Mohammed and Malvo did use concealment, they commonly shot at targets between 50 and 100 meters (about 55 yards to 110 yards) away. Therefore, calling Mohammed and Malvo snipers was a serious insult to the genuine article. The assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the killing of Dr. Bernard Slepian, also have been dubbed sniper attacks, but they actually were all shootings committed at distances of less than 100 meters.

Of course, using a Barrett at short ranges (100 meters or less) is still incredibly effective and does not require a highly trained sniper — as a group of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agents found out in 1993 when they attempted to serve search and arrest warrants at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The agents were met with .50-caliber sniper fire that ripped gaping holes through the Chevrolet Suburbans they sought cover behind. Many of the agents wounded in that incident were hit by the shrapnel created as the .50-caliber rounds punched through their vehicles.

While it is extremely powerful, the Barrett is however a long, heavy weapon. If the sniper lacks training in urban warfare, it might prove very difficult to move around with the gun and also to find a concealed place to employ it. This may partially explain why the Mexican cartels have not used the weapons more.

Moreover, while the Zetas originally comprised deserters from the Mexican military and over the years have shown an ability to conduct assaults and ambushes, we have not traditionally seen them deploy as snipers. Today, most of the original Zetas are now in upper management, and no longer serve as foot soldiers.

The newer men brought into the Zetas include some former military and police officers along with some young gangster types; most of them lack the level of training possessed by the original Zetas. While the Zetas have also brought on a number of former Kaibiles, Guatemalan special operations forces personnel, most of them appear to be assigned as bodyguards for senior Zetas. This may mean we are not seeing the cartels employ snipers because their rank-and-file enforcers do not possess the discipline or training to function as snipers.
Potential Problems

Of course, criminal syndicates in possession of these weapons still pose a large potential threat to U.S. law enforcement officers, especially when the weapons are in the hands of people like Gonzalez Duran and his henchmen. According to an FBI intelligence memo dated Oct. 17 and leaked to the media, Gonzalez Duran appeared to have gotten wind of the planned operation against him. He reportedly had authorized those under his command to defend their turf at any cost, to include engagements with U.S. law enforcement agents. It is important to remember that a chunk of that turf was adjacent to the U.S. border and American towns, and that Reynosa — where Gonzalez Duran was arrested and the weapons were seized — is just across the border from McAllen, Texas.

Armed with small, powerful weapons like the P90, cartel gunmen can pose a tremendous threat to any law enforcement officer who encounters them in a traffic stop or drug raid. Over the past several years, we have noted several instances of U.S. Border Patrol agents and other U.S. law enforcement officers being shot at from Mexico. The thought of being targeted by a weapon with the range and power of a .50-caliber sniper rifle would almost certainly send chills up the spine of any Border Patrol agent or sheriff’s deputy working along the border.

Armed with assault rifles, hand grenades and .50-caliber sniper rifles, cartel enforcers have the potential to wreak havoc and outgun U.S. law enforcement officers. The only saving grace for U.S. law enforcement is that many cartel enforcers are often impaired by drugs or alcohol and tend to be impetuous and reckless. While the cartel gunmen are better trained than most Mexican authorities, their training does not stack up to that of most U.S. law enforcement officers. This was illustrated by an incident on Nov. 6 in Austin, Texas, when a police officer used his service pistol to kill a cartel gunman who fired on the officer with an AK-47.

While the arrest of Gonzalez Duran and the seizure of the huge arms cache in Reynosa have taken some killers and weapons off the street, they are only one small drop in the bucket. There are many heavily armed cartel enforcers still at large in Mexico, and the violence is spreading over the border into the United States. Law enforcement officers in the United States therefore need to maintain a keen awareness of the threat.

2) How Barack Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012
By Selwyn Duke

Even before the election, with the realization that a Barack Obama presidency lay on the horizon, many saw a silver lining in the cloud that drifted into Washington, DC, from the left coast. "The right will be re-energized," many thought, "and we'll have a better Republican candidate and improved prospects in 2012." Moreover, it was figured that Obama will exacerbate a bad situation, causing a meltdown in our economy and emboldening enemies without and within, thereby creating fertile ground for a Republican victory. Of course, the GOP nominee may in fact be better four years hence, although he is far more likely to be so in terms of persona than policy. But his prospects are a different matter.

No one likes the bearer of bad news, but, in this case, to render good news would be to offer bad prognostication. Frankly, I don't see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.

There are numerous reasons for this. First, the mainstream media may take minor potshots at him occasionally for circulation purposes and to convince themselves they're still journalists, but, ultimately, they will remain his all-powerful public relations team. Second, Obama is a remarkably effective demagogue. Sure, as with all of the species, it amounts to illusion; in Obama's case, this involves formidable but not singular ability, a resonant voice, and that activist media which smoothes out the rough edges. Yet there is one factor which, barring some monumental event that upsets the rotten-apple cart (a distinct possibility), will guarantee the ascent of the leftist agenda and descent of our culture at a rate heretofore unseen in America. It is a simple thing to understand, and, lamentably, I don't think I'm wrong about it.

The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: Amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.

The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. Now, however, with a president who will enjoy great popular and media support, more significant Democrat majorities in the Houses, and with sheer attrition-induced exhaustion in the opposition, I suspect that it will be impossible to forestall.

So how monolithically Democrat will this larger Hispanic voting block be? Well, let's begin by considering this research by the Pew Hispanic Center:

"Hispanics voted for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 66% versus 32% . . . . Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin - 76% versus 19%."


A new infusion of foreign-born Hispanic voters will tilt this block even further left, and it isn't hard to understand why. Most such people have a socialist political orientation, which is why governments in Mexico and much of central and South America also tend to have one. And the proof is in the U.S.-election pudding, too; for instance, in the 1990s, first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1. People's passions don't change simply because they set foot on American terra firma.

Barack Obama and his fellow travelers know this well, and they have already done much to curry favor with Hispanics. Obama said during the primaries that American children needed to learn Spanish, and he will continue to send the message -- albeit in more subtle ways -- that he is sympathetic to the Latinization of the U.S. These messages will be downplayed by the mainstream media but emphasized in the Spanish one, which was in the tank for Obama even more than the former. I also expect him to appoint an ample number of Hispanics to posts in his administration.

Of course, like many others, I envision that the coming years will bring some very tough times. And while it's usually the case that a president who presides over a nation in distress doesn't win re-election, I suspect Obama will defy this trend. Why?

That media again.

President Bush, through only some fault of his own, will be the gift that keeps on giving. The media have already cemented the narrative, "The last eight years have destroyed the nation, and it will take a long time to repair the damage." How long might this be? For as long as leftists need a diversionary tactic with which to deflect attention from their misbegotten policies.

This could, of course, be a very long period. As I wrote recently, Bush will become an

". . . omnipresent phantom of failure. It's much like how, decades after Napoleon Bonaparte's exile to barren Saint Helena, British children were kept in line with the admonition, ‘Be good, or Nappy will get you.' Bush's power will greatly outlive his tenure."


Yes, if you don't elect me, Bushy will get you. And there is yet so, so much work to be done. Pass the New York Times and the café latte.

But having a water-carrying mainstream media isn't enough -- the left will also try to stifle voices that would report the truth. To this end, they will attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. And although it may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of two years hence, this may not be the case once Obama has the opportunity to appoint two or three justices. Also lying further down the road may be hate-speech laws, which target "hate" about as much as legislation that would destroy talk radio ensures fairness. They already exist in most of the western world and, incredibly, some judges actually view this as precedent. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that affirmative-action appointee, said herself that the Internet makes other nations' court rulings readily available and that we should learn from them. Said she, "[As judges and lawyers] we must look beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations." By the way, some people call this a judicial philosophy. I call it malfeasance and treason.

So this is our probable dystopian reality. Yet we do have some recourse. And here is what I recommend for now.

The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor. Huge swaths of our nation are now in the pocket of the left, but there are yet bastions of light wherein traditionalists can hold sway. In these places, campaign hard and seize control of the local governments. Then, resist any and every unconstitutional mandate.


3) It's How You Play The Game
By Sally Zelikovsky

Heartfelt congratulations on a truly historic election to all my Democrat friends and family members. Having endured what you believe were 8 excruciating years of poverty and devastation, I know that those of you who voted for Obama must all be relieved.

I have also endured the last 8 years, but my experience is notably different from yours. And I think in looking ahead to the future, we must look to the past for lessons learned and take responsibility that those lessons won't be repeated.

From the minute George Bush was elected, the Democrats began their next campaign -- and it was a brilliant one -- to tarnish the Republican brand. With the exception of a short blip during 9-11, when politicians and their constituents had no choice but to put politics aside, Bush met with nightly assaults in the media on everything he said and did. First, there were the periodicals and the networks; then, the nightly talk and comedy shows; then books and movies; and finally, supposed parodies like "L'il Bush." It was an endless onslaught defaming the brand and, it's true, you know, if you say it enough, they will believe it.

Most of us have endured your parties with your relentless scathing and often unsubstantiated claims about Bush and his policies, his lies and distortions, his nefarious character and Machiavellian desires; the constant barrage of ridicule of all things Bush and all things conservative; the distortion and manipulation of incidences...all to prop up your own brand, whether wittingly or unwittingly. I say "unwittingly" because many of you fail to recognize the role you played in this daily onslaught against the President, in particular, and the havoc it wreaked on this country, in general.

Many times I tried to engage you in conversation, as many of my like-minded friends have done, only to be met with scorn, ridicule, all too often ignorance and almost always the brush off. People talk a good game about robust debate, but they have shown they don't live up to it.

I'm not trying to anger you; quite the contrary. I want you to remember your behavior over the last 8 years and contrast it with mine. First, notice the congratulatory nature of the right regarding this victory; the authentic well wishing, despite the disappointment; the articulated support for all things Obama in the hopes that this man will think about his children's future and hence will benefit the future for all of our children. And while you observe that, recall how the right was treated by the left from the moment (back to my opening salvo) Bush took office. He, we, never stood a chance. He was the original candidate outside of the beltway seeking to reach across the aisle and nearly all of his gestures were rebuffed, only to be met with a revision of events that could only occur with the complicity of the media.

Second, as Obama transitions into the White House, recall again, the way the Bush team's truncated transition was handled: from offices left in shambles, to the very juvenile prank of "w" keys missing on all the computers, to White House staff members, CIA and State Dept. employees vowing to undermine Bush and his administration at every opportunity. Contrast that with Bush's statements and guarantees of a smooth transition; his establishment of a Transition Council to aid the Obama administration. And let's not forget that in Bush's attempt to govern moderately, he displayed boundless good will by leaving in powerful positions, much to his detriment as hindsight has shown, countless holdovers from Democrat Administrations, all done with the mistaken belief that good people would put partisan politics aside when it came to the defense of this country and doing what was best for it. Again, scan the annals of your memory and recall the Bush transition in the wake of Clinton and contrast that with what you are witnessing today.

But most of all, I am most proud of my conservative friends and family who never gloated when Bush was elected (twice) and aren't spewing vitriolic hatred for someone they didn't vote for, like you all did. I recall many comments but maybe this one will jar your memory: "He's not my President." I may not agree with Obama on much, but, like it or not, he is my President.

And, in the course of this, you closed your minds and mouths to discussion, open and robust. You had a complicit media, feeding you only the information it wanted you to have and that you wanted to hear. I'd like to think, as opposed as I am to everything Obama stands for, I will at least expose myself to the other side. Well, I know I will because I always have and frankly, you cannot live in America without being exposed to the main stream media. But it saddens me that the electorate is not exposed to a balanced media unless individuals proactively seek it, something I've notice few of you do. And, when some of you do take a glimpse into the alternative press, you often start asking questions and reading and pondering and you begin to see what we all see so clearly. I am always in awe of those who do; for it takes great courage to break out of one's somnambulism. And now you seek to shut that down with the Fairness Doctrine. What are you afraid of?

Our family emigrated from a repressive socialist regime. When children are inundated with carefully constructed programs of information at school, when their ability to speak freely is stifled, when they are given a psychological evaluation by a school because they dared to share conservative viewpoints, when the electorate is so ignorant they cannot explain the difference between socialism and democracy, when freedom to associate and speak and publish are first mocked and then stifled with the threat of legislation, when hard work and success are rewarded with punitive tax measures and wealth is purposefully redistributed instead of being steered towards investment, then we are in trouble. It's a delicate balance, a democracy. It doesn't take much, when the winds are blowing in the same direction, to knock it off its balance and tip it towards a place we don't really want to go. Today, all of the winds are blowing to the left and, while that isn't in and of itself necessarily grim, the power to tip society one way or the other now lies in the hands of a Democrat President, Democrat Congress and Democrat leaning Supreme Court. I ask nothing more of my Democrat friends and family but to temper your enthusiasm with caution, your call for change with reason.

I do hope our fears about Obama and the power the Democrats have is unfounded. I do hope he brings continued prosperity and security to this nation (and I say continued because now that you have prevailed and the gloves are off, I think we can dispense with the charade about how bad off we all have been for the last 8 years; you did spin it brilliantly to make for a successful campaign). And I do hope all of you exercise this power responsibly. More than anything, I hope you remember to give credit to the right for its collective behavior during this transition and I ask for some intellectual honesty and historic accuracy when I beseech you to take responsibility for the lack of peace during the last transition and the downright divisiveness, even nastiness, throughout the last 8 years.

Be very skeptical of a society with a biased or controlled media. Take the time to talk with a few refusniks to refresh your memories about the powerful impact a controlled media has on its population and its politics. I doubt very much that there will be a movie about Obama called "Hussein" or that there will be a ridiculous show called "L'il Obama." Watch carefully on your TV screens for the onslaught of Obama jokes and reporters who ooze nothing but disdain and loathing for him before he even takes office. See if entire careers and TV shows will be built around the disparagement of his presidency And don't forget to check The New Yorker to see if his caricature morphs into a big eared, tiny monkey-like figure like Bush's has. I doubt it.

4) A parting word of thanks
By CHUCK FREILICH

With the end of the Bush presidency in sight, the situation in almost all areas of domestic and foreign policy is worse than it was. On Iraq, however, we in Israel owe him an enormous debt.

Indeed, if I were religious, I would find a passage showing that the invasion was the realization of a biblical prophecy, the act of one of the great deliverers of the Jewish people. Bush went to war for reasons almost entirely unrelated to Israel, but in doing so, may have saved us from an apocalypse.

Consider two alternative scenarios. The terrible scenario: Fast forward, summer 2011. After five years of tenuous quiet, a vastly strengthened Hizbullah decides to fire rockets at Israel, which counterattacks, determined to end the threat once and for all. Iran, having successfully thwarted all diplomatic efforts, announces that it has "the bomb," hinting at Israel's destruction. Syria, Hizbullah's other patron and an Iranian ally, concentrates forces. The US goes on nuclear alert. The Security Council convenes in emergency session. Oil prices...

The even worse scenario: All of the above, but the US never invaded Iraq and it is still presumed to retain a residual WMD capability; Libya never chose, largely in response to Iraq, to dismantle its nuclear program. They too now join the fray.

Today we know that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, but to those of us in the US and Israeli governments at the time, who were sincerely convinced that he retained a residual program, it was an analytical reality. We were very wrong, but we were not irresponsible, nor malevolent. Israel, in case you have forgotten, took the threat very seriously and distributed gas masks, deployed forces and asked the US for antimissile defenses.

PRESIDENT BARACK Obama will come into office at a time when Iraq increasingly looks like a moderate success. No, Iraq will never be a Jeffersonian democracy, but an Arab one; the only one. The security situation is immeasurably better; Iraq's economy is rebounding. Success is not yet irreversible, but it now appears that only the US can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, by withdrawing precipitously. If the US withdraws prematurely, Iraq may still deteriorate into ever worsening violence and splinter into its component parts.

Turkey may then invade Kurdistan, whose possible independence it views as a threat to its territorial integrity. Iran will become not only a primary player in Iraq, as it already is, but the primary one, possibly even annexing parts of Iraq outright. The Saudis, already threatened by rising Shi'ite influence in the region, are petrified by the thought of a nuclear Iran right on their border. Jordan, with an Iranian entity on its border, already inundated by Iraqi refugees, would fear an existential threat to its stability.

If the US can still be driven out of Iraq, even now, when at least partial success is within sight, the Islamist fundamentalists and other dark forces in the region, will have won. Iran will end up the big victor, the regional hegemon, whose ambitions, nuclear and otherwise, will become unstoppable. There will simply be no one to prevent the triumphant radicals from using terror, WMD, subversion and religious fanaticism to pursue their aims.

As things look now, there is a very real possibility that Iran will soon announce an operational nuclear capability. The current worst-case scenarios give Iran sufficient fissile material for a first bomb sometime in 2009 or early 2010. Even if the timetable proves to be longer, the Iranian issue will be on the new president's plate from scratch.

A NUCLEAR Iran is a dire threat, not just for Israel, but for other countries in the region. In response, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others have already announced new "civil" nuclear programs, which have a nasty tendency to morph into military ones. It is unclear that either Israel or even the US can effectively cope with a nuclear Iran, but a multi-nuclear Middle East now looms, an as yet uncharted danger with which no known strategy is equipped to deal.

In the yet more radicalized Middle East that will follow a premature withdrawal, we can abandon any hopes for even limited reform in the region and for any change in the root causes of its ills. The regimes will heighten oppression to retain power, the radical camp will be emboldened, the prospects for peace even dimmer. If the Mideast looks bad today, just wait.

More fundamentally, the harsh reality is that the US cannot truly disengage from Iraq and the Middle East, no matter how much it wants to. The region's deep seated and violent ills will follow it back home regardless. The extremists' hatred of the US did not begin with Iraq and will not end when it leaves.

Unfortunately, all human societies, including the "international community," require policemen to maintain order. The US may not wish to bear this burden, but there is no one else.

George W. Bush had it right when he contended that failure in Iraq is unacceptable. We will see if Obama has similar courage.

5) Livni: Saudi message inadequate
By Yitzhak Benhorin

Tzipi Livni praises Arab peace initiative but says peace is more than just piece of paper, notes that Saudi message in interfaith dialogue conference inadequate; Foreign minister adds that talks with Palestinians in very advanced stages



NEW YORK – Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Wednesday that while Saudi King Abdullah's peace initiative is important, the words of Arab leaders at the United Nation's interfaith dialogue conference are inadequate.


Speaking at a press conference in UN Headquarter in New York, Livni said that "peace is more than just a piece of paper," adding that all parties to peace negotiations must also fight extremism.


The foreign minister added that for the first time there is an understanding that Mideastern leaders cannot turn a blind eye to what goes on in mosques and schools.


During the press conference, also attended by President Shimon Peres and UN Ambassador Gabriella Shalev, Livni expressed her support for the Saudi peace initiative, stressing that it does not include the issue of Palestinian refugees.


Livni said Israel accepts the initiative, adding that Arab leaders realize that regional problems must be resolved through negotiations, rather than dictates.


'Peace talks in advanced stages'
While in New York, Livni also met with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. She said that peace talks between the sides are in very advanced stages, noting that the success so far, among other reasons, stems from the fact that no details have been leaked.


"The Palestinians need the Arab world's support," Livni said.


The foreign minister added that while Israel engages in talks with pragmatic Palestinians, incitement continues at mosques and schools.


Responding to a question about Jerusalem's division, Livni said: "Jerusalem is Israel's eternal capital," adding that Israel decided that all important issues, including refugees, borders, settlements, and water will only be discussed in the framework of talks on a final-status agreement.


Meanwhile, President Peres said that "nobody expects Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative as is." However, he added that he sees genuine and positive change, and that "if there's a will, there's a way."


Peres also praised Saudi Arabia's king, noting that the conference marked the first time that a Saudi king stayed in the room to hear a speech delivered by an Israeli representative.

6)How to Put the Squeeze on Iran:Cutting off its gasoline imports may be the only peaceful way to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
By ORDE F. KITTRIE


If Barack Obama is to persuade Iran to negotiate away its illegal nuclear weapons program, he will first need to generate more leverage than what the Bush administration is leaving him with. The current U.N. sanctions have proven too weak to dissuade Tehran's leaders, and Russia and China seem determined to keep those sanctions weak. Meanwhile, the regime continues to insist there are no incentives in exchange for which it would halt or even limit its nuclear work.
[Commentary] David Klein

However, Tehran has an economic Achilles' heel -- its extraordinarily heavy dependence on imported gasoline. This dependence could be used by the United States to peacefully create decisive leverage over the Islamic Republic.

Iranian oil wells produce far more petroleum (crude oil) than Iran needs. Yet, remarkably for a country investing so much in nuclear power, Iran has not developed sufficient capacity to refine that crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel. As a result, it must import some 40% of the gasoline it needs for internal consumption.

In recent months, Iran has, according to the respected trade publication International Oil Daily and other sources including the U.S. government, purchased nearly all of this gasoline from just five companies, four of them European: the Swiss firm Vitol; the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura; the French firm Total; British Petroleum; and one Indian company, Reliance Industries. If these companies stopped supplying Iran, the Iranians could replace only some of what they needed from other suppliers -- and at a significantly higher price. Neither Russia nor China could serve as alternative suppliers. Both are themselves also heavily dependent on imports of the type of gasoline Iran needs.

Were these companies to stop supplying gasoline to Iran, the world-wide price of oil would be unaffected -- the companies would simply sell to other buyers. But the impact on Iran would be substantial.

When Tehran attempted to ration gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests forced the regime to back down. Cutting off gasoline sales to Iran, or even a significant reduction, could have an even more dramatic effect.

In Congress, there is already bipartisan support for peacefully cutting off gasoline sales to Iran until it stops its illicit nuclear activities. Barack Obama, John McCain and the House of Representatives have all declared their support.

On June 4 of this year, for example, Sen. Obama said at a speech in Washington, D.C.: "We should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime -- from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran."

He repeated this sentiment during the presidential candidates' debate on Oct. 7: "Iran right now imports gasoline . . . if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need . . . that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them."

How do we stop the gasoline from flowing? The Bush administration has reportedly never asked the Swiss, Dutch, French, British or Indian governments to stop gasoline sales to Iran by the companies headquartered within their borders. An Obama administration should make this request, and do the same with other governments if other companies try to sell gasoline to Iran.

But the U.S. also has significant direct leverage over the companies that currently supply most of Iran's imported gasoline.

Consider India's Reliance Industries which, according to International Oil Daily, "reemerged as a major supplier of gasoline to Iran" in July after taking a break for several months. It "delivered three cargoes of gasoline totaling around 100,000 tons to Iran's Mideast Gulf port of Bandar Abbas from its giant Jamnagar refinery in India's western province of Gujarat." Reliance reportedly "entered into a new arrangement with National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) under which it will supply around . . . three 35,000-ton cargoes a month, from its giant Jamnagar refinery." One hundred thousand tons represents some 10% of Iran's total monthly gasoline needs.

The Jamnagar refinery is heavily supported by U.S. taxpayer dollars. In May 2007, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a government agency that assists in financing the export of U.S. goods and services, announced a $500 million loan guarantee to help finance expansion of the Jamnagar refinery. On Aug. 28, 2008, Ex-Im announced a new $400 million long-term loan guarantee for Reliance, including additional financing of work at the Jamnagar refinery.

Or consider the Swiss firm Vitol. According to International Oil Daily, Vitol "over the past few years has accounted for around 60% of the gasoline shipped to Iran." Vitol is currently building a $100 million terminal in Port Canaveral, Florida.

Last year, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discovered that an Indian company, Essar, was seeking to both invest some $1.6 billion in Minnesota and invest over $5 billion in building a refinery in Iran, he put Essar to a choice. Mr. Pawlenty threatened to block state infrastructure subsidies and perhaps even construction permits for the Minnesota purchase unless Essar withdrew from the Iranian investment. Essar promptly withdrew from the Iranian investment.

Florida officials could consider taking a similar stance with Vitol.

The Minnesota example is not the only precedent. U.S. outreach to foreign banks and to oil companies considering investing in Iran's energy sector has reportedly convinced more than 80 banks and several major potential oil-field investors to cease all or some of their business with Iran. Among them: Germany's two largest banks (Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank), London-based HSBC, Credit Suisse, Norwegian energy company StatoilHydro, and Royal Dutch Shell.

A sustained initiative may be able to convince most or all current and potential suppliers that the profits to be gained from continuing to sell gasoline to Iran will be dwarfed by the lost loan guarantees and subsidies and foregone profits they will incur in the U.S. from continuing to do business with Iran.

Last Sunday, a group of 60 Iranian economists called for the regime to drastically change course, saying that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "tension-creating" foreign policy has "scared off foreign investment and inflicted heavy damage on the economy." The economists said the current sanctions, as weak as they are, have cost Iran billions of dollars by forcing it to use middlemen for exports and imports. Halting Iran's gasoline supply could contribute to reaching a tipping point -- at which economic pressures and protests convince the regime its illicit nuclear program poses too great a risk to its grip over the Iranian people.

If the federal and key state governments in the U.S. were to make it their goal to achieve a halt by companies selling gasoline to Iran, it could be a game-changer. It may be our best remaining hope for peacefully convincing Iran to desist from developing nuclear weapons.

7) Obama and Missile Defense: On this critical issue, the president-elect is not off to a good start.
By JOHN R. BOLTON


Presidential transitions provide the opportunity to predict how an incoming administration will govern. While the Obama transition is proceeding largely behind the scenes, commentators have been hard at work examining the emerging evidence to reach sweeping conclusions about the administration's likely direction.

While it is much too early to reach any firm conclusions, a few substantive events have taken place. Consider, for example, the established tradition of a president-elect's series of calls to world leaders, to introduce himself and receive their congratulations. One of Barack Obama's first such conversations took place last Friday with Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

From the press reports and statements regarding their brief exchange it seems Messrs. Obama and Kaczynski drew radically different conclusions on a critical issue -- missile defense. Mr. Kaczynski raised the subject, given the recent U.S.-Polish agreement to base missile defense assets in Poland. In the words of the Polish press statement about the call, Mr. Kaczynski heard Mr. Obama say "that the missile defense project would continue."

The Obama transition promptly issued a rebuttal: "President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign -- that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable."

This was a remarkable statement. Mr. Obama contradicted a head of state, clinging to a campaign position that could most kindly be described as weak and ambiguous. The statement also reflected a naiveté in the structuring of such transition conversations -- and future dealings with truly unfriendly foreign leaders -- that could have been avoided.

Importantly, the Obama-Kaczynski telephone call must be seen in the context of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev's speech just two days before, where he threatened to base Russian missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, targeting our proposed missile defense deployments in Poland. Mr. Medvedev's words were more than just a direct challenge to President-elect Obama on missile defense. They were also a direct challenge to the Polish government, which reached an agreement with the Bush administration just days after the Russian invasion of Georgia. The Poles were out on a limb, and Mr. Medvedev was testing the strength of that limb and the strength of the incoming U.S. president. Both now look disturbingly weak.

To be sure, one could argue that the Poles should not so quickly have issued an unequivocal statement without checking with Mr. Obama's handlers. But so too the Obama team should have understood that foreign leaders, both friends and adversaries, are in a state of high tension, hoping to get the president-elect to give his stamp of approval for their agendas before the inertia of the permanent government gets in the way.

Mr. Kaczynski's gambit may have been the first, but it won't be the last, and those hundreds of Obama foreign-affairs advisers should have known it was coming. The Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs, Arab-Israeli affairs and a host of other critical problems are thundering toward Mr. Obama as Jan. 20 approaches.

Freeing America from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty's antiquated constraints is rightly regarded as one of President Bush's most significant achievements. In 2001, we believed that the Russian strategic threat had eased. But the emerging threats from rogue states possessing a few nuclear-capable ballistic missiles required that we develop adequate defenses -- especially because many emerging nuclear-weapons states do not accept the same calculus of deterrence that maintained the Cold War's uneasy nuclear standoff. The demise of the ABM Treaty allows America to defend itself from these threats.

For a new Obama administration to retreat from this achievement, as many in the arms-control "community" have advocated, would be a significant step backward. His campaign position about deployment after the technology is "proved" is an excuse never to deploy missile defenses -- because nothing in the military field is ever conclusively proven for all time. Rebuffing Mr. Kaczynski is also precisely the wrong response to Mr. Medvedev's provocation. It will surely be read as weakness, and not only in Moscow. In fact, Moscow announced yesterday there would be no more missile-defense negotiations before Jan. 20.

How should Israel and the Arab world now contemplate the prospects for rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the prospects for turmoil there and enhanced Iranian influence in the Middle East? Will North Korea -- whoever is in charge -- now kick back and wait for Jan. 20? The list of questions is far longer than the list of Mr. Obama's answers.

To repeat, it is much too early to draw larger conclusions from this one episode. On the existing post election evidence, we cannot tell whether Mr. Obama will govern on the left or the center-left, or whether he is simply passive and risk-averse. But on balance, his conversation with Mr. Kaczynski points toward a weakening of the U.S. defense posture, indifference to allies under duress, and the need to satisfy his natural constituency within the Democratic Party. Let us now await the next pieces of evidence.

8)8) Free at last...Free at last...
By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo-socialism. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's "God Damn America ," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those "black studies" programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.
To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.

And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin' butt on the couch and complain "Da Man is keepin' me down," allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60's ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful.don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.

In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!

So, listen carefully. Wham!!!

That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.