Another Holy War

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

It’s the season of Summer Blockbusters. “Revenge of the Sith” premiers next week and it looks to be on par if not better than “The Empire Strikes Back.” Other movies on tap to wow us at the box office are, “Fantastic Four,” “Batman Begins.” “Bewitched,” and a remake of the Burt Reynolds classic, “The Longest Yard.” Speaking of remakes, the Bush Administration appears to be in the business of remaking a story of their own beginning this summer in Iran. “Weapons of Mass Destruction II: Bombs Over Tehran.”

There are a number of elements of this story that are already coming together and they are not presenting a pretty picture. First, The Financial Times is reporting that, “Senior British officials warned last night that talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions were on the point of collapse and that it risked referral to the United Nations Security Council.

Western diplomats said yesterday's statement by a top Iranian official that it would resume "in the next few days" activity related to uranium enrichment was a "serious" development.

Iranian hardliners seeking to provoke an international crisis had gained the upper hand in Tehran, they suggested.”

Now compare this with recently released British documents that illustrate a plan to depose Saddam Hussein well before 9/11. “…The case for war was “thin”. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

“If the political context were right,” said Blair, “people would support regime change.” Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason…Blair set certain conditions: that efforts were first made to try to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through weapons inspectors and to form a coalition and “shape” public opinion. But the bottom line was that he was signed up to ousting Saddam by force if other methods failed. The Americans just wanted to get rid of the brutal dictator, whether or not he posed an immediate threat.

This presented a problem because, as the secret briefing paper made clear, there were no clear legal grounds for war.” (Times.UK)

Anyone that still believes that this administration didn’t have a preconceived plan to depose Hussein well before the average American knew who Osama bin Laden was must strictly be acting on faith that would make Jesus blush. Furthermore, the brouhaha regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seems to be a convenient ruse for eliminating pesky regimes rather than being a methodical and thoughtful policy global cooperation. It has been written and it would not appear that Iraq was never the endgame; it was only the opening salvo in a war to seemingly control the greater Middle East. As many have been predicting, Iran appears to be next in line and the powers that be are going back to the same playbook in selling the American public this next war.

The premise that this conflict with Iran will come to a head in June was put forth by, “Scott Ritter, the controversial ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq, who correctly predicted there were no WMD in Saddam's arsenal, [whom] says the plan to bomb Iran's widely scattered nuclear installations has been approved by President Bush. Mr. Ritter predicts the massive air attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure will take place next June.” (Insightmag.com)

It would also appear that the Bush administration allowed the EU3 to employ negotiations long enough to look like the Western world was attempting to give peace a chance but simply failed…like what happened in the run-up to Iraq. According to the Jerusalem Post, “Last weekend, the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - met their Iranian interlocutors in London to resume the business of persuading the mullahs to limit their nuclear ambitions. Nothing doing.

Sadder but no wiser, the Europeans put on a brave face as the talks ended. While sources conceded that they made no progress on substantive issues, they struggled to accentuate the positive. The negotiations, noted one source weakly, were held in a "good atmosphere." But the bottom line remains resolutely fixed: Iran is determined to continue enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium.”

Is this really about nuclear proliferation? Probably not. Is it all about oil? It could be but I cannot say for sure. Is it the hubris of a “unipolar moment?” More than likely it is indeed. Is there something more to it? Well, according to Antony Loewenstein in his paper, “Pushing War In Iran,” “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is arguably Washington's most powerful lobby group. The organisation holds extreme views on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has been a long-time opponent of negotiation with the Palestinians. Indeed, AIPAC's public and private persona couldn't be more different. Jeffrey Blankfort reported in 2003: "It [AIPAC] wanted to appear to be supportive of the 'road map,' while working to derail it." The uniformity of consensus within Washington towards Israel is partly due to the effectiveness of AIPAC's intense lobbying. Any Congressman or woman who dares speak out against Israel or its policies will find a better-funded opponent next election…AIPAC supports "regime change" in Iran. The removal of the mullahs in Tehran would eradicate another regional enemy of Israel, so the thinking goes. A number of senior members of the Bush administration are also opposed to Iran and support military action against the country's supposed nuclear capabilities. The involvement of a lobby group in the formulation of government policy strikes at the heart of America's faltering democracy…A major goal of the Israeli government is military action against Iran. AIPAC, an American proxy of the Israeli government, with Franklin's help, has been pressuring members of Congress to support military strikes against Iran… It is quite possible that the Jewish lobby group would be exposed as leading the charge against Iraq.”

I have no idea if any of this is true but the events transpiring right now are eerily similar to those that came to pass in the months and days before the invasion of Iraq. I’ve said before that as much as I want the Mullahs taken down and replaced with a representative democracy that truly speaks for the great people of Iran, I do not think outsiders at gunpoint can establish it. Iran needs to have a revolution that much is certain. America might want to spend its money more wisely by instigating said revolution instead of yet another exercise in nation building via MOAB.

There are plenty of folks out there who feel this is will be an awful mistake and lord knows I’ve written about the unintended consequences of starting a war with Iran on numerous occasions. Like Lynyrd Skynyrd, all I can do is keep writing about it and hope more people take the time to read. For those who like to take to the streets, this time, instead of “die-ins” and “human shields” like there were in the days before we invaded Iraq, would the good people of this country please start making cogent arguments for not invading Iran and offer up viable alternatives instead of the usual quasi-hate speech that tends to pass for American leftist protests. Become a salesperson and go out in to your neighborhood or where you work and try to sell something other than bombardment. I truly believe one of the reasons Bush, Blair and Co. got away with what they did in Iraq was because the opposition looked ridiculous and sounded too shrill and immature to take seriously. Let’s not make that same mistake again. If this administration is serious about bombing Iranian nuclear facilities in June then you’ve got about 3-4 weeks to come up with better ideas that dressing up like the Grim Reaper and laying in the street blocking Manhattan traffic.

New Review: The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

“The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy” by "National Review" White House Correspondent Byron York is an excellent example of how one can write about the current political atmosphere without sinking to the depths of fear mongering, name-calling, or the ever popular smearing.

As the subtitle, “The untold story of how Democratic operatives, eccentric billionaires, liberal activists, and assorted celebrities tried to bring down a President -- and why they’ll try even harder next time,” indicates, this is the nuts and bolts story of how during the 2004 Presidential Election, organizations such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together (ACT) became somewhat of a force to be reckoned with.

The book also covers the birth of progressive radio station, Air America, the battle at the box office between Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ,” and the creation of liberal think tanks that patterned themselves after conservative ones such as the Heritage Foundation. It also explains just who George Soros is and why he became such a known commodity in the election cycle despite not actually being involved in the political process at any level.

“The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy” is more than just a list of who did what and why during the campaign. Behind the maneuvering, pandering, marketing, soliciting, and outright proselytizing that went on, there is a narrative to be told.

Dream Job: Stay-At-Home Mom

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

For those whom have weighed in on the debate over poverty and caregiving as work, you must read this article. Here's the headline, "Stay-at-home mothers wear many hats. They're the family CEO, the day care provider, accountant, chauffeur, counselor, chef, nurse, laundress, entertainer, personal stylist, and educator. Based on a 100-hour work week, Salary.com has estimated that a fair wage for the typical stay-at-home mom would be $131,471 for executing all of her daily tasks."

I think it's time we began to look at the cost for directly compensating the modern caregiver versus paying for others to do caregiving for women forced to enter the "paid labor market". I would imagine that if we directly paid mothers/caregivers what they worth you would summarily lift many folks out of poverty while simultaneously elliminating many of the social woes that cost the American taxpayer their hard earned money. In short, I think the following articles dictates that we should invest in motherhood/caregiving for long term savings. Here's the whole article:

A Labor of Love

"I had zero experience taking care of children before I had my own," said Laura Mercer, mother of two boys and professional stay-at-home mom outside of Las Vegas, Nev. "Being a career woman most of my adult life, the thought of being a stay-at-home mom didn't even occur to me."

Instead of donning a suit and pumps each morning in pursuit of the corporate American dream, Mercer gets gussied up in kid-proof clothing to confront a very different challenge: maintaining a household and raising two energetic boys. Like most stay-at-home parents, Mercer acts as cook, maid, driver, disciplinarian, and tutor - all without monetary compensation.

So why do thousands of career women nationwide opt to put their careers and salary-earning potential on the back burner to stay home to care for their children? Reasons can range from the exorbitant cost of childcare to deep emotional attachment, but one thing is clear: being a stay-at-home parent is a full-time job.

CPA and stay-at-home mother of two Wendy Schulze of suburban Massachusetts had reservations of her own about staying in the workforce. "I looked into day care, but I wasn't comfortable with it," she said. "And with two children, it's really not worth it to put both of them in day care."

Finances aren't the only, or even the biggest, reason for a parent to stay home and care for the children. Kansas City, Mo., stay-at-home mom Tiffany Allshouse was worried about her daughter's most formative years being defined by someone who wasn't family. Neither she nor her husband has relatives in the nearby area to help out. "The thought of a stranger - not Mom or Dad - being her primary caregiver is horrifying to me, even if the day care is the best around," she said.

Perks and bonuses

"She gets up around 6:30 in the morning to have a bottle and a diaper change," said Allshouse of her daughter. "When she's finished, we spend a few minutes just lying there together. I usually try to remember that this is a time I would not have with her if I were working and rushing her off to day care."

Schulze also takes note of the little things when caring for her two children. "I get to see everything, the first step, the first word. We have a lot of fun, we laugh and giggle," she said. "I know that we would still have that if I was working, but I don't know if I would have been the one clapping my hands, telling them 'You can do it!'"

Not only are stay-at-home parents able to spend their days with their little ones, but they usually get some down time to attend to their own needs during naps and play dates. "The spontaneity of the daily schedule can be kind of nice once you get the hang of it. After years of 9-to-5 jobs, it's a nice change of pace," said Erin Livingstone of northern Texas.

All three women are able to pursue hobbies they weren't able to give attention to while working out of the house. "I love to read and have an insatiable appetite for books," said Allshouse. "Staying at home has given me time to read books that I've been wanting to read for years, including classics and current works."

No raises, no sick days, no adult interaction

For all its priceless benefits, being a stay-at-home parent means no salary, unless the homebound parent works out of the home on a part-time or contract basis. "The worst part is the lack of pay," said Livingstone. "And the hours - it certainly isn't a 9-to-5 job. Being on duty - or at least on call - 24 hours a day can really wear you down at times." When she has time to herself, Livingstone keeps current in graphic design, her pre-motherhood profession. She hopes to start working out of her house on a part-time basis in the future.

Mercer, who plans to expand the Web design business she runs out of her home, also pointed out that stay-at-home parents don't get sick days. "Mommies can't get sick because young children still need care." She remembers a particularly nasty flu she contracted when her children were two and four years old. Unable to get out of bed and prepare them breakfast, she asked them to "to go in the kitchen and do their best to get some food because Mommy could not look at food at the moment." When she made it to the kitchen, she discovered a blanket of Cheerios on the kitchen floor, the refrigerator door wide open, and her kids sitting on the floor eating a bowl of strawberries. "I crawled back to bed and they ate a great deal of Cheerios that day," she added.

"I don't have a lot of adult interaction these days," said Schulze, who without hesitation named lack of "adult stimulation" as the worst thing about staying at home. She's made a conscious effort to get involved with activities outside her family life. "I would have probably done these things anyway, but I wouldn't have stressed it as much as I do now."

Returning to the workplace

Allshouse, Livingstone, and Schulze are planning to stay home until their children start school, and then move back into the working world part-time or out of the house. "I might go back earlier but it would greatly depend on what kind of opportunity it was," said Allshouse. "There is really a dearth of part-time work available for moms who want to stay home but still keep their minds and talents engaged in the work force."

Mercer plans on staying home until her children are in college. "I plan on being home for them after school when they are teenagers," she said. "That is when I got into the most trouble growing up, so I want to provide a nice place for my kids and their friends to hang out." She plans on working part-time while her children are in school, but she and her husband want to have at least one parent home for the kids in the afternoon and evening.

In The Price of Motherhood, author Ann Crittenden comments on the professional hits that stay-at-home parents take. According to her, mothers pay too large a lifetime price in lost income and status because of the time and energy they devote to their children. "Raising children may be the most important job in the world," she wrote, "but you can't put it on a resume."

And, the longer moms take before returning to work, the higher the price many of them pay in the long run. After all, nannies and babysitters qualify for Social Security benefits; stay-at-home mothers do not.

What mothers are really worth

"People might think that stay-at-home moms are sitting around eating bon-bons and watching soaps, when in reality, we're working several jobs at once. And, we're doing it 24/7 with no vacation days, holidays or even sick days," said Jen Singer, creator of www.MommaSaid.net, a Forbes Best of the Web site for at-home mothers. Singer added, "many stay-at-home moms are on the job upwards of 100 hours a week. That would be a whole lot of overtime if we got paid."

Stay-at-home mothers wear many hats. They're the family CEO, the day care provider, accountant, chauffeur, counselor, chef, nurse, laundress, entertainer, personal stylist, and educator. Based on a 100-hour work week, Salary.com has estimated that a fair wage for the typical stay-at-home mom would be $131,471 for executing all of her daily tasks.

"Mothers are responsible for the mental and physical well being of the family - putting a price on that isn't easy," said Lena Bottos, compensation market analyst for Salary.com. "But we looked at it as what you would have to pay other people to do the same work if the mom weren't there."

Even if these mothers were getting paid what they'd be worth on the market, Bottos added that they still wouldn't be adequately compensated. "When you take into account that it represents a 100-hour work-week, and doesn't even begin to factor in that they are on call 24 hours a day, it's not so large. Plus, stay-at-home moms get no benefits in terms of pension or 401(k)."


Salary.com also figured that a 40-hour per week working mom who comes home to take care of her kids should earn the 60 hours of mom overtime in addition to her work paycheck.

Far-reaching effects

Even though stay-at-home moms and dads aren't included in Department of Labor statistics, their type of "non-wage labor" adds incalculable value to future human capital. Mercer hopes that by staying at home, she'll teach her children to be "responsible and well-mannered" productive members of society.

In the long-term, then, staying at home can benefit families financially and emotionally, and provide a boon to future labor markets. While a stay-at-home parent can't really use her or his experiences as resume fodder, caring for children requires attention to detail, multitasking capabilities, and self-confidence - skills that are necessary in any profession. "After being a stay-at-home mom to two very active, non-sleeping boys, I feel confident that I could take on nuclear engineering or anything else," said Mercer. "It is that challenging, but equally rewarding, too."

While not for everyone, staying at home not only benefits families as a whole, it specifically benefits the mothers who do it. "If I were working, I would be so stressed out with work and everything else that I wouldn't have time to see the little things," Schulze said. "I wouldn't have relaxed as much, or taken the time to stop and smell the flowers. I get to see life through a child's eyes, and I wouldn't have gotten that chance."

So, mommies-to-be, talk it over with your significant other, quit that day job, grab the kids...and dream on!

European Support for the Iraqi Insurgency's Terrorism

I received this in my e-mail from the Free Iraqis Yahoo Group. The Left/Socialist movement in Europe is dangerously short-sighted. I know the same can be said for the current US administration but as I've said many times, two wrongs don't make a right. I've also said many times that there are plenty of fine ideas from the Left but unfortunately they are mired in the stuff of Marx and Rousseau, which is fine if you are an American college professor but not so much in any other facet of life. This article concerning European leftists is a bit disturbing in my opinion:

Swedish-Based Iraqi Patriotic Alliance Promotes

European Support for the Iraqi Insurgency

In addition to their activities in Iraq, the Ba'athist network is
alive and well in Europe. As an example, the Swedish-based Iraqi
Patriotic Alliance (IPA) has been conducting an aggressive campaign
throughout Europe to bolster support for Iraqi insurgents while
advocating the return of Saddam Hussein, whose leadership, according
to the IPA's spokesperson Awni al Kalemji, "...we agree on. Since
2003, the IPA has sought support from Europeans who virulently
opposed the war, with a special focus on those advocates of the
extreme left that already harbor extreme distrust of the U.S.

The IPA was established in Sweden in June 1992 by Jabbar Al-Kubaisi,
an Iraqi dissident whose two brothers had been executed by Saddam
Hussein. The IPA originally consisted of a small number of Iraqi
dissidents and groups scattered throughout Europe. Today, in
addition to its alliances with numerous European anti-imperialistic
groups, the IPA purports to represent several Iraqi organizations
covering both the left and the right wing of the political spectrum.
Specifically, its membership includes the Arabic Workers Party, the
Kurdistan's Islamic Army, the Kurdistan's Peace Party, the Party for
Justice and Reform, the Iraqi Bedouin Council, the Arabic Socialist
Movement, the Iraqi National Democratic Communist Movement, and
independent political activists and intellectuals.

According to the IPA's English language website, the group is
characterized by its opposition to the occupation of Iraq and
supportive of any means necessary to reverse the occupation.
Specifically, the group states, "We are against the Zionist
occupation of Iraq. We believe that the resistance of our people in
Iraq is legal according to international law and the UN Charter,
including the right to resort to armed means. We are claiming our
right to self-determination and sovereignty." In addition to its
support of the Iraqi resistance, several European websites associated
with the IPA, including the German Free Iraq Committee (freeiraq.de)
and the Danish Frit Irak (fritirak.dk), currently campaign for the
release of former prominent members of the Iraqi regime.

The group's original platform opposed the regime of Saddam Hussein,
but in 1993, Kalemji contacted Saddam Hussein, a former classmate,
and proposed the democratization of Iraq. Kalemji received a reply
to his proposition three years later at a meeting with a
representative of Saddam Hussein in Prague. Kalemji's contact with
the Iraqi leadership continued and through the years, he had several
meetings with Ba'ath Party representatives in various European
cities. In 2002, Kubaisi and Kalemji traveled to Baghdad to meet
with high ranking Iraqi officials. As described in a National Review
article, "The move was part of Saddam Hussein's strategy to bury the
hatchet with opposition groups and put together the widest coalition
possible in case of an attack from the United States. According to
IPA members, Saddam promised democratic reforms and Kubaisi,
purportedly out of his love for Iraq, decided to side with the former
Iraqi dictator against the American invasion. In February 2003,
Kubaisi again met with senior Iraqi officials, including Tariq Aziz,
to reaffirm his support. During a conference held in Paris shortly
after Kubaisi's meeting with Saddam Hussein, the IPA and its
delegates pledged to combat "American imperialist aggression."

Kubaisi returned to Baghdad after the war started in 2003, leaving
his lieutenant Kalemji, a Danish resident since 1988, behind in
Europe to build support for the Iraqi resistance. Since then, the
IPA has built an extensive network in Europe through an aggressive
campaign aimed at recruiting Europeans opposed to the U.S. presence
in Iraq. As a result of Kalemji's adeptness at building alliances,
the campaign has been very well organized and successful in
bolstering support for the Iraqi resistance. The National Review
states, "…throughout Europe, hardcore fascists and communists have
formed an unusual coalition whose purpose is to morally and
financially support terrorist organizations, and, in particular, the
Iraqi Patriotic Alliance; a coalition of Iraqi groups carrying out
attacks against American and allied targets (sic). Kalemji's aim of
recruiting diverse organizations was highlighted in an interview when
he stated, "we co-operate with all that share our goal, hand in hand
[for a] holy war against the Zionist imperialistic coalition.
Because of Kalemji's contacts with the former Ba'ath regime and
subsequent support of Iraqi insurgents, he was arrested in Denmark in
2003 on suspicion of recruiting armed volunteers for the insurgency.
The charges were subsequently dropped.

Through Kalemji and others in the organization, the IPA has raised
money for Iraqi insurgents, organized anti-occupation demonstrations,
passed out anti-American handbills, and established websites
throughout Europe promoting the agenda of the Iraqi insurgency. As
early as December of 2003, Kalemji was a keynote speaker at an Iraqi
resistance demonstration held Rome, and continues to be an active
participant at similar events such as the Berlin conference supported
by the Austrian-based group Anti-Imperialista and the German
JungeWelt that occurred on 12 March 2005. The main objective of
Kalemji's speech was to drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S. by
suggesting the U.S. aim in Iraq as trans-regional and part of a
grander plan to control world access to oil. The insurgents are
therefore not only "liberating" Iraq, but also saving Europe and the
entire world from the imperialist U.S. The speech is available on
various websites including wiederstandsreport.sedunia.org and
beirut.indymedia.org. Previous interviews with Kalemji, such as the
one conducted by the U.S. Anti-Imperialist Solidarity Committee, are
also available on their website. In addition, Kalemji has appeared
on the Arabic satellite television station Al-Jazeera and was
interviewed by several leftist media organizations including the
Italian Al-Jazira and the German Widerstandsreport. Kalemji is also
a prolific writer and his articles have been posted on numerous
internet forums and websites.

As with Kalemji, Kubaisi has been vocal in his support for the
insurgency and just as militant. In an interview posted on the IPA
website, Kubaisi states:

Nobody can believe that the U.S. can be convinced without armed self-
defense. What does legal means mean in a situation of illegal
occupation? Our armed resistance is entirely legal according to
international law and the UN charter, and also to Islamic law and our
national values. We will never accept orders to disarm ourselves and
to limit us to toothless peaceful action…. All occupation forces and
their aides are legitimate targets of the resistance. In order to
save themselves, they have to leave our country, otherwise they will
be subject to armed attacks.... I ask the anti-war movement to take
sides. Neutrality is not possible. We will continue fighting until
our homeland is liberated. This is our right and our duty. Those
who really are for peace and justice have to accept our right to self-
determination and must support the resistance.

The success of the IPA is seen in its ability to raise funds for the
insurgency. According to an Italian article, "much of the fund
raising for al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents has been done by two
groups – the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance…and the Anti-Imperialist
Alliance, made up of mainly European leftists. The merging of several
European leftist groups with the IPA places it among the most
organized European, and perhaps worldwide, opposition movements to
the U.S. presence in Iraq. As Kalemji stated in a Danish
interview: "A form of solidarity is mass protests…so involved
governments don't send soldiers to Iraq." Popular support for the
conflict in Iraq has been consistently waning throughout Europe, and
groups like the IPA seize every opportunity to further agitate
displeasure with American and Allied presence in Iraq. Since several
U.S. Allies in Iraq are European, the continuation of well-
coordinated opposition by the IPA and its supporters could further
erode popular support for the Coalition's Iraq policy and operations.

Vietnamese Leader Plans First U.S. Visit

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Here's a ray of light in what's been a sea of shadowy foreign affairs. I think it is safe to say that our battle against Communism during the Cold War was really a war against Soviet empire expansion. Sure the economic philosophy played a part but the Soviets could have been employing the politics of ham sandwichism and we would have been just as equally against that too. Vietnam was a small part of the overall strategy of stopping Soviet client state expansionism. In todays world, it really doesn't do our country any good to isolate others strictly based on Communism alone. We certainly aren't isolating China and it would only make sense that we should welcome as many countries into the World Trade Organization as possible. For those who are truly committed to peace, when a country starts up on the ladder of developmental success, their society will be less likely to succumb to an African-style collapse. I hope our President makes the most out of this visit and that the Vietnamese enter into the WTO as soon as possible. Here's the story:

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Vietnam's prime minister said on Thursday he plans to travel to the United States next month in what would be the highest-level visit by a Vietnamese leader since the end of the war between the two countries 30 years ago.

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai said arrangements were being made for him to visit Washington in June. It was not immediately clear who Khai would meet with.

"Thirty years has passed since the end of the war; this is the first-ever visit by a leader of a unified Vietnam to the United States," Khai told reporters on the first day of a visit to Australia.

Communist Vietnam recently marked the 30th anniversary of the war's end with a colorful parade of floats - some emblazoned with American business logos - down the same boulevard where North Vietnamese tanks rolled to victory against a U.S.-backed government.

During the visit, Khai will likely bring up Vietnam's strong desire to join the World Trade Organization. The former foes are currently involved in bilateral negotiations that would help pave the way for Vietnam's entry to the global trade body.

Khai would be the highest-ranking leader to visit Washington since the Vietnam War ended on April 30, 1975, when former U.S.-backed South Vietnam surrendered to communist forces. In addition to Khai, Vietnam's other top leaders include President Tran Duc Luong and Nong Duc Manh, the powerful head of the ruling Communist Party.

In November 2003, Vietnam's Defense Minister Pham Van Tra met with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in Washington, becoming the first senior military official of Hanoi's government to visit the United States.

Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister Vu Khoan traveled to Washington a month later to sign a landmark aviation deal between the two countries. Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung was in Washington in 2001 for a ceremony for the landmark bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam.

Khai rejected suggestions that the visit was to strengthen defense and strategic ties as part of a wider policy of containing the power and influence of China.

"The purpose of my visit to the United States is to elevate our relationship to a higher plane in a new situation and we don't take into consideration as such the factor of China," he said.

Kuwaiti Women's Suffrage Effort Thwarted

One step forward, three steps back, that's the dance the Middle East seems to do when it comes to politics and human rights. Opinions on this are a mixed bag. Someone might look at the situation in Kuwait and say that women didn't earn suffrage in the United States when they should have either. Kuwait is still a young sovereign nation and it needs time to develop at its own pace. This is of course the same argument used to defend the slow process of democracy and both Saudi Arabia and Russia. The other opinion is that ones attitudes political conduct must be somewhat consistent with the times. It matters not how young Kuwait is, this is the 21st Century and women need to be treated as equals in every country without exception or delay. While the latter argument is more idealistic, the former is definitely and unfortunately more realistic. Here's the story from the AP:

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - In a major setback to Kuwaiti women in politics, Islamist and conservative tribal lawmakers created a constitutional crisis that will delay consideration of a draft election law long enough to keep women out of this year's race for municipal council seats.

Women's rights activists were left hoping they can win voting rights ahead of the next municipal election, due in 2009.
The municipal council is a partially elected body with no major political significance. But succeeding in voting or running for it is seen as a step closer toward the larger aim of obtaining full political rights for women in Parliament, which has been an all-male domain for more than 40 years.

The maneuvering in Parliament was yet another success by conservatives in derailing attempts by Kuwait's ruler to push through laws granting women voting rights.

Women can vote in all Middle Eastern nations where elections are held, except in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia barred women from voting in municipal elections - the kingdom's first ever - held in the first three months of this year. Elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman all have held their first elections in recent years and allowed women to cast ballots.

Kuwaiti women have reached high government posts and make up about half of Kuwait's work force, but opponents of the measure believe it would lead to mixing between men and women and fear wives would neglect their duties when they get involved in politics.

Islamists and tribal conservatives have been able in the past to vote down suffrage measures directly. This time, however, they took a more indirect approach, raising a constitutional debate that sidetracked the bill.

On Monday, parliament voted 29-2 in favor of a bill allowing women's participation in the municipal election, but 29 Islamist and conservative lawmakers abstained - apparently to avoid voting directly against the government's wishes. That left the measure two votes shy of the 33 clear yes or not votes necessary for a decision.

Parliament had been expected to vote again on Tuesday. Instead, speaker Jassem al-Kharafi offered legislators different interpretations by constitutional scholars on how the abstentions affect the vote. Two scholars said the vote should be repeated, two others said the abstentions should be added to the yes vote - meaning the measure would pass - and another said the bill failed altogether.

Al-Kharafi asked lawmakers to discuss the opinions and decide whether Monday's vote should be repeated. The decision was delayed for two weeks.
By that time, the emir will have issued his decree scheduling the municipal elections, which means no changes will be permitted to who is eligible to vote or run for office. The decree was expected within days.
"Women will not participate in the coming elections," al-Kharafi said. "If the law (ultimately) passes, women will participate in the following one."

Activist Rola Dashti said the two-week postponement on a vote meant there was still hope participation would be possible in 2009. Meanwhile, women can have "ample" time to prepare, she added.

Dashti said the prime minister, Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, was sincere about women's rights but that his Cabinet members were "not working hard to mobilize" members of parliament.

International Mexican Standoff…With Nukes

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

My favorite movie is Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs.” In my humble opinion it’s a perfect, snazzy, hip film. The dialogue is golden, the premise is amazing, the acting is beyond incredible and the soundtrack is some good stuff. To this day I cannot hear “Coconut” or “Stuck in the Middle With You” without thinking of that movie. One of the best parts of this flick is the final scene in which Joe, Mr. White, and Nice Guy Eddie are all pointing guns at each other in the infamous Mexican standoff. It’s not the first time in the movie where the characters are having conversations with guns in each other’s faces. As a matter of fact, having a gun in ones face is normal for most movies made by Mr. Tarantino.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China you ask? Well, the whole idea behind the Mexican standoff is that while the potential for disaster certainly exists, if all the participants are brandishing weapons then one would hope that cooler heads will prevail and each participant will put away their weapon and deliberate. That of course never happens in “Reservoir Dogs” as all the major players kill each other but in the case of nuclear-armed nation states, it does make a certain degree of sense.

For example, Pakistan and India are both nuclear rivals in the Central Asian region. They have been fighting over Kashmir since both were carved away from the British Empire. One is a country of mostly Muslims and the other is a country of mostly Hindus and neither religious body get along. While both countries have had a series of wars against one another, I believe what has stopped all out genocide from occurring is that both possess nuclear missiles. Sure it looks terrible but in the end it’s just two entities with guns in each other faces and nobody willing to make a move. With all that in mind, remember that in recent days both India and Pakistan have made strides toward peace.

Obviously the most famous example is that of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War/arms race reduced both countries to having to fight proxy wars and develop client states because they could not fight each other directly. Nuclear proliferation and the arms race were a terrible and costly ordeal but in the end it actually did more to prevent a “hot” war with the Soviet Union than not having a nuclear stockpile.

Now many people reading this will probably think I’m daft and be much more likely to side with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who today said, “Ultimately, the only way to guarantee that they [nuclear weapons] will never be used is for our world to be free of such weapons.” Mr. Annan spoke these words during a hearing on the UN nonproliferation treaty held today at the UN building in New York City.

“The U.N. chief urged nonweapons states like Iran to renounce potential bomb technology, in return for international guarantees of nuclear fuel. But he also challenged Washington and Moscow to slash their nuclear arsenals irreversibly to just hundreds of warheads.” (AP)

It would certainly make sense that a world free of nuclear weapons is one we should all strive for but let’s not be stupid about it. Transparency is key to any disarmament treaty and right now certain nations are having a bit of difficulty with this particular demand. IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei has told reporters recently that Iran, for example, should increase its “transparency” by providing the agency with all relevant information. The IAEA also reports that Tehran conducted a variety of clandestine nuclear activities in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement.

According to the Arms Control Association, “Transparency remains a serious problem as the world still lacks any precise figures on the size of the world’s nuclear arsenals and relevant fissile material stocks. The lack of robust institutional infrastructures and domestic laws to implement disarmament missions is another warning sign, along with the scant evidence that disarmament is receiving the funding it needs to dispose of nuclear weapons irreversibly and verifiably.”

We have to be both logical and pragmatic about this situation. I am not saying that either any country in the world or we should have nuclear weapons. On the contrary, I’m very positive on the idea of nonproliferation and disarmament. However, the fact remains that a weak United States will invite terror such as this country has never known before and thus we cannot simply disarm in a vacuum. We cannot forget that there are forces, both legitimate and criminal, that mean to do us a great deal of harm. What’s keeping them somewhat at bay is the 200 plus nuclear missiles at the ready that can land anywhere in the world. Simply put, if the world wants total nuclear disarmament then they collectively have to go first.

I’m sure there are those reading this column from the left side of the aisle that would make the argument that we are the only country that has actually used atomic weapons in the past and thus must pay the price, lead by example and disarm first. Balderdash! That argument lacks all kinds of historical context and is coming from an anti-American chauvinist point of view. Nobody charged with the protection of their own country would agree to give any other country such a distinct tactical advantage. Let’s face reality here, we’re not going to just wave a white flag and declare surrender across the world.

This is a serious issue and it demands a methodical plan of execution. But any route toward total global disarmament and nonproliferation must first begin with total transparency across the globe. Right now that is not happening. To this day we do not know the extent of either Iran’s or North Korea’s nuclear potential. This very question was the heart of the Iraq conflict and look how that turned out. Until these matters can be sorted out, we will just have to live with the Mexican standoff and pray it doesn’t turn out like the end of Reservoir Dogs.

West Africa: The next Afghanistan?

Contrary to what our President thinks, the phrase actually goes, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." When the US abandoned Afghanistan after their war with the Soviet Union, one could assume they figured blow back would never reach the shores of North America. As of Septmeber 11th, 2001, they were very much wrong. Now one would assume that our leaders in Washington would have learned their lesson and have begun to regard terrorist havens as an immediate problem that demands a serious and thoughtful, possibly military solution. However, it would also seem as if the folks working in Washington don't know Africa actually exists and thus do not respond appropriately when something over there is happening that demands our attention. According to the following article, it looks as if history will end up repeating itself because if this chauvanistic idea that we just leave Africa to its own devices:

FREETOWN, Sierra Leone - At a time when the United States has thousands of forces hunting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, international investigators say the United States is ignoring another terrorist outlaw — former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who's hiding in plain sight in West Africa.

This is a place most Americans and their government haven't paid much attention to. It is war-torn, remote and desperately poor. But that might be about to change. War crimes investigators have uncovered evidence that al-Qaida terrorists — before and after 9/11 — were using West Africa as a hideout and as a place to launder money.

And they say Charles Taylor has been helping them. Taylor, who is allegedly responsible for the murder, rape and mutilation of 1.2 million people, was indicted more than two years ago for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The charges forced him from power in Liberia.

"Today, I leave you with these parting words, God willing, I will be back," Taylor told Liberian supporters in 2003.

But a U.S.-brokered agreement allowed him to retire to an estate in Nigeria.

"It's very important that the American people know that there is a threat in West Africa and it's not being dealt with," says Al White, a former Pentagon official and now the chief investigator for the special court for Sierra Leone, the U.N.-backed tribunal that indicted Taylor. "Charles Taylor is a terrorist. He used diamonds as a tool and instrument to help fund not only his operations, but also he allowed al-Qaida to use the diamonds to fund their operations."

Despite repeated requests from the international community, Nigeria's president has so far refused to turn Taylor over to the special court for prosecution.

And the United States — which considers Nigeria a crucial ally and oil supplier — has been reluctant to push. President Bush welcomed Nigeria’s president to the United States in 2004.

So now, in a bid to shame Nigeria and the United States into action, the special court is going public with evidence that Taylor helped al Qaida "recoup, refit and refinance" before and after 9/11.

David Crane is the court's chief prosecutor. He believes that Taylor himself was personally involved in these dealings with al-Qaida operatives by "physically handing over diamonds for cash."

The 9/11 commission, however, disagreed.

"The conclusion of the commission was that there was simply no persuasive evidence of a link between al-Qaida and diamonds," says Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the commission.

How can Hamilton be so sure?

"We relied on very careful investigative work. If diamonds were used to finance al-Qaida operations, we would have been able to track that," he says.

White, the chief war crimes investigator, says U.S. officials failed to interview credible witnesses.

"The 9/11 commission missed the boat. I'll just be very candid," he says.

Is he suggesting that the 9/11 commission, the FBI and the CIA are all wrong when it comes to this and he’s the one who's right?

"What I'm suggesting is the facts speak for themselves," says White.

The Bush administration says it continues to examine the Taylor/al-Qaida link and is optimistic he'll soon be occupying a jail cell in Sierra Leone.

"We feel confident that it will happen because it has to," says Pierre-Richard Prosper, the ambassador-at-large with the State Department's Office of War Crimes Issues. "We have no choice. Charles Taylor cannot escape justice. The atrocities, the acts that he's accused of, are just too great for us to walk away from such an effort."

Al White, however, worries that the clock is ticking in a part of the world where al-Qaida is becoming increasingly active.

Could West Africa become the next Afghanistan?

"Absolutely," says White. "And if we fail to act, and act soon, mark my words, that's exactly what's going to happen."

Veil of Deception: A DVD Review

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

This review is written in partnership with Mind and Media: Publicity With Faith.

"Veil of Deception" is yet another example of how activist groups are using a variety of mediums to get their message out. During the 2004 presidential election, a few different DVD's were produced to combat the points of view being presented by Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The election may be over but the national conversation still carries on. For the Christian Right, that conversation squarely focuses on the future of marriage.

MissionAmerica.com produced “Veil of Deception” for the purposes of “exposing” the Homosexual activist agenda of normalizing “gay marriage”. The site states that, “Veil of Deception, explores homosexual activism already exploding in schools and communities nationwide, putting thousands of children at risk as experimentation is blatantly encouraged. Some courageous parents, community leaders and teachers are speaking out.

Would legalization of same sex marriage silence these voices? If so, what happens to the next generation?

This exciting, fast-paced video is a great educational tool. It features local and national "heroes" who are trying to protect our children, and how we can all learn from them.”

Potential danger to children by the “radical homosexual agenda” is what drives this presentation. Essentially the main point the producers are trying to make is that if one teaches children that marriage has no boundaries or definitions and therefore can be between any two consenting adults then children will grow up to think that there are no boundaries or definitions on any sexual behavior at all. Aside from a series of interviews that speak to this notion, this DVD presents absolutely no information to support this hypothesis.

Essentially what the producer’s want is for an audience predisposed to be against the gay agenda to see this work and get validation from it. It’s a series of words and images meant to sing to the choir.

It’s also a big commercial against homosexual rights activism. Much of the narrative in the DVD is focused on tying gay rights to sexualizing children. The thrust of their argument here is that gay rights groups advocate for tolerance to be taught in schools and the way tolerance is taught is to promote homosexuality as a perfectly normal, biological way of being. One of the tools they employ for driving home the message of tolerance is after school clubs for gay students.

The folks at Mission: America want parents to be wary that their children are being “indoctrinated” in school to favor the “radical homosexual agenda.” If you were already predisposed to being against homosexuality then I would assume this DVD does the job reinforcing your bias. However, anyone with an open mind that only concerns him or herself with the facts of an argument will not be impressed with this piece of propaganda. Though one would assume that it wasn’t meant for anyone but the most ardent Christian believer. The idea was not win over converts but to arm the flock.
It’s a short piece and it seemed to be shot in the new guerrilla style of short-term production documentaries. Some of sound quality was shoddy and needed subtitles in order for the viewer to know what people were saying.

Overall I cannot say whether or not I would recommend this DVD to any of my readers. There’s no new information here nor is there solid evidence backing up their collective point of view. However, if you are a believer then solid evidence is generally not needed in putting forth an argument. God is enough and this DVD relies on God plenty. If that’s your bag then by all mean purchase this documentary.

New Review: The End of Poverty

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

When I picked up “The End of Poverty,” the new book by world renowned clinical economist and professor Jeffrey Sachs, from a Barnes & Nobles book store a few weeks ago, the woman at the counter read the cover and said, “Ah, if only this could be true.”

Poverty is a malignance that will most likely plague humankind for as long as we inhabit the earth. However, the point of this book is not to impart some airy-fairy, half-baked idea on how to eliminate all realms of poverty from today’s world, but instead to offer up a concrete plan for eliminating “extreme poverty” from the darkest corners of modern civilization.

Certainly anyone who has grown up in America has seen poverty up close at one time or another. Beggars and homeless folks in the subway, drug addicts and dealers on the corner, children left alone in public housing for hours -- if not days -- on end; these are all examples of poverty that don't seem to be going anywhere in the near future. However, that is not the extreme poverty addressed by Sachs.

Instead, he uses "The End of Poverty" to paint a vivid picture of what real, extreme poverty looks like and why it must and can be cured within the next 20 years. In Africa, for example, where there have been societal collapses in Sudan, the Congo, and Rwanda among other places, one of the main reasons why hostilities broke out in the first place was because the people in those countries were completely bereft of any kind of assistance or real means to live.

Work Inside the Home Is Still Work, Right?

{Theresa Funiciello, a former welfare mother, is the author of Tyranny of Kindness: Dismantling the Welfare System to End Poverty in America (Atlantic Monthly Press) This article was originally published in Ms. Magazine, April 1998.}

In a landmark divorce settlement, a Connecticut judge awarded an estimated $20 million of General Electric executive Gary Wendt’s assets to his former wife and the mother of his children, Lorna Wendt. She argued that she was an equal partner working with him to advance his career, that she’d given up her own career to raise their two daughters, and that her work in the home enabled his success—so current assets and stock options, and other deferred income earned during the 32 year marriage but not yet vested, were half hers. To a significant degree, the court confirmed the economic value as well as the social benefit of Lorna Wendt’s not quite invisible labor to her family and by extension, to GE. She’ll receive a bundle at least partly because, as the saying goes, “every mother is a working mother.”

Except, apparently, if you are poor. In the welfare debate that put an end to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Wendt’s point that mothering has value and is work was entirely missed. Tens of millions of adults in the U.S. were raised on welfare by poor mothers who managed to keep them alive and teach them values. The “results” are everywhere—doctors and truck drivers, waiters and teachers—contributors to society whose mothers stretched the puniest incomes to meet their families’ needs and sang all the lullabies by themselves.

But the national confusion over “work” has resulted in a system of so-called reform that negates these accomplishments and requires every needy mother to get a job outside the home, even if the family becomes poorer (less than one in three welfare mothers with a high school diploma escapes poverty through wage work). The new welfare law also effectively takes from poor mothers the power to decide how best to care for small children and hands it over lock, stock and barrel to the same welfare bureaucracy that so miserably administered AFDC. Competent, caring mothers who fail to sustain wage work risk the total withdrawal of income support. And although poor families are receiving less income assistance than before “reform,” government is actually paying billions more to states for everything from substandard child care to massive computer systems that became necessary for increased bureaucracy. Duh.

The point is not to restore AFDC to its former ignominy. Policymakers should be asking how to structure social or tax policy to secure—with dignity—food, shelter, and clothing, regardless of a person’s place of work. Instead, they focused on red herring issues like “dependency” (though surely welfare mothers were no more dependent than Gary Wendt). We already know what happens if income is unavailable to poor mothers with children. It was called the nineteenth century. It was not pretty.

Trouble is, too often slips of the tongue, and pen, breach feminists’ own pact, implying that the generic meaning of the word “work” is only that activity for which one is paid. In so doing, we allow wages (or the lack thereof) to define our own and our sisters’ value.

Whether hanging from the chandeliers of the glass ceiling or falling through the cracks in the floors below, we all remain cheap dates in the gross national product. Whether CEOs or cashiers, women’s jobs outside the home fetch the lowest relative wages because our historic work in the home is perceived as valueless. Many of the new, low-paying jobs are “mother replacements,” such as child care. The good news is that having had to pay for so much work that was once hidden hasn’t hurt the economy—it shows up these days in national statistics as employment growth.

On the other hand, leaving home for the marketplace doesn’t always help families or society, and those who stay home shouldn’t be forced to choose poverty and a slap in the face for “not working.”

We’re not by any stretch close to full productive choice. Redefining work and the benefits that ought to come from it is a start. Fashioning a modern distribution system that supports those without wages and those whose wages are insufficient, in a way that enhances a robust market economy and a healthy society, would help us cross safely into the new millennium. Tall order, yes. Impossible, no.

Wishing Death

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham announced on Tuesday that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and according to The National Ledger, she came through her cancer surgery successfully and will be back on the air tomorow. That's good. I'm happy for her. Cancer is a terrible disease and my heart goes out to anyone that is afflicted with this terrible illness.

I didn't write about this when I saw it originally posted on Newsmax.com because while I felt sorry for her, it wasn't the sort of thing I tend to report on. I favor more stories with universal appeal and the medical woes of one woman, albeit a famous one, doesn't interest me as far as what I employ this site for. However, while surfing blogs Wed night, I came across a site called "Crooks and Liars" that appears to be pretty liberal, which is fine and the author of the site handled the story well enough.

"We may disagree on many things Laura, but be well, good luck and come back soon."

If that had been the end of it I wouldn't be writing this post. This brief post garnered 30 comments by the time I stumbled upon it. Some of the comments were:

"awesome, I hope it's uncurable. Bitch"

"I wish Ann Coulter got it instead but then she is a man and men rarely get breast cancer."

"It's too bad they caught it in time."

"Wish for Ann, Testicular cancer"

"So I guess that having an abortion and being an lying right wing skank can cause breast cancer?"

"She's still hot." ::::shrugs:::

In all fairness, some of the comments simply wished her a speedy recovery while lamenting her politics while others were criticized for wishing death on the woman.

I have some questions here, how does being this way help you sell your ideas to a public that can be convinced to vote for George W. Bush...twice? How does wishing death on a political entertainer help your cause? Exactly how do suppose to win over people with that sort of rhetoric? Is this really how you want to be seen - as people who wish death on those who have philosophical differences from you?

I'm sure somebody is going to point out something that Rush Limbaugh said once upon a time, which they think will justify the vitriol being aimed at Ms. Ingraham. It doesn't. If Limbaugh or Hannity said something similar to the comments above about a liberal entertainer then they were wrong. However, political discourse shouldn't be denigrated down to "two wrongs make a right." For God's sake people, grow up. Like Henry Rollins once said, "Rise above!"

...It's like "The Secret of My Success" only less sexier and with more atomic weapons

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

I spend a good portion of this blog crying about Armageddon and such but there are certain times when I read current events and they trigger and rather silly image in my head. Usually I'm writing about how France does all it can to undermind the US such that outside of sharing intelligence and general trade, there's not much they can agree on. As it turns out, the US and France have a mutual interest in seeing regime change in Syria for a variety reasons. However, Iran has a stake in seeing the Assad regime staying put so now it is attempting to stroke France by mediating between them and Syria. Now this is the same Syria which just brought its troops out of Lebanon as promised and additionally is also where Iran's Hezbollah is trying to repackage itself as a political party. Meanwhile, France via President Jacques Chirac is pushing to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium, the key ingredient in making an atomic bomb. And then of course there's the US who appears to be wiping the egg of their face and the Iraq-WMD rhetoric, crossing the word "Iraq" and replacing it with "Iran".

In an international policy sense, these series of stories where nations jump back and forth to different sides of an issue reminds me of the end of the Michael J. Fox movie, "The Secret of My Success." At the end of the movie nearly the entire cast is jumping in and out of each other’s bed while trying to hide various affairs from each other until one of the leads announces, "That's it, the sexual revolution is over! Everybody out of the bed!"

Two specific articles caught my eye while surfing Google News on these topics. One from the World Peace Herald stated that, "Iranian President Mohammed Khatami is undertaking a mediation to ease tensions between Syria and France over Lebanon, reports said Tuesday.

Beirut's daily As-Safir quoted "informed sources" as saying Khatami exchanged letters in that regard with French President Jacques Chirac and Bashar Assad of Syria.

Syrian-French relations deteriorated significantly after Paris and Washington joined hands in passing U.N. resolution 1559 calling on Syria to pull its troops and intelligence personnel out of Lebanon."

The other one comes from the Daily Times out of Pakistan and it states, "A former US official said on Monday the Bush administration was inching more and more towards a regime change in Syria...He pointed out that when a senior State Department official was asked on a recent radio programme if the US now out to change the Syrian regime, she did not offer an answer. He said the course on which the administration was embarked carried “unintended consequences”. The administration wanted to achieve regime change in Damascus “on the cheap”...It is also the view in Washington that Iraq cannot be controlled without controlling Iran, he stressed. He said after 9/11, Syria provided invaluable intelligence to Washington that saved American lives. He added that the Bush administration does not see the world in terms of “nuances” and some of its policies defied logic.

In answer to a question, one of the panelists said it was those around Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who were pushing the Syria regime change policy forward. There was also pressure from French President Jacques Chirac who suspected Syria of being involved in the assassination of his friend and reported financial contributor, Lebanese leader Rafiq Harreri. In reply to another question, Leverett said there was no evidence that Syria had had any dealings with the AQ Khan network."

So let's review: the US seems to be hellbent to go to war in Iran and at least instigate revolution in Syria. France is all for regime change in Syria but would like to see Iran continue to dominate in the Middle East and more specifically stick it to the US. Iran wants an atomic bomb and is fusing its fate with that of Syria. France for all kinds of strange reasons doesn't seem to think there’s anything too wrong with Iran having an atomic weapon. France also wants to see the EU become a superpower antithesis to the US but it's own people will mostly likely vote "no" on the constitution and set the whole operation back for God only knows how long. And somewhere in the middle of all this are Russia, Venezuela, N. Korea, China/Taiwan and good old Cuba.

Everybody got all that? Good, because there will be a test at the sound of the BOOM...

Weapons Inspector Ends WMD Search in Iraq

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

OK, all you libs, progressives and Democrats...you get one free "I told you so" and that's all.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein's purported arsenal, the CIA's top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search for weapons of mass destruction "has been exhausted" without finding any.

Nor did Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, find any evidence that such weapons were shipped officially from Iraq to Syria to be hidden before the U.S. invasion, but he couldn't rule out some unofficial transfer of limited WMD-related materials.

He closed his effort with words of caution about potential future threats and careful assessment of this and other unanswered questions.

The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD."

Now unofficially anthing is possible but as it stands now the Bush administration and its subsequent intelligence agencies made a huge error selling their war strictly on the potential threat of WMD's. I will concede this much, based on the above story Iraq was certainly not an "imminent threat". I would venture to guess however, that if we had chosen not to go to war with Iraq then the sanctions would have come down in short order and eventually, someday, Iraq would have posed the sort of problem Bush and co. thought they were posing when our boots landed on the grounds of Baghdad.

For all of the people who thought the war was a good idea based soley on WMD's and then felt cheated and or lied to, I suppose your feelings have been validated. As I've said before, I never thought that was our true intent though I'm disappointed we can't find evidence that material was both dumped in rivers and shipped to Syria. But like I said, that's the official word, I suppose anything is possible and we don't yet what kind of evidence Syria may be sitting on. However, given our luck so far I would have to think I'm holding out for a fools ransom.

World ignores Republic of Congo's crisis - U.N.

Well, at least the UN and I agree on one thing. I saw this after I posted the next column so read both as the introduction applies to both stories.

KINKALA, Congo, April 23 (Reuters) - Less than 3 percent of funds needed to tackle a humanitarian emergency in the Republic of Congo have been received, highlighting the oil-producer's plight as a forgotten nation in crisis, the United Nations said.

Congo's civil war officially ended in 1999 but sub-Saharan Africa's fourth biggest oil producer has no peacekeeping force and is struggling to disarm former rebels who continue to attack civilians in the Pool region, far from international eyes.
"This is scandalous. We need to have a better response to this emergency," Aurelien Agbenonci, the head of the U.N. in Congo, told Reuters in an interview.

"Of the nearly $22 million needed, just over 20 percent has been promised and under three percent has actually been given," he said. "This is a low-level conflict which appears not to interest people as there is neither war nor peace."

Despite the official truce, clashes in 2002 and 2003 between government soldiers and the rebels, known as Ninjas, rocked the peace process and undermined a disarmament programme in the central African country of three million people.

Thousands of Ninjas, named after ancient Japanese warriors glamourised by Hollywood, who have not been disarmed and are no longer part of a structured rebel movement roam around the Pool region west of the capital Brazzaville.

Known for their trademark purple scarves and Rasta-style dreadlocks, the gunmen live off civilians and reguarly hijack the train that links the landlocked capital to the oil-producing coastal town of Pointe Noire.

There are no international peacekeepers in Congo, a former French colony, and analysts say the government seems unwilling, or unable, to put an end to the attacks in Pool.

The U.N. is due to open an office in Kinkala, a town at the heart of the Pool region, but Agbenonci said media attention on other conflicts around the world had taken its toll and the lack funds meant several aid agencies working in Pool may shut down.

"I also know many aid workers who used to work here but who have ended up being pulled out and sent to Darfur. This is very symbolic of our problem," he said.

According to the U.N., thousands were killed during Congo's war -- some put the toll as high as 10,000 -- and some 150,000 civilians fled the latest bout of violence in March 2003.

Although Congo is rich in oil, Pool is an economic backwater where many schools have remained closed for up to eight years, there are few health facilities and the road to the coast has been reduced to deeply rutted paths cut into the red soil.

Agbenonci said the humanitarian and economic woes of the region needed to be addressed to avoid reigniting the conflict.
"The stability of the Pool is the stability of the whole of Congo but it doesn't seem to be a priority. There are no resources in Pool, just its people," he said. "There is a very free flow of weapons, so there is still a risk of rebellion."

"This place is a time bomb we need to defuse."

"Ninjas" roam and loot in Congo's lawless Pool

At some point later in the week I'll be posting a link to my new book review, "The End of Poverty" by Jefferey Sachs. In that book Professor Sachs states that the US among other "rich" countries have already signed on the dotted line to fund programs designed to lift Africa out of extreme poverty and give it the chance to succeed that both India and China have had. The magic number is 0.7% of our GDP I believe. Mind you, we've already said we'd do this. The problem is we actually haven't. What we give Africa amounts to $.16 per person. That person has to use that $.16 to combat AIDS and malaria, acquire food, shelter and clothing, and possibly educate their young. They obviously can't and the result is what we're seeing in the Congo and the Sudan as well as what we've seen in Liberia and Rwanda. It's like we have the cure for what ails an entire continent and react by saying, "meh...let'em die." It's malign neglect and in this country if you did what we're doing to Africa to a child you'd be arrested and your child would be up for adoption (unless you live in Florida, then your child would just die).

There's a ton of blogs talking about the filibuster fight, the Minutemen, Tom Delay, and of course the new Pope. This is my fight, for as long as I have this blog and the ability to write I will keep jumping up and down and pointing at a continent on fire as much as one man with an internet connection can. No desire to "bring democracy to the world" can be taken seriously when "Ninjas" are free to attack UN convoys and child armies are as big a problem as Iraqi suicide bombers.

From Reuters: MINDOULI, Congo, April 24 (Reuters) - The U.N. convoy was meant to deliver aid and attend a soccer tournament to mark reconciliation between rebels and government forces in the Republic of Congo's troubled Pool region.
But at the first checkpoint, Pool's top official was pulled by drunken "Ninja" rebels from his car. At the second roadblock, dope-smoking, grenade-wielding fighters looted whatever aid and valuables they could find in the U.N. vehicles.

"Go and tell (President Denis) Sassou Nguesso that Pool is for the rebels and he shouldn't send his government men here, let alone in U.N. convoys," barked a rebel, who went by the name of "The Laughing Cow", as he poked grenades into the U.N. vehicles on Saturday.

The United Nations says the humanitarian emergency in this thickly-forested part of sub-Saharan Africa's fourth biggest oil producer is a forgotten crisis: where war may have ended but there is no peace.

Congo's conflict officially ended in 1999 but there were clashes several times in 2002 and 2003 between fighters based in Pool, led by the charismatic Pastor Frederic Ntoumi, and forces loyal to the president.

While the rebels say they are willing to join a disarmament process, bands of gunmen continue to pillage villages and hijack passenger and goods trains travelling through Pool, which is west of the capital Brazzaville on the way to the oil-producing coastal town of Pointe Noire.

Few in Mindouli, a dusty town several kms (miles) down the rutted, red dirt road from the Ninja checkpoints, were surprised by the harassment, saying that's a taste of reality in Pool.

"This is what people here have to endure every day each time they try and travel by road or take the train to the coast or the capital," said an aid worker in the town.

PLENTY OF WEAPONS

Congo is an oil-rich nation attracting millions of dollars of investment but analysts question the government's capacity and will to resolve the festering crisis in Pool.

Many in the convoy said the roadblock was symptomatic of the problem -- a government that cannot control the territory and bands of armed youths roaming around the region with little leadership, hope or education but plenty of weapons.
Aid workers said the pillaging and lack of roads, many of which have disappeared into the red earth and thick scrub, leave Pool's residents with few options other than subsistence farming which just entrenches their poverty.

The "Ninja" rebels, named after ancient Japanese warriors glamourised by Hollywood, have shaved the trademark Rasta-style dreadlocks they had vowed to keep until the end of the war.

But the looters, some barechested, some barefoot, others in football shirts, drugged, holding Kalshnikov assault rifles, knives, machetes and grenades, still looked menacing.

They scattered into the bushes with their booty when bursts of automatic gunfire announced the arrival of their superiors, sporting purple scarves and Rasta-style woolly hats even though their tresses have now been shorn.

In Mindouli, a town bristling with government soldiers to protect a minister who flew in by helicopter to watch the soccer games, a senior government official played down the problems.

Paul Ngoma -- deputy to the man dragged from his car by the rebels a few hours earlier before being released -- said he was in control and the government was tackling the problem.

"Of course there are a few bandits who try and take advantage of the situation but in general the situation is very calm," he said.

"I think a forgotten crisis is a too strong. We represent the state and we are regulating the situation."

Vichy France 2000

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

France is playing with fire which may ultimately end up burning both Europe and America. I've been saying in the last couple of posts that the US needs to understand that world is slouching toward multi-polarity whether we like it or not and it would be advantageous to start strategizing with that in mind. I think we have begun to pass the "Unipolar moment" and now the US needs to reconfigure its new role in the world. However, that goes doubly so for France, which has a different problem. Their collective approach to world affairs is to do what strictly benefits the French surpassing the US as a global leader. Chirac and company are no more multi-polarist than the neo-cons in Washington. Unfortunately, as I've stated above, their Napoleonic quest to return to greatness at the cost of the US will most likely result in tragedy for both our countries.

First there's this from an April 13th Reuters story: "French President Jacques Chirac has been pushing the EU to drop its refusal to consider letting Iran enrich uranium, despite U.S. and European fears Iran could use enrichment technology for weapons, EU diplomats say...the talks took a new turn last month when negotiators from the EU's "big three" (EU3) and the office of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana agreed in Paris to consider an Iranian proposal that it keep a small-scale enrichment programme that would be closely monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Several diplomats said this shift -- which came just after Washington bolstered the EU position by offering its own incentives if Tehran scrapped enrichment -- was mainly the result of pressure by Chirac, who pushed the French Foreign Ministry to drop its refusal to consider Iran's plan.

"Jacques Chirac ... is the one who's taking the Iranian proposal under consideration," said an EU3 diplomat, adding the French president had the final say on foreign policy matters."

So while Chirac is apparently attempting to play the Iranians against us as a check, the French as a whole are showing their true racist yet globally inept colors by voting "no" on the EU constitution citing Turkey as the problem.

This from Zaman.com: "While the French have been intensively discussing the constitution, which they want to be in line with their traditions, one of the most important matters of debate is Turkey's possible future EU membership. Several French politicians from right to left on the political spectrum link Turkey's membership with the constitution and are calling on the French public to vote "no" on May 29th. It is an exaggeration to say that French people will vote "no" on the constitution only because of Turkey. As a matter of fact, French people also complain about the EU's moving away from the concept of enlargement and the understanding of a social state. One of the most controversial issues, however, is Turkey. Some French citizens, despite the fact that they would probably vote "yes" to Turkey's membership in a referendum that will be held after 10 or 15 years if Turkey completes EU negotiations with success, are asking "Why do we wait for 15 years? Let's say "no" to Turkey as of now." Turning the so-called Armenian "genocide" allegations into a principle in the world for the first time, France has a public, which has the deepest objection to Turkey's EU membership. Thıs attitude in France is hypocritical. As a matter of fact, Turkey's "tough" secularism, administrative system and linguistic borrowings when it encountered with the modern West are all from France. İn short, France has parallels with Turkey. Despite this fact, Turks are anxious this time that their march towards Europe will be blocked in Paris. It is rumored that French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said: "Forget about negotiations on October 3rd." if the French would vote "no" on the Constitution in the referendum on May 29th."

Just so we all understand, then French are stroking the Iranians while attempting to alienate Turkey. While I continue to believe the French are not our enemy per se, I do believe their rather acute way of dealing with international politics is an accident waiting to happen.

Syrians End Military Presence in Lebanon

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

The party is over in Lebanon. But what does it all mean? Is this the beginning of warmer relations between Beirut and Washington, especially where Israel is concerned or will this be more of the same Islamist nationalism that tends to place itself against the interests of the US/Israel? One of the big questions is what about Hezbollah? That group is essentially the defacto army of militant Islam and its orders come from our seemingly newest target of pre-empitve agression, Iran.

Speaking of which, Iranian Foreign Minister KamalKharrazi on Saturday accused the United States of creating crisis in Lebanon, saying the Lebanese themselves should solve the country's problems, the official IRNA news agency reported. "The Americans are trying to create crisis in Lebanon and takeadvantage of critical situation there, while Lebanon's problems should be solved by its own people," Kharrazi was quoted as sayingin a meeting with leader of the Lebanon Socialist Progressive Party Walid Joumblatt. (xinhua.net)

Meanwhile, "Najib Mikati, Lebanon's prime minister designate, on Friday pledged that legislative elections would be held on time, while the country's two top security chiefs appeared on their way out - two key demands of the opposition and the US." (new.ft.com)

One can only hope that words, not bullets (as said in the in the new movie "The Interpreter") will be the norm in the coming years throughout the Middle East. This story out of Qatar may be a small bit of hope, "Lebanon’s Hezbollah said prisoner exchange negotiations with its arch-foe Israel were reaching a decisive stage but warned it could resort to force to free the last Lebanese detainees if talks failed." Threats of violence are the norm so to me the important thing here is that Hezbollah and Israeli officials are actually talking rather than shooting at one another.

Here is the full story from the AP:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Syrian troops burned documents and dismantled military posts in their final hours in Lebanon Sunday, before deploying toward the border and effectively ending 29 years of military presence in the country.
A few score Syrian troops will remain in Lebanon for a farewell ceremony Tuesday that the Lebanese Army plans to hold in a town close to the Syrian border.

In Damascus, the Syrian capital, a government official said: "Within the next few hours, all the troops will be out of Lebanon."
"What will be left are those who will take part in the official farewell" on Tuesday, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In the border town of Anjar, home of Syria's chief of military intelligence in Lebanon, Syrian officials appeared to be going about their business as usual Sunday.

But at the Deir el-Ahmar base, Syria's last major garrison in the Bekaa Valley, 15 tanks rolled on to flatbed trucks, ready for the drive home, witnesses told The Associated Press. Soldiers burned papers, knocked down walls and loaded ammunition on to trucks.

Syrian troops had already vacated at least 10 positions in the northern part of the Bekaa Valley on Saturday. Dozens of trucks carrying hundreds of soldiers and at least 150 armored vehicles, towing artillery pieces and rocket launchers, crossed the border into Syria, witnesses said.

"Tomorrow everything will be over," a Lebanese military officer said Saturday, speaking on condition of anonymity, as is typical for military officials here.

On Tuesday, Lebanese troops at a base in Rayak, few miles from the Syrian border, will conduct a ceremony to pay tribute to the Syrian Army's role in Lebanon, a Lebanese military officer said.

Afterward, the token Syrian force will leave, and there will not be a single Syrian soldier left in Lebanon. The Syrians entered Lebanon in 1976, ostensibly as peacekeepers in the year-old civil war. After the war ended in 1990, 40,000 Syrian troops remained in Lebanon, giving Damascus the decisive say in Lebanese politics.

Syria began withdrawing from Lebanon last month following international and Lebanese pressure in the wake of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14.

In September 2004, when the number of Syrian troops in Lebanon stood at about 14,000, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling on Syria to withdraw all its troops and intelligence operatives.

Last week, Lebanese and Syrian officials said the remaining 1,000 troops would be gone by April 26.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said last week he was delaying until Tuesday the release of a report to the Security Council on Syria in Lebanon so he could confirm the full withdrawal.

New Review: South Park Conservatives

As part of the series of changes on this site, whenever a new review of mine has been posted on Popandpolitics.com I will cross promote it here with a short excerpt and a link to the site as well as a link on the sidebar under Mark Radulich's Book Reviews.

From the review:

“South Park Conservatives” by Brian C. Anderson narrates the new of era neo-conservatives and their standard bearers in the new media. It is essentially a who’s who guide to new conservatism in mainstream news and politics. It also paints the reader a picture of who the new, young, conservatives are and what they are all about.

The very name “South Park Conservative” is copped from conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who originally coined the phrase “South Park Republicans.” Here Sullivan is referring to the new breed of conservatives who cannot be easily pinned down on all social milieus and are just as likely to be wearing penny loafers and sports jackets as they are a “metal up your ass – Metallica t-shirt” and Doc Marten combat boots.

Anderson covers all of the players in the skyrocketing conservative movement who have been challenging what they perceive as a liberal media hegemony. The usual suspects are talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, conservative publishing houses like Regnery, a rising tide of organized college Republicans, and what Anderson refers to as the anti-liberals.

Somebody do something about the U.S. birthrate plunge

[This essay was written by Diane Pagen from Caregivercredit.org]

On Thursday, April 21st, USA today had a front page article, "US is getting old fast." It says we are only 25 years away from the impending crisis of having senior citizens outnumber children. The article suggests that the interests of children and the elderly will then compete for precious and limited tax dollars.

The article fails to mention one of the major causes of the crisis: that women all over the Western world are having far fewer children. In the U.S., they are doing this in part because our nation has no financial supports or incentives to bear the children that we need to replace those of us who are aging, or to take care of us in our final fragile years, as we all live about a decade longer than we did years ago.

While some believe that women are not having more kids simply because they don’t want to, there is data to show that is not exactly the case. Phil Longman wrote in his book, The Empty Cradle that for example, women born in 1960 desired an average of 2.3 children, but only produced 1.9.

Despite the fact that a proactive national policy, in the form of expanded refundable tax credits perhaps, plus more societal respect for those who raise kids, would likely reduce the impending disaster of having not enough caregivers to take care of the aging, government has not yet done anything to acknowledge our plummeting birthrates. What's more, it continues to foster an American culture where mothering (or parenting) full time is looked down upon for women who do not have a private source of income to sustain it (such as a high earning husband or a salary of her own from a paid job). Women in their twenties are actively not getting pregnant or choosing abortion, because they want to adhere to society’s expectation that they "make something of themselves" before having kids. As if having children were in itself nothing.

If women, particularly low-income women, felt respected in their role of mother, and if financial supports were available in a way that did not stigmatize, our birthrate would probably rise, and come 2030, we’d have millions more twenty somethings to be their for our seniors. When is our government going to take steps to address this enormous social and economic crisis that is at our heels? A government that promotes family values cannot continue to ignore how U.S. policies discourage having children.

As a 36 year old, college educated woman who still wants to bear children but has been putting it off so as not to be plunged into poverty, I know that I am not alone in this problem that is so ironic because more children are so desperately needed now.

We all need an immediate governmental response in the form of greater respect and income supports for people who are willing to take care of other people, whether children or aging people. Not every job that needs doing is in the paid marketplace. The sooner we free some of us up to do unpaid work, the sooner this crisis will be averted.