THAT - AMERICAN GUY

[Bush: 'We have a problem with Sharon'

Haaretz is a credible Israeli newspaper that runs read-worthy analyses from time to time. I am not very well amused with their biased columns against Iran, though, unless I have just happened to come across those particular items.

In an article carried yesterday, it argues that US foreign policy is shifting from the Israeli to the Palestinian side. This article contains some interesting dialogues that occurred between George Bush, Israeli, and Palestinian authorities in a three-way meeting last week. According to a participant at the meeting Bush also told his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "I see that we have a problem with Sharon," while saying of the Palestinians led by Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, "We can work with them."

In another part of the discussion, an irritated Bush, according to the paper's source, reacted with "Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service." to the Israeli defense minister's previous remark. The Israeli official had commented "Well, they won't be getting any help from us; they have their own security service." And when the minister shook his head and said: "I do not think that we can help them, Mr. President", Bush responded "Oh, but I think that you can. And I think that you will."]


After reading certain blogs and the all to frequent - Anti US biased news articles lately, it was refreshing to find this entry on Whooman's blog. --American Guy

Christian Science Monitor - By Scott Peterson
Sep 25, 2003
(My comments are written in italics and embeded in the article. --American Guy)


A saber-rattling military parade in Tehran this week belies a number of diplomatic openings.

TEHRAN: As a half-dozen of Iran's most advanced ballistic missiles roll by, at the climax of a military parade this week, the anti-US rhetoric appears unchanged.

"We will crush America under our feet," the painted lettering reads, on the Shahab-3 missile - a rocket with a 1,000-mile range that the Islamic Republic vows can "hit the heart of the enemy" US-ally Israel. - (I'd like to point out that Israel is NOT IRAN'S ENEMY. --American Guy)
But behind the scenes, analysts say that the US occupation of Iraq - and continued instability there - is prompting both Tehran and Washington to reappraise their archenemy status, and find a number of pragmatic reasons not to antagonize each other.

"The Iranians are up for [a deal], to a point. They don't want a fight," says Ali Ansari, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. "On the US side, they don't want to make any more enemies in the region. If they antagonize [Iran], hard-liners could whip up real trouble." ...


...But a visit to Tehran a week ago by Jordan's King Abdullah II, followed by his trip to Washington to meet President George Bush at Camp David, may have been a key link.

"[Abdullah] received some new analysis about the region from President [Mohammad] Khatami and Foreign Minister [Kamal] Kharrazi, and transferred that analysis to the US," says Abbas Maleki, Iran's former deputy foreign minister who now runs a Caspian studies institute in Tehran.

Indeed, before visiting Bush, the Jordanian monarch told The Washington Post that he had found "common ground" between US and Iranian security interests, including a mutual fear of the threat from Al Qaeda and Sunni Muslim extremists.
The king said there is "common grounds for a dialogue," between the US and Iran, adding that a shift in policy is "a decision that [Bush is] going to make."

Though Iran remains on Bush's "axis of evil" list, strategic concerns may be causing a tactical thaw.

"We now have more border with the US [occupied countries] than Canada, and we hope this makes the US familiar with realities in the region," says Mr. Maleki. As the US military gets more deeply embroiled in postwar Iraq, anti-Iran rhetoric has tapered off, he says, "because they reached the conclusion they can't fight on different fronts."

Western diplomats and analysts in Tehran dismiss US claims from Baghdad that Iran is systematically seeking to undermine the Iraq occupation, saying that Iran also has a stake in stability there.

"Iran has no interest in creating, or being linked to, any kind of problems the Americans are facing in Iraq," says a Western diplomat. "They understand the price to be paid for doing that.

"If in some circles, [Iranians] are happy when Americans are killed in Iraq, the government and many conservatives don't share that joy," the diplomat adds. "Every setback for the Americans is bad news, because it lengthens the occupation and delays the moment when the Shiite [majority] will take control."

"They didn't raise a finger, and Saddam Hussein is gone. They didn't raise a finger, and the Americans are in trouble without them," notes another, senior Western diplomat. "The principle is not to act. I'm not saying they don't do anything [against the US in Iraq], but the role is marginal."

Secret back-channel meetings are known to have been held during the past two years. And despite the show of force on Monday - the largest parade of its kind in Iran for years, with everything on display from tanks and drones to heavy artillery - Iranian leaders sought to strike a balance.

"Even if we don't give a pretext to the enemy, they will find one," Khatami told the thousands of troops. "Despite all the pressure from our enemies, we will pursue our policy of de'tente, but we will also insist on becoming stronger." --(Uh, Khatami, It's like a little late to "not give the US a pretext". Sheesh! --American Guy)
The influential hard-line Revolutionary Guard commander, Brig. Gen. Yahya Rahim-Safavi, said the "powerful" display showed that Iran is "ready to help establish peace in the region." --(Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! - American Guy)

Those looking for a shaft of light on US-Iran ties, point to an article several months ago by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful chair of the Expediency Council. He described ways to solve the problem, that included intervention by Iran's supreme religious leader - who has final say on all foreign policy issues - a referendum, or even a vote in parliament. --Those looking for a shaft of light should look elsewhere. Rafsanjani is NOT a purveyor of light!!! The ONLY reason he would say those things is to help the regime hold onto its power. A referendum is needed, but I have no faith that the current regime would allow a fair vote if ousting them was one of the options. --American Guy)
Interest in better bilateral relations has already filtered down to the street. Iranians are obsessed, pro and con, with America.

"The situation in Iraq has caused [Iranian leaders] to change their mind. They know there is no other way than friendship with the US. It's the only way to save Iran and the Iranians," [ie; Regime's stranglehold on power. --American Guy] says Kimia, a recent professional-school graduate. "I'm not a pro-American woman ... and people are not impressed with the Afghan and Iraqi examples. But people are tired and want to be free, and think [US ties] could be a good way."

Such high regard has led some here to expect US intervention, following Bush's encouragement of antiregime demonstrations last June. Upon hearing an American accent, Iranians often ask: "America good! When will Bush come?"

But anti-US actions often match the flag-burning public rhetoric. One example is the case of the Abbas Abdi - one of the students who took over the US embassy more than 20 years ago, who has since become a staunch reformer. Mr. Abdi was jailed last November, charged with "providing information to the enemies of the Islamic regime" for conducting a poll that found 75 percent of Iranians favoring renewed ties with the US. --( Yes, exactly! They have no desire to let go of their power, and anyone who believes their rhetoric, is a fool. --American Guy)
And there are still key obstacles that threaten any possibility of US-Iran warming. One is the officially confirmed presence in Iran of a handful of top Al Qaeda leaders, though their circumstances - are they being hosted or detained and by whom? - are unclear, diplomats say.

Among them are believed to be Osama bin Laden's son, Saad, the movement's No. 2 and No. 3, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel, and spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith.

Considering the long-standing enmity between Al Qaeda and Iran, analysts here say that the Al Qaeda presence is a high-stakes bargaining chip.

"[Iran] feels it has a hot potato, and doesn't know what to do with it," says a senior Western diplomat. "They don't like Al Qaeda, and had less contact with Al Qaeda than even the CIA did before Sept. 11."

Iran initially denied the presence of any Al Qaeda members, then extradited a handful to Saudi Arabia early last year. Iran has reportedly told the US and other countries that Al Qaeda leaders in Iran have now been detained, and are not allowed to communicate.

"The really difficult moment will be if there is a major attack on a Western target or America," says a Western diplomat. "If something is remotely tied to Qaeda operating in Iran - something that could have been prevented, if Iran had handled it right - I would hate to see the reaction from Washington."

And that possibility feeds skeptics in Tehran. "Because of the open hostility of Bush to Iran, the basis for those who want [US-Iran] relations is very weak," says Taha Hashemi, editor of the conservative Entekhab newspaper. "But as we say in Persian, there are many hopes in disappointment."


--Very weak indeed! There remains open hostility on both sides, not just from Bush. And the "open hostility" comming from our side is saying "Change your ways or else", while they say "death to America". How do you join sides with a regime like that? I guess what Iran is doing right now is learning from observing US/Saudi relations and trying to emulate them. Big difference though; Saudi Arabia does their dirty work secretly, while Iran is forced to vilify America publicly in order to hold onto power. There is no clean way our government can work with that. --American Guy.
PS: I'd like to point out, that the Iranian people are also saying to their leaders: "Change your ways, or else. -- American Guy

From the Wall Street Journal, editorial page.

The Unpopularity Contest:
"What would you say is your biggest shortcoming?" When an employer asks this question during a job interview, the safest way to answer is by offering self-flattery thinly disguised as self-criticism: "Well, sometimes I have a tendency to work too darn hard." Moderator Brian Williams asked a similar question in last night's debate: "What in office, as president, would be the least popular, most right thing you would do?" Most of the candidates shoveled vigorously: wa hahahaha! :-)

Bob Graham: " I would begin the process of rebuilding America's relationship with the world."


John Kerry: "I intend to take the politics out of how we are going to guarantee that Social Security is sound into the future."


John Edwards: "In this effort to protect ourselves and fight our war on terrorism, we cannot allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights, our freedom and our liberties."


Carol Moseley Braun: "I would work to build community and civil society and fight the discrimination against women in daily life."
Way to go out on a limb there, guys! Only Dennis Kucinich gave a straight answer to the question:

Three things come to mind. First, I would take action to stop the federal death penalty.

Second, I would move to cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent, which would in no way affect adversely our national defense, and put the money into child care.

Third, I would move to create a Department of Peace which would seek to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society and to work with the nations of the world to make war itself archaic.

These ideas actually are unpopular--and with good reason. While there are respectable arguments against capital punishment, slashing defense during wartime and creating a Department of Peace are truly loopy ideas.


The most revealing answer, though, came from Joe Lieberman: "I'm going to prosecute the war against terrorism and win it even if it's unpopular, because that's where our future security rests." That Lieberman would think this an "unpopular" position just two years after Sept. 11 speaks volumes about his party.
---IT SURE DOES. I think Lieberman is the only Democrat who understands the nature of the threat we're facing. Scary. --American Guy

I continue to support Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. Here's why:

1. It will shake up California politics for years to come.

2. He came to America with little more than a dream and has become one of the most successful Californians.

3. That kind of drive and ambition combined with his pro business, pro education stance will help our state where it is most needed.

So, what's wrong with the other candidates? I'll tell you:

While I like Mclintock, he has little chance of winning enough votes from our liberal majority to win the election. He impressed me in the debate, and I have no doubt that he would make a good governor, but one thing I kept hearing him say left me shaking my head. "Deregulation". Isn't deregulation what gave the big power companies the ability to yank Californians around by the balls a couple years ago? That fiasco resulted in businesses leaving the state, huge power bills and debts we are still paying on. So just what is it he wants to deregulate? I might ad that the big push for deregulation by the Republicans a decade or so ago always sounded backwards to me, and just look at the results. That brought us Enron, Worldcom, global crossing and the California energy manipulations. (There really wasn't a shortage, hence "manipulations.)

Bustamante is even more corrupt and short sighted than Davis. He and Davis have bought votes by passing or supporting legislation that is astoundingly stupid!! Such as drivers licenses for undocumented foreigners who are in the state illegally in the first place. That's just DUMB! Before the recall they were against it but now that they need the Hispanic vote they are for it. That's buying votes. Then there is his accepting of bribes from Indian gaming interests. That was blatantly illegal! And now a Judge agrees with me and has ordered him to give them back. "Oh sorry, spent it already." What a creep! Ok, deep breaths, calming down now.

Ariana and that Green party dude don't stand a chance. It's now a 3 way race, between Bustamante, Shwarzeneggar and Mclintock.

I hope Mclintock will bow out, so we don't end up going from bad to worse. I have mixed feelings on the corect timing for this, however. Maybe staying in till the last minute might turn out best for Arnold in the long run.

Speaking during Friday prayers, Ayatollah Jannati said Iran should "under no circumstances" sign the "additional protocol" to the NPT, the agreement that would allow for enhanced inspections of nuclear facilities and is demanded by the IAEA. "[It] is imposing an extra humiliation," he said.

"What's the problem about withdrawing from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty? North Korea withdrew. Many countries have not even signed it."

Well maybe if you weren't always threatening foreign countries with "death" and such, the IAEA wouldn't be so concerned!!! And thank you, Ayatollah plutonium breath for confirming that President Bush was right about his "Axis of Evil" theory. Keep it up my friend, and the citizens of Iran will soon be free. Long live freedom and liberty in IRAN!

So there! :-)

Back in the 1980's an alternative newspaper in Seattle had a weekly section devoted to the latest "fatwahs" (well, almost) issued by Jerry Falwell against America's gay community. The section was known as "Fallwells Follies". Except for the fact that reverend Falwells comments affected real human beings, Falwells Follies could get me to ROFLMHO. Part of what made it so funny is that Jerry Falwell takes himself so seriously. The column satirized his almost weekly rants against those Americans who choose to pursue - "life Liberty and happiness" in a different way than he did.

Sometimes as I read the latest Friday "Prayers" from Teheran, I am reminded of that old newspaper section.

So I hereby inaugurate my new, almost weekly section I'll refer to as "Friday's Follies". (At least for now, it's the best name I can think of so far, but I'm open to suggestions.)

I have updated my comments provider to HaloScan. I agree, the other host sucked. Now you can rant all you want. :-)

Fascinating article with lots of opinions from ordinary Iraqis. Here is an excerpt:

America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem?

Up to now we've only been able to guess. We've relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time recently in Iraq -- I was an embedded reporter during the war -- have been puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more negative than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have been telling us.

Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

Beckham Billboards Blacked Out in Iran

September 19, 2003
Reuters
Reuters.co.uk



TEHRAN -- David Beckham's face -- one of the most well-recognised in the world -- has been blacked out on billboards in Iran's capital in an apparent backlash against Western cultural influence.

Five billboards which carried a head and shoulders shot of the Real Madrid and England soccer star advertising engine oil have been draped in black cloth and television commercials featuring Beckham's famous legs have been pulled off the air.

"It happened two days ago in the middle of the night," a source familiar with the advertising campaign told Reuters on Friday. "They came and put black cloth over all the boards; first over Beckham's face and then over the whole thing."

The rest of the story

And this is probably all my fault too, bearing my sexy 16 year old legs in public. If you can remember late 70's US short styles, you may recall that what we were wearing were barely shorts. To a Muslim cleric I'm sure they seemed pornagraphic. So sorry.

["This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude — a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid, implemented for over a millennium across three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and still influential in Islamic nations’ policies toward non-Muslim populations. The native “infidel” populations of lands conquered by Islamic armies were required to pay the jizya, recognize Islamic ownership of their land and accept laws forbidding them to own weapons, ring church bells, build new places of worship or repair old ones, testify in Muslim courts, or dress like Muslims. If they complained about these inequalities, they risked forfeiting their “protection.”]

Although many Muslims are good people, I am increasingly convinced the Islam itself is rooted in Evil doctrine. I would refuse to pay my "jizya". String me up if you must, but I will never forsake my lord and savior Jesus Christ. I would not pay extortion to the Mafia, nor will I to a muslim cleric - no matter whose will he says it is!.

Fascinating article!

Buying influence from RafsanJani (the younger)? "

"Mr. Loeddesoel said that the size of the Horton contract, its 11-year time frame and the fact that deposits were being made to a Swiss bank account worried him more than Mr. Rafsanjani's family connections."

How silly of them. Don't they know the regime wont last that long?

["The answer is not pleasant. This war, in the most basic sense of a fight to defend our freedom, our society of liberty and justice, is far larger than Iraq, Afghanistan or even the entire Middle East. The real war here is the old human struggle of good versus evil, a war that is part of what we are, part of the long volatile history of mankind. Never has there been so much to celebrate; rarely has there been more peril. Among individuals, we cannot hope to eliminate entirely all cold and gloating killers, people such as al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri, drunk on his dreams of destruction, threatening in recent weeks to launch "an attack that will make you forget Manhattan." There will always be someone who delights in terror and ruin, and seeks ways to inflict it. And as we all know, modern technology, along with its mighty blessings, offers arsenals so terrifying we can all have our moments of wishing to live forever suspended in that last spell of denial, the 10th of September."]

I wholeheartedly agree. Read more right here.

But I'm glad to be back home. I attended an educational seminar over the weekend and learned lots of stuff. The workshops ran from 7:15 AM till 6 or so in the evening and were then followed by dinner and entertainment. Because I didn't want to miss anything, I returned at least as tired as I was before I left. Not complaining though.

Utah has beautiful scenery, but I seem to be alergic to it. Everytime I go up there I sneeze and sniffle the whole time. It doesn't matter what time of year it is, so it has to be something other than the vegetation. I have a bit of an attitude over Utah's air quality. It seems they all think California has "air polution" and Utah has "fresh mountain air". HELLO! Here are the facts: California gets the air first and then sends Utah, Nevada and Arizona the leftovers. Utah has some of the highest levels of PM10's and PM 2.5 air pollution in the whole country. Utah never does anything to clean up their air that they aren't forced to do by the EPA. They have steel mills, copper smelters, open pit mining, oil refineries and other industries that belch out polutants which can only be measured in "tons per day". The entire state of Utah has a mere 2 million people, the population of San Diego County is simmilar, but 1/20th the size, yet our air is cleaner 99% of the time. Cough cough. Sorry, rant over.

Anyway - It's nice to be home.

I thought this was an excellent commentary In today's Wall Street Journal. I too held out hope in 1993, but I and most of the rest of Western civilization were wrong. Arafat had never given up on anilation of Israel. Arafat can not and will not bring peace. He is worse than useless. I wholeheartedly agree with the commentary.

The End of 'Arafat'
Even if he lives, the idea of him must die.

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Reflecting the views of Israel's Cabinet, Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said publicly over the weekend that "killing" Yasser Arafat was "one of the options." Secretary of State Colin Powell of course had to say that exiling or executing Arafat would incite Arab rage, that it would be most unhelpful to the peace process, etc., etc.

The truth is that Yasser Arafat's moment in history has ended. The world would do well to think hard about how it came to pass, after so many years and so much talk and blood, that the era of Arafat arrived at this endpoint--with Israel saying that it may be worth the trouble simply to kill him. How far we've come from the Rose Garden in 1993.

It is a fine irony that Mr. Powell spoke of the need to soldier on with Yasser Arafat while the Secretary himself was standing in Baghdad for the first time. Mr. Powell is in Baghdad because President Bush concluded after September 11, and after the political failure of the first Gulf War, that the years of Western self-delusion about the nature of global terror must be brought to an end. Similarly, the delusions about Arafat also must now end.

"Arafat" should enter history not merely as the name of one autocratic man, but as the name we assign to an entire Western phenomenon of false thinking. "Arafat," we now see, has come to represent the act of self-delusion on a massive, international scale. "Arafat" is about refusing to believe that an adversary is simply irredeemable. Most importantly at this particular moment, "Arafat" is about allowing barbarism, or its techniques, to challenge the political tenets of civilized life.

For years the Western nations that emerged from World War II and the Cold War have been playing with fire by pretending that their world and the alternative world of "Arafat" could somehow coexist. More than anything, this impossible notion reflected political and moral fatigue. Thus in the 1990s, the world came very close to letting "Arafat," this time in the person of Slobodan Milosevic, achieve its logical end on European soil, again. But the United States intervened and Milosevic is on trial for crimes against civilized humanity. George W. Bush's decision to go to war against the regime of Saddam Hussein was the opposite of "Arafat" thinking; it was a decision to refute "Arafat."

If you look at the Nobel Prizes' own biography of Yasser Arafat, you find this remarkable sentence toward the end: "Like other Arab regimes in the area, however, Arafat's governing style tended to be more dictatorial than democratic." That is to say, Arafat by his own choice of governance--dictatorship over democracy--bears individual responsibility for the legacy he leaves.

That legacy includes: the contemporary crime of hijacking and blowing up civilian-filled airliners; the attempted destabilization of Jordan and Israel and the successful destruction of Lebanon as a formerly sovereign nation; and decades of violated international agreements, culminating in the collapse of Oslo. Last year, in a perfect storm of bad faith, Arafat was caught paying for the shipment of arms from Iran to the Palestinian territories aboard the Karine A.

Across these years, the West, mainly the European nations, accomplished the post-World War II feat of pretending that crime is not crime, so long as the motives and politics for the crimes are moralized. The U.S. and Israel participated as well in the pretense, bringing Arafat out of exile in Tunis. The world has learned since that this apologetics (and much direct funding) has made possible any crime, culminating in the anti-moral act known as suicide bombers. Arafat most recently threw over Mahmoud Abbas, and the fatigued West barely sighed in complaint.

This past September 3, in an article published in the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam, the Palestinian writer Tawfiq Abu Bakr wrote: "It is difficult to find a greater and more deeply rooted culture of self-deception than that in our Arab and Palestinian arena." But we in the West fomented that culture of self-deception, by perpetuating the conceit that Yasser Arafat--"Arafat"--was the singular vessel of peace for the Palestinians. He manifestly is not.

READ MORE

(Registration required)

In the mean time, here is some good reading.

From SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org

Current News & Articles
On the "Frontlines of Freedom"
National Review - An NRO Symposium
Sep 8, 2003


Reaction to President Bush's Sunday-night address on Iraq

Michael Ledeen

My guess, listening between the lines, is that so many people all over the world viewed our appeal to the United Nations as a clear sign of retreat, that the president decided he'd better get out there and look tough. He rightly said that we've learned that weakness invites terrorist attack while strength deters it, and he insisted that we're strong, that we're taking the battle to the bad guys, and we're going to track them all down.

Let's hope it works, but I doubt it. I think we're in for a new wave of attacks, both here and in the Middle East, in part because the terrorists have to show signs of real strength, and in part because so much of what has been coming out of this administration of late really does reek of retreat.

As usual, it was a good speech, carefully crafted and elegantly presented. I like his clearly heartfelt reiteration of the theme of freedom versus tyranny, which is indeed the heart of the matter. He's clearly pleased, as we should all be, that there has been great progress throughout Iraq, electing local governments, getting schools up and running, and so forth.

But, alas, he has lost focus. He reminded us that he had always expected this to be a long war, but he never mentioned the Evil Axis, never once talked about the several countries that are supporting the terrorist attacks against us, never mentioned the Iranian atomic bomb or the North Korean nuclear program or the ongoing Saudi and Syrian support for terror. This speech was narrowly about Iraq, with a couple of afterthoughts about Afghanistan. If he's aware that we can't possibly win in Iraq unless we bring down the mullahcracy in Tehran, he didn't give any sign of it.

We're dithering again, wasting time while the terror masters prepare their next assault, instead of going after them where they live.


James S. Robbins

President Bush sought to contextualize the war and its various phases: Afghanistan, where the al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds were attacked directly and overwhelmed; attacks on the terrorist infrastructure, which has resulted in nearly two thirds of known senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators being captured or killed; breaking up terrorist financial and logistical networks; and taking down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which supported terrorism and had the potential to equip terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Of these, the president's critics have focused most of their attention on denying the links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Whether or not they want to believe that such links existed in the past, they surely do now.

"Iraq is now the central front," the president said, and this is true not only from our perspective but also from the enemy's. Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers are flooding into Iraq from all over the world to try to bring the battle to the Crusaders. They view Iraq as "the perfect place" to engage U.S. forces. They see our situation as similar to that of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, in which the Mujahedeen were able to wage unrelenting guerrilla war and drive the Red Army out. Of course, they also thought that Afghanistan would be our Afghanistan, a rather more precise analogy and one which did not turn out they way they expected.

The terrorists draw their strategic lessons from Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia. In each case, the U.S. was wounded but not defeated militarily. Yet, in each case, the United States withdrew because the national will faltered. A combination of lack of leadership, mission ambiguity, and domestic political factors led to a defeat that was disproportionate to the might of the enemies we faced. Al Qaeda, their sympathizers, and other enemies of civilization seek to recreate those conditions.

President Bush explained to the American people what the press has been slow to understand, and the opposition has no interest in discussing — that the events taking place in Iraq today are connected directly to the central threat of our age, the Islamic radicals and secular despots who are seeking to push back the tide of freedom that burst through the Iron Curtain 14 years ago and is bringing the light of liberty and civilization to their neglected corner of the world. A free, secular, democratic Iraq would be a monumental and unparalleled achievement. The beneficial effects would redound across the region and the world. This is why the enemies of freedom are waging a desperate rear-guard action in Iraq. They cannot prevail unless the American people withdraw their support. The case the president made was not a new one — the administration has been remarkably consistent in its strategic approach to the war — but it bears repeating. There are too many people at home and abroad that will seek to exploit divisions over the conduct of the war. It helps to remind people what we are fighting for.

© Copyright 2003 SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org

I wanted to write a quick note to tell you all why I haven't been around lately. My note got very long and ivolved, I even had doubts I should be sending such a long message. Well as it turns out Microsoft made my decision for me, because after an hour and ahalf of writing to tell you all about my recent adeventures and future trip to Utah, Internet Explorer crashed and I lost the whole thing.

Here is the short version:

Cat bites twice, lands mom in hospital for week, has 4 kittens, kittens real cute, I'll be alright, just had sore fingers for awhile, mom will be alright too, cat now living at animal control, will live and find new home, mom's hospital bill will be really big, not even our cat, a stray - probably dumped, maybe the biting problem/pregnancy? Who knows. Grandpa's cousin died, he was 95, so is grandpa, then my cousin died, (grandpa is her grandfather), both died last week, she was only 56. Been workin real hard, not easy with sore fingers, leaving town for 4 days in morning for church related conference in SLC, toxic mold is bad stuff, neighbors house has it, saps all your strength and makes joints real sore for a few days, stay away from it! I didn't. Fine now though. Leaving in morning, be back Monday.