Cheney: Congressional probe of attorneys' firings 'a witch hunt'
* Story Highlights
* Vice president sees no reason for Bush political adviser Karl Rove to testify
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "a good man," Cheney says
* Cheney says his office is part of both executive and legislative branches
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday dismissed congressional investigations into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys as "a bit of a witch hunt."
"First of all, there's no charge," Cheney said. "What's the allegation of wrongdoing here? Frankly, there isn't any."
"They keep rolling over rocks hoping they can find something, but there really hasn't been anything come up that would suggest there was any wrongdoing of any kind," Cheney told CNN's Larry King, adding that he did not feel that Bush senior political adviser Karl Rove need testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the matter.
"The president feels strongly -- and I do too, I agree with him -- that it's important for us to pass on these offices we occupy to our successors in as good a shape as we found them. And that means protecting and preserving the integrity of those processes," Cheney said.
The interview with Cheney will air Tuesday night on "Larry King Live" at 9 p.m. ET.
Cheney added, "I think that an offer has been made" wherein senior officials would meet with members of Congress -- "but not under oath, not in public, no transcript, to discuss these issues."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced last week that he would subpoena Rove.
When announcing the subpoena on the Senate floor, Leahy said "we've now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents showed that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. [Scott] Jennings."
Jennings is deputy director of political affairs at the White House.
Leahy also subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former Rove aide Sara Taylor to testify about what they knew about the attorney firings. The White House has also resisted allowing them to testify.
In the interview with King, Cheney also backed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has come under fire for his role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. Gonzales also faces allegations that he perjured himself to Congress while testifying about a 2004 visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized. VideoWatch Cheney defend Gonzales »
Gonzales testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that the 2004 meeting was not about a National Security Agency domestic surveillance program, a statement that was later contradicted by FBI head Robert Mueller.
A former government official familiar with the controversy told CNN Sunday, however, that the 2004 meeting was about a related data mining program, which Gonzales views as a separate program but others view as part of the domestic surveillance program.
"The attorney general may have been splitting hairs here," the former government official said. "He may be able to say 'the dispute' was not about the NSA monitoring program per se. But I would not have said what he said."
Asked whether he stands by Gonzales, Cheney said, "I do. Al's a good man, a good friend, on a difficult assignment."
Asked whether he is troubled by "the appearance of him not telling the truth," the vice president would not comment. "Well, I don't want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked," he said. "I know Al on a personal and professional basis and I hold him in high regard."
Cheney also defended his claim that he works not primarily in the executive but in the legislative branch of government and therefore is not bound by the rules governing members of the executive branch.
Constitutionally, the vice president serves as the Senate president, with the power to vote in the Senate to break a tie. But unless a tie is in the offing, vice presidents in recent times have rarely presided over the chamber and have instead taken on a larger policy role within the administration.
"I have a foot in both camps, if you will," Cheney told CNN.
"As vice president, obviously, I'm next in line to succeed the president if something happens to him. I have an office in the West Wing of the White House. I advise the president, I'm a member of the National Security Council. Those are all executive functions granted to me basically by the president.
"At the same time, I have responsibilities under the Constitution for certain things on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, I am president of the Senate, I am the presiding officer in the Senate, I cast tie-breaking votes there. My paycheck actually comes from the Senate."
Cheney had made the claim in an attempt to show that he is not bound by an executive order concerning executive branch agencies.
Last month, Cheney's office asserted that it was not required to comply with a presidential order requiring executive branch agencies to report to the National Archives how many documents they classify or declassify.
Cheney's assertion led a key House Democrat to try to strip executive branch funding for the vice president's office.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Wicked Witch of D.C.
Someone should tell Dick Cheney that sometimes witches DO exist, and they need to be hunted. This from CNN's Larry King interview with Darth Vader:
Life in Iran
I don't know if you saw this story in the NY TIMES regarding the active and inaccurate rumor mill in Iraq, but this paragraph about Iran floored me:
The Iranian news media have gotten in on the act too, claiming that foreign forces have been fitting squirrels with miniaturized surveillance devices and sending them scurrying across the border to spy. Iranian news reports, monitored by the BBC, recently referred to 14 spy squirrels being captured by alert Iranian intelligence officials before the animals could take action against the nation.
Strange Bedfellows-Iran/Russia
I just came across this article by the famed Reut Institute that details some tensions between Russia and Iran. As you know, Russia, along with China, has vigorously opposed more stringent United Nations sanctions against Iran to stop that country's nuclear development.
Russia has developed a strange "push me-pull you" relationship with Iran with the goal of acting as a counterbalance to United States interests, and to keep its hand in the Gulf oil trade. On the one hand, Russia has supplied critical components to the Iranian nuclear effort. On the other hand, Russia has used various excuses (eg. Iran owes Russia money, there are technical issues that need to be resolved, etc.) to delay shipping nuclear material to Iran. One the one hand , Russia has just entered into an agreement to sell Sukhoi fighter-bombers and refueling tankers to Iran that could give Iran significant power projection capabilities throughout the middle east. What might be "the other hand" to this gambit? Might Russia decide to sell the airframes but claim a problem with the needed engines?
Let's see what Reut has to say:
I think the above cited MEMRI article is of such significance that it deserves to be quoted in full
Russia has developed a strange "push me-pull you" relationship with Iran with the goal of acting as a counterbalance to United States interests, and to keep its hand in the Gulf oil trade. On the one hand, Russia has supplied critical components to the Iranian nuclear effort. On the other hand, Russia has used various excuses (eg. Iran owes Russia money, there are technical issues that need to be resolved, etc.) to delay shipping nuclear material to Iran. One the one hand , Russia has just entered into an agreement to sell Sukhoi fighter-bombers and refueling tankers to Iran that could give Iran significant power projection capabilities throughout the middle east. What might be "the other hand" to this gambit? Might Russia decide to sell the airframes but claim a problem with the needed engines?
Let's see what Reut has to say:
Russia sells Iran fighter jets but not fuel for Bushehr
In dealing with the Iranian nuclear project, unofficial sanctions may be an effective political tool. Such sanctions are apparently more effective than official ones and may get around the difficulty of reaching consensus amongst a divided international community.
The Russian government decided to delay supplying fuel to Iran, essential for operating centrifuges in nuclear reactor of Bushehr. However, Russian security forces have agreed to sell Iran a large number of Sukhoi-30 fighter jets.
Russia's policy in the international arena reflects a number of strategic goals: Striving for a leading status in the international arena and hegemony in its near-abroad; challenging US global hegemony; as well as maintaining internal stability and territorial integrity.
On the surface, it appears Russia's security relations with Iran serve the above goals. However, recently, Russia has also been growing increasingly apprehensive regarding the Iranian nuclear project.
Publicly, Russia is unwilling to fully collaborate with the US on matters regarding Iranian sanctions. Russia does, however, in fact subtly complicate Iran's nuclear project.
Iran understands that Russia's delay in supplying with fuel is not only a 'technical' issue (as the Russians portray it), but also reflects a strategic change in Russian policy. This policy greatly frustrates Iran, as it complicates significant nuclear development of Bushehr. Additional unofficial sanctions, especially European and American, weigh heavily on the Iranian economy and cause internal agitation which may undermine the stability of the Iranian regime.
In light of the changes in the international-relations arena during the past year, and especially in light of the rise of China and Russia and the entanglement of the US in Iraq, the international community finds difficulty in maintaining a unified front regarding Iran. It may be that the most effective political tool facing the Iranian nuclear project is to promote unofficial sanctions by governments, businesses and other private actors. Such sanctions prove no less effective then official ones and may get around the challenge of reaching consensus amongst a divided international community.
Sources
* Katz and Keinon, Jerusalem Post, 7/30/07; full article
* Melman, Ha'aretz, 7/20/07; full article
* VOA News, 7/25/07; full article
* Mansharof, MEMRI, 7/12/07; full article
I think the above cited MEMRI article is of such significance that it deserves to be quoted in full
THE MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 370
July 12, 2007 No.370
The Crisis in Iranian-Russian Relations over Iran's Nuclear Project(2)
By: Y. Mansharof
The current crisis in Iranian-Russian relations focuses on two areas: a) the delay in the construction and activation of the nuclear reactor at Bushehr; and b) Russian proposal for an American-Russian radar station in Qabala.
Russia's suspicions regarding Iran's intentions have reached new heights, with Russian government representatives publicly accusing Iran of carrying out covert nuclear activity and of striving to obtain the capability to construct nuclear weapons.
In Iran, on the other hand, there are increasing calls to regard Bushehr as a litmus test for Iranian-Russian relations, alongside calls to complete the construction of the Bushehr reactor with the assistance of countries other than Russia - or, alternatively, to rely on Iran's independent capabilities. [1]
Also, high-level officials in Iran are claiming that the proposal made by Russian President Vladimir Putin to the U.S. at the G-8 summit in Germany in June 2007 - under which the U.S. would not deploy missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic for defense against Iran's ballistic missiles, but would instead use, together with Russia, the missile defense radar station located in Qabala, Azerbaijan - proves Russia's continued enmity towards Iran, which even surpasses the West's enmity towards it.
This paper will analyze the Iranian-Russian crisis as reflected in the Iranian media: [2]
Russia's Accusations
In early July 2007, Russian Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Mikhail Margelov declared that "Iran is persistently avoiding presenting clear and precise answers to the questions that it is being asked about [its] nuclear program... Accordingly, and in light of other signs, I sense that it is acting to achieve the capability to construct nuclear weapons... and is, at the most, five years away from its first nuclear test..." [3]
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak pointed out that "Iran's nuclear policy is very exasperating." [4] He accused Iran of carrying out covert nuclear activity and expressed support for the U.N. Security Council's sanctions resolution against Iran that followed the International Atomic Energy Agency's inability to confirm the nature of Iran's nuclear program. [5] Nevertheless, on June 20, 2007, during a visit to Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Russia would support additional sanctions against Iran only if the IAEA announced that it could no longer cooperate with Iran. [6]
The Delay in Russia's Completion and Activation of the Bushehr Reactor
The crisis in Iranian-Russian relations over Russia's completion of the Bushehr reactor, and its subsequent supply of nuclear fuel to Iran in order to activate the reactor, continues. According to statements by senior Russian officials, it appears that at this stage Russia has reservations about activating the Bushehr reactor, and is not willing to transfer the nuclear fuel required for its activation. Russia is making the activation of the reactor conditional upon Iranian cooperation with the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA.
During a visit to Iran, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Lusyokov said, "Implementing the Bushehr agreement is possible only if Iran obeys the principles of the NPT, cooperates with the IAEA, and is willing to return [all] nuclear fuel [to Russia] after its use." [7] Similarly, in early June 2007, the head of Russia's Nuclear Energy Organization Sergei Kiriyenko stressed that Iran had paid only part of the sum it had committed to paying for the Bushehr reactor construction. [8]
The Russian delegation that went to Tehran in early July 2007 for talks on the future of the Bushehr reactor returned to Russia with no answers. [9] Around the same time, Kislyak rejected Iranian nuclear engineers' claims that the reactor would be finished in September 2007, and that Iran expected to receive the promised nuclear fuel from Russia by then. He said, "[Setting] a period of two months [for the reactor to be activated] is not realistic." [10] Kiriyenko stated that it would be impossible for the reactor to be activated before 2008. [11]
As will be recalled, in spite of Russian senior officials' criticism and delays, in April 2007 Iranian Atomic Energy Organization deputy head Mohammad Saeedi promised that the reactor would nevertheless be under operation by March 2008. [12] In early July 2007, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini stated that "at present, 95% of the work in Bushehr has been completed, and the remaining issues [connected to the reactor] are already being handled." [13]
Iranian Reactions to the Russian Delays
In recent weeks, high-level Iranian officials have begun to criticize Russia's delays - at times in harsh language:
Kayhan: Russia is Acting to Prevent Iran from Going Nuclear
In a July 5, 2007 analysis titled "Russia's Place in the International System," the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, wrote that Russia was exploiting global fears of Iran becoming stronger, and was acting to prevent it from going nuclear:
"...Russia's view... is that a strong Iran with nuclear capability cannot be tolerated in the region. This is because such a situation would upset the balance of power in the region - a development that is unacceptable for Russia, and is dissatisfactory for Iran's neighbors, especially her Arab neighbors. Under these circumstances, the Russians are making an effort to exploit the current conditions of consensus in order to restrict Iran's building of its strength..." [14]
Members of Iran's Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy Respond
In interviews from early June 2007, Iranian MPs who are members of Iran's Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy accused Russia of delaying activating the Bushehr reactor due to behind-the-scenes negotiations it is conducting with the U.S. Thus, they suggested three possible courses of action to resolve the crisis: Iran must use all means at its disposal to ensure that Russia meet its obligations regarding the completion and activation of the reactor; it must find other partners; or it must rely on its own capabilities.
In a July 6, 2007 interview with the ISNA news agency, Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy Vice-Chairman Mohammad Nabi Rodaki said: "If Russia intends to follow the American policy, Iran must reconsider its own policy vis-à-vis Russia... Ahmadinejad must show courage [in his dealings] with Russia... A definite timetable must be set, and if Russia fails to install all the remaining equipment in the Bushehr reactor [by the agreed-upon deadline], Iran will enter into negotiations with some countries that have announced their willingness [to cooperate with it]... Fortunately, there are many brokers able to sell the remaining equipment that Iran requires. If Putin and Russia fail to realize their commitments, we will utilize the assistance of these brokers... Countries [like] these [i.e. like Russia] have stabbed Iran in the back a number of times, and pursued a policy of saying one thing and [then] doing another. They promised to veto the recent sanctions resolution, but… the Security Council approved the sanctions...
"Russia must [decide:] It must either cooperate with Iran, or openly back America..." [15]
In a July 3, 2007 interview with the conservative news agency Mehr, committee member Elham Amin-Zadeh said: "...Unfortunately, Russia's behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Americans are the most important reason for the delay in activating the Bushehr reactor, and for their lack of cooperation in this matter... In meetings [with their Iranian counterparts], the Russians bring up pretexts such as technological and other issues - but under the current circumstances, and after years have passed since the date [set] for the activation of the Bushehr reactor, there is no justification for [such] delays and tardiness. Iran must play all its cards [to make] Russia carry out its obligations in this matter. The Bushehr reactor [will serve] a great many economic interests for Russia as well, and therefore, failure to implement it is likely to affect relations between the two countries." [16]
In a July 4, 2007 interview with ISNA, committee member Suleiman Jafarzadeh noted: "If Russia does not fulfill its obligations regarding the construction of the Bushehr plant, not only will it endanger its economic, nuclear, and political stature, but no country will trust it again... The Russians do not stand alongside Iran [in the matter of activating the reactor, even though] they know that the fate of their problems in regional issues is tied to the fate of Iran." [17]
Committee member Heshmatollah Falahat-Pisheh told ISNA on July 4, 2007, that "Russia has always exploited its relations with Iran - particularly in the nuclear sphere - in order to arrive at an arrangement with America [at Iran's expense]... The Russians want the Iranian nuclear issue to remain in crisis, so as to exploit it and to arrive at an arrangement with America... More than in the past, Iran must move ahead its [nuclear] plans towards independent [capability]..." [18] He added, "In light of the significant improvement in Iran's capability for building nuclear reactors, it is not worthwhile to introduce new players into this matter." [19]
In an interview with the Aftab news agency on July 4, 2007, committee member Hamid Reza Haji-Babai expressed Iran's disappointment and lack of confidence in Russia, stating, "Throughout the past years, Russia has shown that it is not a reliable and safe partner... With regard to the Bushehr reactor, we have had and we still have many problems with the Russians, and it is not clear [at all] whether they will have the Bushehr reactor ready even by the end of 2008. The completion of the reactor depends on global circumstances at that time... Russia is changing its policy to suit the conditions and needs of global politics, and of its [own] changing interests..." [20] He added that "the Russian government is taking evasive stances, and in general in its important relations on the international [level], it is not considered to be a government worthy of trust... The Iranian government must give the Russian government a serious reminder, and must take measures that will lead the Russians to see their interests as tied with those of Iran." [21]
Committee member Rashid Jalali told the conservative Mehr news agency on July 3, 2007, that "[Russia's] delays, and its violation of its obligations, prove that Iran must not be dependent upon the international community in producing nuclear fuel and in constructing nuclear reactors... If it transpires that there is no technical reason for these delays, Iran must sue Russia for damages, and must submit a complaint about it to the international courts." [22]
Committee member Hossein Sobhani-Nia told the Mehr news agency on July 3, 2007: "Russia's recurring delays show that they are not acting honestly [with regard to] their obligations to Iran, and this is clear to most senior [Iranian] regime officials... The Russian delays in activating the Bushehr reactor and in transferring the nuclear fuel will doubtless only make Iran more determined in handling its nuclear program and in [achieving] the nuclear fuel cycle." [23]
Committee member Javad Jahangirzadeh told Kayhan on July 8, 2007, that "the issue of the Bushehr reactor must constitute a basis for Iran's senior officials and foreign policy officials to [reach] a precise diagnosis [regarding whether to] stop or continue the cooperation with the Russians in various areas... With this conduct, the Russians will lose Iran's trust, which will lead to serious damage to its international prestige... [Iran] cannot select Russia as a reliable strategic partner for cooperation." [24]
Parliamentary Energy Committee Member Hossein Nejabat: Give the Russians an Ultimatum
Parliamentary Energy Committee member Hossein Nejabat told Kayhan that "the Russians must be given an ultimatum, and if they do not activate [the reactor] within the [specified] time, Iran will do the work, because 90% of the reactor is already built, and [Iran] will complain against Russia in the international forums... Behind the scenes, the Russians are cooperating with the Americans... and are making decisions under American influence and pressure. [25]
The Crisis Over the Russian Proposal for an American-Russian Radar Station in Qabala
The other focus of tension between Iran and Russia is the crisis over the Qabala radar station program. Under the compromise proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-8 summit in Germany in early June 2007, the U.S. will not deploy missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic for defense against Iran's ballistic missiles. Instead, it will use, together with Russia, the missile defense radar station located in Qabala, Azerbaijan. [26] Putin's proposal brought a harsh reaction from Iran, expressed in statements by numerous representatives of the Iranian regime.
Iranian Officials Respond
Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy member Heshmatollah Falahat-Pisheh told Jomhouri-ye Eslami, which is affiliated with the Qom religious seminaries: "Russia never was a strategic friend of Iran... In the past, it tried to sacrifice countries like Iran for its schemes and in order to achieve higher-level relations with America. [Regime] officials in Iran know this, and [therefore] Iran's strategy vis-à-vis Russia should be formulated in the same way." [27]
Falahat-Pisheh also said, "[Our] experience shows that the Russians were not, and still are not, credible in any of their stands... Considering that Iran's main motto is 'No to the East and No to the West,' we must protect our national interests, in a precise and clear way." [28]
Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy member Ali Ahmadi said to the ISNA news agency on June 16, 2007: "If we look at the history of Iran-Russia [relations], we will see that Russia's violent conduct [towards Iran] has been immeasurably worse [than the West's]. Examples of this are the [1813] Treaty of Gulistan and the [1828] Treaty of Turkmenchay, [29] and the conquest of northern Iran during World War II... Iran's past relations with Russia show that peace has not always prevailed between them. More important, the Russians do not want in their vicinity any country like Iran with nuclear technology." [30]
In addition, several MPs asked Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to submit an official protest to Russia regarding Putin's proposal. [31]
Iranian Press Reactions
Aftab-e Yazd: "Nothing Better Can Be Expected from Former KGB Spies"
A June 10, 2007 editorial in the reformist daily Aftab-e Yazd claimed that "nothing better can be expected from the former KGB spies [i.e. Putin]... Therefore, Iran had better regard Russia as a party to the negotiations rather than as a strong and committed ally, and take extra care not to let its interest fall prey to Russia's pursuit of profits. [32]
Jomhouri-ye Eslami: Putin's Proposal Will Endanger Geo-strategic Stability
In a June 10, 2007 editorial, the Iranian daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami argued that Putin's proposal was actually an invitation to the U.S. to spy on Iran on its very border, and that it undermines geo-strategic stability in a way that endangers Russia itself. It also stated that Russia was acting hostilely towards Iran, and continuing to turn its back on it - as it had done in the past, when it supplied Iraq with weapons in its war against Iran. Following are the main points of the editorial:
"...At the G-8 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin submitted a proposal to Washington that revealed his position of complete hostility to Iran, which cannot be tolerated under any circumstances...
"We strongly recommend to Putin that he carefully study the history... of Iran in the past 50 years... Thanks to the Islamic Revolution, the U.S. anti-Russian spy bases that operated in Iran [during the Shah's time] have been removed. Iran never demanded [anything in exchange] for destroying the American spy bases; but [instead,] for eight years [that is, during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war], the Kremlin provided means of warfare, modern weapons, and the most advanced weaponry of various kinds to the aggressor enemy [i.e. Iraq], which was making Iran the target of its savage attacks...
"After the U.S.S.R. fell apart, Iran tried to turn over a new leaf with Russia, and to establish friendly relations with it, while forgetting the bitter past of its relations with it...
"Putin's hostile and ill-considered proposal will make serious and irreversible changes in the regional and even the global geo-strategic reality, the ill-boding ramifications and results of which will also frighten Moscow and its other allies...
"How can Moscow justify this proposal, which will turn out to be a failure? How is it possible to trust the messages [regarding] Moscow's good will, and to see [these messages] as honest and responsible, while we can see that Moscow is now officially and publicly inviting our vengeance-consumed enemies [i.e. America] to position their espionage operations against Iran just beyond its borders? Really, how should this proposal be perceived, when Moscow is speaking out forcefully against America's hostile goals and plans to position a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and is officially declaring that it [i.e. Moscow] will aim its missiles at Europe and at other American military targets, but at the same time is proposing to those same rivals [to conduct] joint espionage operations just beyond Iran's borders?...
"This proposal should be perceived as a hostile measure against Iran. The Kremlin should be reminded, in honesty, that Russia is unfortunately still untrustworthy, and that it is continuing with its hostility towards Iran while pretending friendship. Therein, there is also a possibility that what is being said [by Putin] is only a small part of a greater plan, the goals and details of which have not yet been, and will perhaps never be, revealed. It is very humiliating and shameful for Moscow and for the Kremlin leadership that a green light has been given to the American spies..." [33]
Resalat: Putin's Proposal is Another Strategic Mistake by Russia
In a July 2, 2007 editorial, the conservative daily Resalat noted that Putin's proposal to cooperate with the U.S. in operating the radar station in Qabala was a strategic mistake on Russia's part:
"...It seems that Russia's strategic mistakes in the international arena are endless... The mistake of proposing the plan for cooperation between the U.S. and Moscow in [operating] the Qabala radar station in Azerbaijan shows that the prevailing thought in Russia is one of blocking and preventing [any harm to Russian interests]. This kind of thinking is causing the Russians to act unnaturally and to be overly cautious in issues connected to the international arena... [34]
Tehran Times: Russia Is Sacrificing Iran in Order to Achieve Its Own Interests
In his June 13 column in the daily Tehran Times, which is affiliated with the Iranian Foreign Ministry, columnist Hossein Amiri wrote that Russia was sacrificing Iran so as to achieve its own interests vis-à-vis the U.S., and that in so doing, it was breaking its alliance with Iran, without any pangs of conscience. In the column, he also stressed the potential threat posed to Iran by the Qabala radar station, which can identify and intercept any ballistic missile fired from the area stretching from the Middle East to the Indian Ocean:
"…The Qabala radar station is a giant anti-missile radar system built by the Soviet Union in the Qabala region of Azerbaijan in 1985. The radar station has a range of up to 6,000 kilometers, and was designed to detect missile launches originating as far away as the Indian Ocean. The radar's surveillance covers Iran, Turkey, India, and the entire Middle East. It allows not only detection of the launch of a missile but also tracking of its entire trajectory, enabling an anti-missile system to intercept an offensive strike…
"One might ask if Russia has adopted this tactic with the intention of sacrificing Iran for its own interests. Even if the U.S. rejects the Russian proposal, Tehran will view the whole affair as an attempt to use Iran…
"However, by allowing the deployment of U.S. forces so near to the Iranian border, would Russia not be breaking its alliance with Iran? And doesn't this make it clear that Russia has no qualms about using Iran to neutralize the threats of the United States?" [35]
*Y. Mansharof is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.
[1] ISNA, July 6, 2007.
[2] For more on the roots of the Iran-Russia crisis, see MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 338, "Russia's New Position on Iran's Nuclear Program Creates Iran-Russia Crisis," March 30, 2007, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA33807 .
[3] Aftab (Iran), July 1, 2007. On July 10, 2007, a Russian nuclear expert stated that "it will take Iran five to 10 years to create a [nuclear] bomb." Iran Daily (Iran), July 10, 2007.
[4] Aftab (Iran), May 29, 2007.
[5] Aftab (Iran), April 25, 2007; Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), May 30, 2007.
[6] Aftab (Iran), June 20, 2007.
[7] Kayhan (Iran), May 17, 2007. On July 4, 2007, the Aftab website cited a report from the Russian media according to which Russian Nuclear Energy Organization deputy head Anatoly Kotlienkov had said that Russia would insist that nuclear fuel supplied to Iran is returned to Russia [after it use]. Baztab, April 4, 2007.
[8] Baztab (Iran), June 5, 2007. In addition, an unnamed senior Russian Nuclear Energy Organization source was quoted as saying that "recently, the Bushehr project is no longer considered by Russia to be profitable" and that Iran was not meeting its monetary obligations for the Bushehr reactor project. Aftab (Iran), May 26, 2007. Iran vehemently denies these accusations, as noted by Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy rapporteur Kazem Jalali, ISNA, July 6, 2007. For Iran's denials, see also MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 338, "Russia's New Position on Iran's Nuclear Program Creates Iran-Russia Crisis," March 30, 2007, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA33807 . Another senior source in the Russian Nuclear Energy Organization noted that, since all legal preparations had been completed and all required technical permits for transferring the nuclear fuel to Iran had been obtained, there was nothing to prevent the continuation of activity at Bushehr except the approval of the Russian government. Baztab, June 5, 2007.
[9] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), July 3, 2007. On June 19, 2007, Aftab cited Russian media reports that Russia was unwilling to negotiate with Iran over the transfer of nuclear fuel or over a date for the completion of the Bushehr reactor. Aftab, June 19, 2007.
[10] Fars (Iran), July 7, 2007; Mehr (Iran), July 7, 2007.
[11] Aftab (Iran), July 4, 2007.
[12] IRNA (Iran), April 11, 2007.
[13] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), July 2, 2007.
[14] Kayhan (Iran), July 5, 2007.
[15] ISNA (Iran), July 6, 2007.
[16] Mehr (Iran), July 3, 2007.
[17] ISNA (Iran), July 4, 2007.
[18] ISNA (Iran), July 4, 2007.
[19] Kayhan (Iran), July 8, 2007.
[20] Aftab (Iran), July 4, 2007.
[21] Kayhan (Iran), July 8, 2007.
[22] Mehr (Iran), July 3, 2007.
[23] Mehr (Iran), July 3, 2007.
[24] Kayhan (Iran), July 8, 2007.
[25] Kayhan (Iran), July 8, 2007.
[26] According to Iranian media reports, Putin stated during his recent visit to the U.S. that the joint operation of the Qabala radar station was contingent upon America's retraction of its plan to position missile batteries in Eastern Europe. Aftab (Iran), July 3, 2007. On June 10, 2007, Aftab reported that the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, had welcomed Putin's proposal.
[27] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), June 10, 2007.
[28] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 10, 2007.
[29] This refers to agreements through which Russia took control of the Caucasus, which was until then under Iranian rule.
[30] ISNA (Iran), June 16, 2007.
[31] Mehr (Iran), June 10, 2007.
[32] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 10, 2007.
[33] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), June 10, 2007.
[34] Resalat (Iran), July 2, 2007.
[35] Tehran Times (Iran), June 13, 2007.
Today's Special--Falafel
Some interesting rumblings from mid-east sources:
Item 1:
Item 2:
Item 3:
And today's biggie:
Item 4:
Item 1:
Published: 07/31/2007
Israel's prime minister and the Palestinian Authority president opened secret talks on a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Arab media reported.
The London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Tuesday that in a meeting two weeks ago, Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas agreed to start negotiating such issues as the future of Jerusalem, final borders and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The report said the two leaders agreed to set up a secret channel for discussions.
Item 2:
The United States intends to help preserve the strategic balance between Israel and the Arabs, Condoleezza Rice said.
Washington's decision to boost defense aid to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia by $60 billon over the next decade will not blunt the former's qualitative military edge in the region, the U.S. secretary of state made clear Tuesday.
"There isn't anything new in the United States working with its allies for security cooperation," Rice told reporters accompanying her on a visit to the Middle East. We are also determined to maintain the balances -- the military and strategic balances -- within the region that we have been committed to as well."
The Bush administration wants allied Gulf Arab states bolstered against an ascendant Iran.
Israel, which has been building up its own armed forces since last year's Lebanon war, had voiced concern over the planned U.S. defense-aid increases to Saudi Arabia. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicated on Sunday that Israel was satisfied at Washington's intentions.
Item 3:
Israel has lifted its ban on diplomatic ties between Israeli diplomats abroad and their Palestinian counterparts.
Ha'aretz reported Tuesday that Israel's Foreign Ministry published new guidelines last week allowing such meetings. Israeli officials had been banned from holding talks with Palestinian diplomats ever since the establishment of the Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority.
The change resulted from Hamas’ dismissal from the Palestinian Authority following the Islamic group’s violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last month. The new regulations are in line with the Israeli Foreign Ministry's policy of widening ties with officials from Fatah, which now controls the Palestinian Authority. The Authority has 107 diplomatic offices around the world
And today's biggie:
Item 4:
Israel on board with U.S. arms plan
Leslie Susser
Both the United States and Israel are taking steps to counter the threat of Iran and its radical allies, which explains why Israel is supporting a proposed multibillion-dollar U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
Published: 07/30/2007
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- In stark contrast to the past, when Israel and its American allies in Washington vehemently opposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem appears to be on board with a new Bush administration plan to sells billions of dollars of weapons to the Saudis.
The reason for the change of heart? Iran.
With the threat of Iran looming ever larger, both the United States and Israel are taking steps to increase the military might capable of countering Iran and its radical forces in the region.
The United States intends to increase military aid to its allies in the Middle East to the tune of around $60 billion over the coming decade. Most of the American weapons would go to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.
At the same time, Israel plans to dramatically increase its own defense budget by more than $11 billion during the same period. The changes Israel intends to make in the Israel Defense Forces with the bigger budgets are said to be the most far-reaching in years. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has redefined the threats Israel is facing and wants to restructure the armed forces accordingly.
On Sunday, the government approved a hike of 46 billion shekels -- or $10.6 billion -- in defense spending over the next 10 years, but it postponed a vote on an additional 7 billion shekels -- or $1.6 billion -- that Barak wants for 2008.
Under President Bush's plan, American military aid to Israel over the next decade would increase from $26 billion to $30 billion. Israel wants to use part of this to purchase state-of-the-art American warplanes, F-35 fighters and the F-22 stealth bomber, which to date the United States has not sold to any other country.(emphasis added -TRM)
In the same period, Egypt would receive $13 billion in military aid under the Bush administration plan. That aid would keep Egypt at its current levels despite some moves in Washington to reduce it.
The most dramatic departure for the Americans, though, would be a $20 billion arms sale to the Gulf countries, mostly to Saudi Arabia.
Some U.S. legislators oppose the sale because, they say, the Saudis are allowing Sunni militants in the kingdom to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and are afraid to intervene, fearing the militants might turn on them. U.S. officials say the administration will insist that the Saudis clamp down on this kind of terror and show a higher profile in peace overtures toward Israel, including a comittment to attend the regional peace conference the United States is planning for September.
Despite intense Israeli opposition to arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the past, most notably in the mid-1980s, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fully accepts the argument that the arms are part of a major U.S. effort to counter Iran's hegemonic regional ambitions.
Iran is a primary backer of Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that sit on Israel's southern and northern borders. Iran has also made moves in recent months to keep Syria in its orbit and prevent Saudi Arabia from playing an active role in the latest American-sponsored Middle East peacemaking initiative.
The Saudi arms deal was one of the key issues Olmert discussed with Bush during a June visit to Washington. Bush assured the Israeli leader that the Saudis would not be given any weapons Israel doesn't have, and that they would not be allowed to deploy systems close enough to the border to put Israeli targets in range.
The clincher for Olmert, though, according to diplomatic sources, was the corresponding increase offered by the president in military aid to Israel. This and the promise of super-sophisticated weaponry will help the United States keep its commitment to maintain Israel's technological edge over any of its potential enemies.
Still, the Israeli right has offered some muted criticism of the U.S.-Saudi deal. Former Gen. Yossi Peled, the Likud Party candidate for defense minister, warned that in the event of a radical takeover in Saudi Arabia, the arms -- which include precision munitions -- could be turned on Israel.
Israeli government spokesmen counter that even if that were to happen, Israel would have the wherewithal to deal with whatever military problems it posed.
Due to the multiple threats Israel is facing in the region, Barak wants a significant increase in the size of the land army. He says he wants to create two more ground divisions, which would enable an overwhelming IDF response on any front, presumably even against the Saudis, if things were to go wrong in the kingdom.
In analyzing the shortcomings revealed in last summer's Lebanon war and the evolving "threat map," which includes heightened missile threats from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas and the possibility of full-scale war on more than one front, Barak has come up with five major priorities:
* The development of "multilayered" anti-missile defenses. This means putting in place a combination of anti-missile systems to deal with missiles of all sizes and ranges, and within five to seven years making Israeli air space virtually impregnable.
* To restore Israel's famed capacity for ground maneuver on enemy territory through intensive training and the creation of the two new divisions.
* So-called "logistic breathing space," which means making sure emergency stores are at capacity.
* Training and providing budgets for large-scale exercises involving brigades and divisions.
* Building up Israel's capacity to strike targets thousands of miles away.
Barak told the Cabinet on Sunday that providing funds for all these ambitious projects was the only way to guarantee "decisive victory" in any future war. His budgetary demands coincided with an intensive review of Israeli military spending conducted by a committee under the former Treasury director-general, David Brodet. The committee made dozens of recommendations for economizing in the defense establishment, but also proposed significant increases in overall defense spending.
The thinking is that savings on the non-essentials together with the increases will provide huge sums for investment in strengthening the IDF.
The IDF has already carried out some of Barak's reforms. The emergency supplies, found wanting during the Lebanon war, have largely been replenished. Huge land exercises have been carried out at divisional levels and major reforms in the training of troops have been introduced.
But Israel needs to be ready for more than a repeat of last summer's war. At the very least, it has to take into account the possibility of simultaneous hostilities from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
With this in mind, will there be funds for the rest of the ambitious reforms Barak has in mind? And if they are carried out, where will they leave the IDF vis-a-vis the new "threat map" -- especially the multiple threats emanating from Tehran?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Stuck In the Middle With You...
I have no doubt that my informed readers took note of a USG proposal to sell some $20 Billions dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. (and if you missed it, take a look at this NY TIMES article
I think the big mistake here is to view the arms sale in terms of the Arab-Israeli situation. The real reason lays to the East--Iran. Take a look at this and the US arms sale makes sense as a blocking move against increasing Iranian aggressive capabilities.
It is clear that, despite US anger at the Saudis for not taking decisive actions to terminate the infiltration of Saudi and other nationals into Iraq to join insurgents there, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all recognize that Iran is the major geo-political threat. There is that old saying " the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In this case, both Israel and Saudi Arabia share a common interest in raising a bulwark against possible Iranian aggression and therefore Israel will look the other way and not try to block the US-Saudi arms deal.
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.
I think the big mistake here is to view the arms sale in terms of the Arab-Israeli situation. The real reason lays to the East--Iran. Take a look at this and the US arms sale makes sense as a blocking move against increasing Iranian aggressive capabilities.
DEBKA Reports: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia
July 27, 2007, 2:54 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tehran and the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group are about to sign a mammoth arms deal running into tens of billions of dollars for the sale to Tehran of 250 Su-30MKM warplanes and 20 IL-78 MKI fuel tankers. DEBKAfile’s military sources report Iran has stipulated delivery of the first aircraft before the end of 2007.
The transaction, Russia’s largest arms deal in 30 years, will endow Iran with a long-range aerial assault capability. The Sukhoi can sustain a four-and-a-half hour raid at its maximum range of 3,000 km against long-distance, marine and low-lying ground targets across the Persian Gulf and Middle East, including Israel and Lebanon.
The fuel tankers extends the Su-30MKM’s assault sustainability to 10 hours and its range to 8,000 km at altitudes of 11-13 km. The closest comparable plane in the West is the American F-15E fighter bomber. Iran’s acquisition of an exceptionally large fleet of the Russian fighter-bomber will elevate its air force to one of the two largest and most advanced in the region, alongside the Israeli Air Force.
Iranian air crews are already training on the new Sukhoi aircraft, ready to start flying them early next year with only a short delay after delivery. DEBKAfile’s sources report that Moscow is selling Tehran the same Sukhoi model as India received earlier this year. The Iranians leaned hard on New Delhi to let them have the Israeli avionics and electronics the Indian Air Force had installed in the Russian craft. India refused.
Russia began delivering the same craft in June to Malaysia, which also sought Israeli avionics without success. The Su-20MKM has won the nickname of “Islamic Version of Sukhoi.”
Its two-member crew shares the workload. The first pilot flies the aircraft, controls weapons and maneuvers the plane in a dogfight. The co-pilot employs BVR air-to-air and air-to-ground guided weapons in long-range engagements, sweeps the arena for enemy craft or missiles and performs as command-and-control in group missions.
Some of the plane’s systems are products of the French Thales Airborne Systems company. Moscow’s contract with Tehran for the sale of the Su-30MKM must therefore be cleared with Paris.
There is no decision in Jerusalem about asking Paris to withhold its consent to a deal which would substantially upgrade the long-range air assault capabilities of the Islamic Republic whose leaders want to wipe Israel off the map. However, President Nicolas Sarkozy is in mid-momentum of a diplomatic drive in the Arab and Muslim world and unlikely to be receptive to an Israeli approach. The only chance of aborting the Russian sale would be to route the approach through Washington.
It is clear that, despite US anger at the Saudis for not taking decisive actions to terminate the infiltration of Saudi and other nationals into Iraq to join insurgents there, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all recognize that Iran is the major geo-political threat. There is that old saying " the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In this case, both Israel and Saudi Arabia share a common interest in raising a bulwark against possible Iranian aggression and therefore Israel will look the other way and not try to block the US-Saudi arms deal.
Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to My Right...
After stumbling around Iraq for 5 years like a blindfolded drunk, are things starting to turn around? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel, or is it merely a mirage based on hope?
I am at a point where I do not believe anything President Bush has to say. At the same time, I don't believe anything the Democrats have to say on this issue. The fact is, I don't believe anyone on this issue. I would love the opportunity to personally go to Baghdad and explore Iraq to determine what the heck is going on there, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I spend time reading various reports to try to come to my own decisions. Readers are welcome to review my previous writings on the Iraq war.
Some time after the installation of Gen. Petreaus I was able to discern some signs that US policy finally might have turned in the right direction. Now comes this op-ed piece in the Monday (7/30) edition of the NYTIMES, in which analysts Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack suggest that, indeed , we just might be on a winning path at this time, as long as you take a more nuanced approach to the term "winning".
The problems in Iraq are two-fold: how to eliminate those people we consider "bad guys", such as al-Queda in Iraq and the foreign fighters it imports, and how to establish a stable Iraqi government. The former is a lot easier than the latter. As i stated previously, Iraq is an artificial creation which is riven with ancient tribal animosities. The best we might hope for is a loose confederation among the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis until such time as they themselves believe that a strong central government, indeed, a true nation, is in their interests. (Consider whether a powerful Iran on it's eastern border might convince some Iraqis that the time to coalesce into a nation might be sooner rather than later.)
Oh,in the fullest recognition of the urgency of their situation the "Iraqi" parliament just adjourned for the month of August.
I am at a point where I do not believe anything President Bush has to say. At the same time, I don't believe anything the Democrats have to say on this issue. The fact is, I don't believe anyone on this issue. I would love the opportunity to personally go to Baghdad and explore Iraq to determine what the heck is going on there, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I spend time reading various reports to try to come to my own decisions. Readers are welcome to review my previous writings on the Iraq war.
Some time after the installation of Gen. Petreaus I was able to discern some signs that US policy finally might have turned in the right direction. Now comes this op-ed piece in the Monday (7/30) edition of the NYTIMES, in which analysts Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack suggest that, indeed , we just might be on a winning path at this time, as long as you take a more nuanced approach to the term "winning".
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
The problems in Iraq are two-fold: how to eliminate those people we consider "bad guys", such as al-Queda in Iraq and the foreign fighters it imports, and how to establish a stable Iraqi government. The former is a lot easier than the latter. As i stated previously, Iraq is an artificial creation which is riven with ancient tribal animosities. The best we might hope for is a loose confederation among the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis until such time as they themselves believe that a strong central government, indeed, a true nation, is in their interests. (Consider whether a powerful Iran on it's eastern border might convince some Iraqis that the time to coalesce into a nation might be sooner rather than later.)
Oh,in the fullest recognition of the urgency of their situation the "Iraqi" parliament just adjourned for the month of August.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Summer Doldrums, Summer Crimes
Summertime... and all of your brain cells have gone on vacation, or been turned to mush like three week old lettuce. But let's catch up on some past events, shall we?
The Democrats had their "debate" based on YouTube submissions from "citizens". The fact that the questioners could not ask follow-up questions fo the candidates simply made this an event filled with softballs for the candidates to hit out of the park at will, if they had any degree of skill. It really was like watching batting practice at Yankee Stadium. Still, it showed that both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had no business being on the podium, as both frequently swung from the heels and missed repeatedly. Kucinich, by the way , is starting to remind me of of Harold Stassen. Get lost, Dennis! The same six people will vote for you year after year, and that's it.
Hillary and Barack Obama got into their own little pissing contest, with Hillary saying she wouldn't talk to dictators, then Barack saying he would talk to everyone, then Hills saying that Barack was naive, and by the way, send her campaign money because Barack had insulted her and all women, so the female vote had better line up behind her before all women were forced out of the boardrooms and back into the kitchen. Then some newspaper picked up on the fact that Hillary showed about one micron's worth of cleavage while on the Senate floor. So run to your purses girls,and give Hills some money because "they" are demeaning women again and no one ever writes about how the men dress (though I'm sure Mike Gravel could show more cleavage than Hills).
The fact is, the YouTube debate was like the proverbial barking dog: it was interesting because it happened, not because it was good. The issues were not addressed. The story was not advanced.
Back in Washington, perennial dweeb of the week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seems intent on wearing those prison stripes that were measured for, but not issued to Scooter Libby. Little Alberto seems to have backed himself into a corner when he said that he went to then AG John Ashcroft to get a sign off on the National Security Agency's eavedropping operations. As the New York Times reported:
Senate Democrats said those two magical words that send Washington pols to their clergymen for death bed confessions-"Special Prosecutor":
When Chuck Schumer smells blood, or political advantage, he is there in a flash.
Alberto, come out now with your hands up! They've Got You Surrounded!
The Democrats had their "debate" based on YouTube submissions from "citizens". The fact that the questioners could not ask follow-up questions fo the candidates simply made this an event filled with softballs for the candidates to hit out of the park at will, if they had any degree of skill. It really was like watching batting practice at Yankee Stadium. Still, it showed that both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had no business being on the podium, as both frequently swung from the heels and missed repeatedly. Kucinich, by the way , is starting to remind me of of Harold Stassen. Get lost, Dennis! The same six people will vote for you year after year, and that's it.
Hillary and Barack Obama got into their own little pissing contest, with Hillary saying she wouldn't talk to dictators, then Barack saying he would talk to everyone, then Hills saying that Barack was naive, and by the way, send her campaign money because Barack had insulted her and all women, so the female vote had better line up behind her before all women were forced out of the boardrooms and back into the kitchen. Then some newspaper picked up on the fact that Hillary showed about one micron's worth of cleavage while on the Senate floor. So run to your purses girls,and give Hills some money because "they" are demeaning women again and no one ever writes about how the men dress (though I'm sure Mike Gravel could show more cleavage than Hills).
The fact is, the YouTube debate was like the proverbial barking dog: it was interesting because it happened, not because it was good. The issues were not addressed. The story was not advanced.
Back in Washington, perennial dweeb of the week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seems intent on wearing those prison stripes that were measured for, but not issued to Scooter Libby. Little Alberto seems to have backed himself into a corner when he said that he went to then AG John Ashcroft to get a sign off on the National Security Agency's eavedropping operations. As the New York Times reported:
F.B.I. Chief Gives Account at Odds With Gonzales’s
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The director of the F.B.I. offered testimony Thursday that sharply conflicted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s sworn statements about a 2004 confrontation in which top Justice Department officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation.
The director, Robert S. Mueller III, told the House Judiciary Committee that the confrontation was about the National Security Agency’s counterterrorist eavesdropping program, describing it as “an N.S.A. program that has been much discussed.” His testimony was a serious blow to Mr. Gonzales, who insisted at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that there were no disagreements inside the Bush administration about the program at the time of those discussions or at any other time.
The director’s remarks were especially significant because Mr. Mueller is the Justice Department’s chief law enforcement official. He also played a crucial role in the 2004 dispute over the program, intervening with President Bush to help deal with the threat of mass resignations that grew out of a day of emergency meetings at the White House and at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general.
Senate Democrats said those two magical words that send Washington pols to their clergymen for death bed confessions-"Special Prosecutor":
In a separate development, Senate Democrats, who were unaware of Mr. Mueller’s comments, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Gonzales committed perjury in his testimony on Tuesday about the intelligence dispute. The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser, and another presidential aide, J. Scott Jennings, for testimony about the dismissal of federal prosecutors, another issue that has dogged Mr. Gonzales.
When Chuck Schumer smells blood, or political advantage, he is there in a flash.
Alberto, come out now with your hands up! They've Got You Surrounded!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Truth or Consequences
One of my favorite political websites is run by a gent who calls himself The Votemaster, an American computer science professor currently teaching in the Netherlands.
In his current posting the Votemaster conjectures on why Democratic women seemed to do so poorly when they ran in the last congressional elections. He opines that support from the women's political action group , Emily's List, is an anchor around a female candidate's neck, as the group demands that candidates they endorse pass certain litmus tests.
I think the reason that Democratic female candidates did not perform as well as might have been expected is rather simple. I think people do not give truthful answers to pollsters when they are asked about female, black, or other minority candidates. The individual voters do not want to be perceived by the interviewer, who in fact may be themselves be perceived as female or black, as racists, sexist or any other "ist" , so person being polled lies. Oh yes, they say, they would vote for a woman, or a black for president, but when they get to cast their really-real, yes-it-counts vote, their true feelings emerge.
The moral of this story is simple: Hillary and Barack better not believe they are shoo-ins if they are the Democratic nominees. A lot of folks will vote for a halfway decent white, male, (gasp!)Republican.
As Walter Cronkite used to say, " And that's the way it is."
In his current posting the Votemaster conjectures on why Democratic women seemed to do so poorly when they ran in the last congressional elections. He opines that support from the women's political action group , Emily's List, is an anchor around a female candidate's neck, as the group demands that candidates they endorse pass certain litmus tests.
I think the reason that Democratic female candidates did not perform as well as might have been expected is rather simple. I think people do not give truthful answers to pollsters when they are asked about female, black, or other minority candidates. The individual voters do not want to be perceived by the interviewer, who in fact may be themselves be perceived as female or black, as racists, sexist or any other "ist" , so person being polled lies. Oh yes, they say, they would vote for a woman, or a black for president, but when they get to cast their really-real, yes-it-counts vote, their true feelings emerge.
The moral of this story is simple: Hillary and Barack better not believe they are shoo-ins if they are the Democratic nominees. A lot of folks will vote for a halfway decent white, male, (gasp!)Republican.
As Walter Cronkite used to say, " And that's the way it is."
Thursday, July 12, 2007
I Steal
One of my favorite bloggers/authors is Army LTC Bob Bateman. I am republishing his post on today's Altercation blog on MediaMatters.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Matters for AmericaSearch this siteAdvanced Search Search Go
You are not logged in.
Login / Sign Up
Home Issues/Topics About Us Take Action Press/Bloggers Donate
Altercation by Eric Alterman
Wed, Jul 11, 2007 5:55pm EST
Send to a friend Print Version
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone ...
Hello Altercators, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Bateman here, standing in for Eric today. As per the ethics of my profession, there will no politics from me. Sorry, but you just do not want the guys with the guns getting all political, n'est pas? Just some observations. As for the lyric (in keeping with Eric's theme), think of your mother and read on.
I was raised in a family which took great joy in children. Irish Catholics from New York City, generations of my mother's side, the Kellehers, were cops in the metropolis. My great uncle, James Kelleher, was effectively my grandfather, as my real grandfathers had both died either before I was born or before I was really old enough to know them. Uncle Jim was a classic. When I was small, we would often visit for the holidays. Every year he would lift me up, and placing me on top of the refrigerator, pretend that he had lost me (leaving me atop the six-foot-tall appliance yelling, "Hey! Hey! I'm up here!") while everyone else in the overcrowded holiday-dinner-making kitchen played along. Alternatively, he would pull a quarter from my nose, or a banana from my ear. Of such things are the happy memories of childhood made. I like to think that I am a little bit like my uncle. I hope that he would agree. He died while I was in Iraq, and because he was "only" my great-uncle, I could not return to his deathbed, or his funeral. It was with him in some part of my heart that I worked, with you, to try and bring happiness and supplies to those schools in Baghdad in late 2005 and early 2006.
A large part of that effort was also helped by my friend, and translator, Mayada Salahi. You may recall that I reported that she was beaten down (after her ammo ran out), abducted, and slaughtered last year. My failure of May will remain with me. Forever.
But I did not just fail May. I failed her son and her daughter as well. I failed to get them to a safe place. This too will remain with me.
I cannot reveal May's son and daughter's names. They are good kids. As Uncle Jim had done for me, I taught her son how to play "slaps," and "rock/paper/scissors." As Uncle Jim had played games with me, I played a video game with May's son. I helped her daughter with her English homework and looked at her artwork. I set them up with pen pals, ate a few meals with them, and learned some Arabic from them. These are good kids. (I cannot say how old they were either, again for their safety, but will note that her son was only just above my waist, and her daughter came up to about my ribs.) If I could have gotten them out of Iraq, gotten them to my own hometown of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, or anywhere really, they would be laughing on green fields with friends today.
And May would be alive.
And her children would have a mother.
And I might not wake up, way, way too early some days.
Back in mid-February, the Bush administration announced that we, as a nation, would allow some 7,000 Iraqis in to our country this year. I did not know what the numbers had been when I announced this. An Altercation reader who deals with the issue gave me the facts. My response was effectively one-word long, expressing my anger, sense of betrayal, and frustration. His response, reprinted almost completely, is below.
"Sometimes "motherf***er" is the only appropriate response. Or at least the only thing that comes close. It seems I was actually a little too optimistic about this year's admissions. As of mid-May it [the number admitted in 2007] was under 70. It was 202 last year, 66 in 2004 and 298 in 2003. Out of the more than 2 million who've fled the country so far. I don't know of anyone who even has a guess as to how many former US employees there are in that total.
The State Dept has the main responsibility for the resettlement program, and they have been doing a lot of finger pointing as to where the delays are coming from. First at UNHCR (the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) for not referring the refugees to them, and then at DHS for not getting out there to do the security screenings. And I don't even want to think what will happen once they start doing the screenings -- the current state of the law would deny entry to the into the country to people who paid ransom to kidnappers to try to free their family members. That would qualify as material support to a terrorist organization.
I definitely don't want to let UNHCR off the hook in all this either. From what I heard from one former translator, the employees giving him his asylum interview were more interested in finding out if he had witnessed any atrocities by US troops (he hadn't) then whether he was in danger in Iraq.
So that's the state of things when it comes to Iraqi refugees at the moment. There are a couple of potential bills floating around congress to try to speed things up, but I don't really see them having much impact in the short term. By the way, in case you were wondering, the top qualification for the highest refugee official in the state department was running Maryland's lottery (and Bush's campaign there)."
And now we learn that we will not likely even meet that pathetically modest goal of 7,000 allowed in.
I serve my country, and have done so with body and soul on the line for 18 years. I love my country in such a pathetic, corny way that it verges on the humorous. But sometimes ... I am ashamed of my country.
This is one of those times.
permalink
Department of the clueless:
In other news, this guy does not get it. Commenting in the moderately influential media site of Broadcasting & Cable, J. Max Robins (I thought first initials went out with the Nixon crowd), says this about the idea of showing more of the blood and horror that is war: "I know the arguments against going all the way on this one. The coverage costs millions already. It's too painful and depressing to watch. Viewers will turn away in droves. That's what you'll hear in candid moments from network news executives."
You can find that here.
The problem, which I noted five years ago when I made the same point on NPR's show Justice Talking, is one of privacy. Let me be clear. I do not, and I will never, support the idea of instantaneous broadcast of the visual images of one of the men I serve with, bleeding to death. Until broadcast media can get that through their thick damned skulls, I will fight them intellectual tooth and nail. I do not oppose showing the images on delay, be that three days or 10, after you have talked to the families (and many, I assure you, want to see what happened themselves ... even at the cost of broadcasting). But the news media refuse to accept the idea of a limitation.
After almost six freakin' years of war, what would be the difference, huh? Do you, the public, need to see our bodies displayed in real time? Would not a few days, or a week or so, be the same overall?
Scoop culture has gone too far.
permalink
Hollywood, the war, and Phil Carter, Esq.
Phil Carter is my personal exception to the Shakespearean dictate about lawyers (Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II). If you want a steady diet of intelligent commentary about, well, damn, everything, see his site. Today he takes up the cudgel about Hollywood and the war, here.
By the way, did I mention that he was an MP, served in Baquba, and is one of the braver men that I know?
permalink
Top Cover:
The Green Zone has never, actually, been the "little paradise" described by some. At least, not since 2004 it has not been. Mostly that stayed out of the news. It is only a "little paradise" when compared with some other places. Before you get snarky, here at home, about the State Department folks working there (and contractors, and military), consider.
permalink
Animals:
A suicide attack on a NATO patrol is not actually that newsworthy nowadays. Is that not sad? But a suicide attack that deliberately kills (because there are no accidental suicide attacks) masses of children, is both an abomination and sadly more typical. These are the people we are fighting. This is not your imagination. This. Is. Reality.
permalink
Unfit to print:
Gen. George Casey was the commander in Iraq until Gen. Petraeus took over.
The administration made him the chief of staff of the United States Army.
This is some of what he said yesterday.
In reference to the Army tours of 15 months: "I can't guarantee that it won't go beyond 15 months, but I'll do everything in my power to ensure that we don't put them additionally at risk." (The USAF "tour" is four months; Marines do seven months per tour. So one Army tour is almost the same as four Air Force tours, and more than two USMC tours. Just so you know.)
permalink
"Sir, Yes Sir."
Since we missed our recruiting goal (in the Army alone) by somewhere around 1,000 or maybe 1,400, it seems that Basic Training is correspondingly a little different. I do not, on some levels, necessarily disagree with this change. There has been too much BS in the past. But still, I worry.
permalink
Capitol Hill within earshot:
It appears that I might have a book. I have an agent now (at William Morris, and believe me, that is a really strange thing for a boy from Ohio to say), who will try and get this thing off the ground next week. Basically, it is my Altercation column. Wish him luck as he tries to convince a publishing house that my writing is a little bit different from the flood of Iraq books that are already out there.
I have a tentative title, Home//Front, but if you have a better one, write me. (Not to the page, since this is Eric's site, but to me.) I will listen.
You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@Hotmail.com
permalink
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Matters for AmericaSearch this siteAdvanced Search Search Go
You are not logged in.
Login / Sign Up
Home Issues/Topics About Us Take Action Press/Bloggers Donate
Altercation by Eric Alterman
Wed, Jul 11, 2007 5:55pm EST
Send to a friend Print Version
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone ...
Hello Altercators, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Bateman here, standing in for Eric today. As per the ethics of my profession, there will no politics from me. Sorry, but you just do not want the guys with the guns getting all political, n'est pas? Just some observations. As for the lyric (in keeping with Eric's theme), think of your mother and read on.
I was raised in a family which took great joy in children. Irish Catholics from New York City, generations of my mother's side, the Kellehers, were cops in the metropolis. My great uncle, James Kelleher, was effectively my grandfather, as my real grandfathers had both died either before I was born or before I was really old enough to know them. Uncle Jim was a classic. When I was small, we would often visit for the holidays. Every year he would lift me up, and placing me on top of the refrigerator, pretend that he had lost me (leaving me atop the six-foot-tall appliance yelling, "Hey! Hey! I'm up here!") while everyone else in the overcrowded holiday-dinner-making kitchen played along. Alternatively, he would pull a quarter from my nose, or a banana from my ear. Of such things are the happy memories of childhood made. I like to think that I am a little bit like my uncle. I hope that he would agree. He died while I was in Iraq, and because he was "only" my great-uncle, I could not return to his deathbed, or his funeral. It was with him in some part of my heart that I worked, with you, to try and bring happiness and supplies to those schools in Baghdad in late 2005 and early 2006.
A large part of that effort was also helped by my friend, and translator, Mayada Salahi. You may recall that I reported that she was beaten down (after her ammo ran out), abducted, and slaughtered last year. My failure of May will remain with me. Forever.
But I did not just fail May. I failed her son and her daughter as well. I failed to get them to a safe place. This too will remain with me.
I cannot reveal May's son and daughter's names. They are good kids. As Uncle Jim had done for me, I taught her son how to play "slaps," and "rock/paper/scissors." As Uncle Jim had played games with me, I played a video game with May's son. I helped her daughter with her English homework and looked at her artwork. I set them up with pen pals, ate a few meals with them, and learned some Arabic from them. These are good kids. (I cannot say how old they were either, again for their safety, but will note that her son was only just above my waist, and her daughter came up to about my ribs.) If I could have gotten them out of Iraq, gotten them to my own hometown of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, or anywhere really, they would be laughing on green fields with friends today.
And May would be alive.
And her children would have a mother.
And I might not wake up, way, way too early some days.
Back in mid-February, the Bush administration announced that we, as a nation, would allow some 7,000 Iraqis in to our country this year. I did not know what the numbers had been when I announced this. An Altercation reader who deals with the issue gave me the facts. My response was effectively one-word long, expressing my anger, sense of betrayal, and frustration. His response, reprinted almost completely, is below.
"Sometimes "motherf***er" is the only appropriate response. Or at least the only thing that comes close. It seems I was actually a little too optimistic about this year's admissions. As of mid-May it [the number admitted in 2007] was under 70. It was 202 last year, 66 in 2004 and 298 in 2003. Out of the more than 2 million who've fled the country so far. I don't know of anyone who even has a guess as to how many former US employees there are in that total.
The State Dept has the main responsibility for the resettlement program, and they have been doing a lot of finger pointing as to where the delays are coming from. First at UNHCR (the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) for not referring the refugees to them, and then at DHS for not getting out there to do the security screenings. And I don't even want to think what will happen once they start doing the screenings -- the current state of the law would deny entry to the into the country to people who paid ransom to kidnappers to try to free their family members. That would qualify as material support to a terrorist organization.
I definitely don't want to let UNHCR off the hook in all this either. From what I heard from one former translator, the employees giving him his asylum interview were more interested in finding out if he had witnessed any atrocities by US troops (he hadn't) then whether he was in danger in Iraq.
So that's the state of things when it comes to Iraqi refugees at the moment. There are a couple of potential bills floating around congress to try to speed things up, but I don't really see them having much impact in the short term. By the way, in case you were wondering, the top qualification for the highest refugee official in the state department was running Maryland's lottery (and Bush's campaign there)."
And now we learn that we will not likely even meet that pathetically modest goal of 7,000 allowed in.
I serve my country, and have done so with body and soul on the line for 18 years. I love my country in such a pathetic, corny way that it verges on the humorous. But sometimes ... I am ashamed of my country.
This is one of those times.
permalink
Department of the clueless:
In other news, this guy does not get it. Commenting in the moderately influential media site of Broadcasting & Cable, J. Max Robins (I thought first initials went out with the Nixon crowd), says this about the idea of showing more of the blood and horror that is war: "I know the arguments against going all the way on this one. The coverage costs millions already. It's too painful and depressing to watch. Viewers will turn away in droves. That's what you'll hear in candid moments from network news executives."
You can find that here.
The problem, which I noted five years ago when I made the same point on NPR's show Justice Talking, is one of privacy. Let me be clear. I do not, and I will never, support the idea of instantaneous broadcast of the visual images of one of the men I serve with, bleeding to death. Until broadcast media can get that through their thick damned skulls, I will fight them intellectual tooth and nail. I do not oppose showing the images on delay, be that three days or 10, after you have talked to the families (and many, I assure you, want to see what happened themselves ... even at the cost of broadcasting). But the news media refuse to accept the idea of a limitation.
After almost six freakin' years of war, what would be the difference, huh? Do you, the public, need to see our bodies displayed in real time? Would not a few days, or a week or so, be the same overall?
Scoop culture has gone too far.
permalink
Hollywood, the war, and Phil Carter, Esq.
Phil Carter is my personal exception to the Shakespearean dictate about lawyers (Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II). If you want a steady diet of intelligent commentary about, well, damn, everything, see his site. Today he takes up the cudgel about Hollywood and the war, here.
By the way, did I mention that he was an MP, served in Baquba, and is one of the braver men that I know?
permalink
Top Cover:
The Green Zone has never, actually, been the "little paradise" described by some. At least, not since 2004 it has not been. Mostly that stayed out of the news. It is only a "little paradise" when compared with some other places. Before you get snarky, here at home, about the State Department folks working there (and contractors, and military), consider.
permalink
Animals:
A suicide attack on a NATO patrol is not actually that newsworthy nowadays. Is that not sad? But a suicide attack that deliberately kills (because there are no accidental suicide attacks) masses of children, is both an abomination and sadly more typical. These are the people we are fighting. This is not your imagination. This. Is. Reality.
permalink
Unfit to print:
Gen. George Casey was the commander in Iraq until Gen. Petraeus took over.
The administration made him the chief of staff of the United States Army.
This is some of what he said yesterday.
In reference to the Army tours of 15 months: "I can't guarantee that it won't go beyond 15 months, but I'll do everything in my power to ensure that we don't put them additionally at risk." (The USAF "tour" is four months; Marines do seven months per tour. So one Army tour is almost the same as four Air Force tours, and more than two USMC tours. Just so you know.)
permalink
"Sir, Yes Sir."
Since we missed our recruiting goal (in the Army alone) by somewhere around 1,000 or maybe 1,400, it seems that Basic Training is correspondingly a little different. I do not, on some levels, necessarily disagree with this change. There has been too much BS in the past. But still, I worry.
permalink
Capitol Hill within earshot:
It appears that I might have a book. I have an agent now (at William Morris, and believe me, that is a really strange thing for a boy from Ohio to say), who will try and get this thing off the ground next week. Basically, it is my Altercation column. Wish him luck as he tries to convince a publishing house that my writing is a little bit different from the flood of Iraq books that are already out there.
I have a tentative title, Home//Front, but if you have a better one, write me. (Not to the page, since this is Eric's site, but to me.) I will listen.
You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@Hotmail.com
permalink
Monday, July 9, 2007
Pardon Me?
From Talking Points Memo by Joshua Micah Marshal
I havent seen this noted but i think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which inulates him ( and Bush and Cheney) from havaing to answer questions before Congress.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Like a Snake Eating its Tail
OK . This is really interesting:
Are the really bad guys in Iraq going to fight the merely bad guys in Iran? Is the US attempt to forge alliances with the local Iraqi sheiks and tribes by focusing on local interests starting to put the squeeze on the Al Qaeda types. Was Tip O'Neill right, that all politics, even in Iraq, is local? And will local politics and interests trump the call for Al Qaeda-led jihad? Are we seeing the faintest glimmer of success in Iraq?
Al-Qaida leader in Iraq threatens Iran
Group will wage war unless Iran stops supporting Shiites
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:36 p.m. ET July 8, 2007
CAIRO, Egypt - The leader of an al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq within two months, according to an audiotape released Sunday.
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the group Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.
“We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,” he said in the 50-minute audiotape. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.
Iraq’s Shiite-led government is backed by the U.S. but closely allied to Iran. The United States accuses Iran of arming and financing Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.
In the recording, al-Baghdadi also gave Sunnis and Arab countries doing business in Iran or with Iranians a two-month deadline to cease their ties.
“We advise and warn every Sunni businessman inside Iran or in Arab countries especially in the Gulf not to take partnership with any Shiite Iranian businessman — this is part of the two-month period,” he said.
Al-Baghdadi said his group was responsible for two suicide truck bomb attacks in May in Iraq’s northern Kurdish region. He said the attacks in Irbil and Makhmur showed the “Islamic jihad,” or holy war, was progressing in the Kurdish areas.
At least 14 people were killed when a suicide truck bomb struck a government building in Irbil, Kurdistan’s capital, on May 9. Four days later in Makhmur, another suicide truck bomb tore through the offices of a Kurdish political party, killing 50 people.
In the recording, the Islamic State of Iraq leader did not mention Saturday’s deadly truck bomb in Armili, a Shiite town north of Baghdad, which killed more than 100 people. The attack was among the deadliest this year in Iraq and reinforced suspicions that al-Qaida extremists were moving north to less protected regions beyond the U.S. security crackdown in Baghdad.
Al-Baghdadi criticized Kurdish leaders for their alliance with Shiites in Iraq’s government and accused them encouraging unsavory morals.
“The leaders of apostasy ... have impeded the march of Islam in Muslim Kurdistan and helped communism and secularism to spread. ... They insulted the religious scholars ... encouraged vices and women without veils,” he said.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19667464/from/RS.1/
Are the really bad guys in Iraq going to fight the merely bad guys in Iran? Is the US attempt to forge alliances with the local Iraqi sheiks and tribes by focusing on local interests starting to put the squeeze on the Al Qaeda types. Was Tip O'Neill right, that all politics, even in Iraq, is local? And will local politics and interests trump the call for Al Qaeda-led jihad? Are we seeing the faintest glimmer of success in Iraq?
On Iraq, the NY Times, Fantasy, and Reality
The New York Times editorial of Sunday July 8 calls for setting a near-term date for leaving Iraq. This editorial is a mish-mosh of wishful thinking and naivete.
Without doubt, Iraq is a bloody mess, caused by the Bush administration's unnecessary war, fought incompetently. But picking up our marbles and going home is not the route to any type of sane conclusion to this mess. The Times itself states:
Let's look around the region. The BBC reports
At the same time, Iraq's Anbar province may have turned a corner, with Sunni sheiks deciding that Al Qaeda is more of a threat to their safety than the United States.See this report in the Sunday Times's Week in Review.
Finally, Sadr City , the Shiite slum, seems to be calm after the initial American push into that area:
The entity we know as Iraq resulted from some lines drawn on a map by Winston Churchill after World War 1 when the former Ottoman Empire land was given to England to administer as a mandate. Churchill's map making did not take into account the various tribal conflicts that existed in the area, even as Lloyd George congratulated Churchill for having turned "a mere collection of tribes into a nation" in Iraq.( Take a look at this interesting sidebar I found at winstonchurchill.org. ) In fact, "Iraq" has existed as a nation only as a result of power residing in a strongman, such as Saddam Hussein, who could keep all of the various factions from breaking apart.
The Iraqis have been fighting their religious and tribal wars for 1200 years. It could only be a drug induced fantasy to try to impose on the Iraqis our American ideal-myth of both a unified democratic country and ethnic melting pot.
Therefore, the time may be ripe for American policy-makers to heed the words of Andrew Jackson to "elevate them guns a little lower" and allow Iraq to break up into its natural component states, specifically, separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite republics, each with their own separate and distinct populations and territories. Some might perceive horror in the voluntary relocation of families from the mixed ethnic areas where they currently live; however, such relocation has already taken place, with millions of Iraqis fleeing the country, or fleeing into Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish areas to be with their co-religionists.
An example of such a relocation took place after Indian independence when that country's Muslims and Hindus found that they could not live in peace with each other. As a result, two independent Muslim states, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively) were split off from India.
The three separate former Iraqi regions may decide initially to form a loose confederation to efficiently exploit oil and other natural resources. If confidence building experiences develop between those regions, those micro states might evolve into a geographically larger and politically more unified federal form of government. Such evolution in government is not unusual. After all, the United States began as a loose confederation (remember our "Articles of Confederation" from high school?) before the nation's fathers found that to be unworkable and they enacted our current constitution and our federal government.
Years ago, Colin Powell warned Bush of what he called the "Pottery Barn" theory of Iraq, "If we break it, we own it." We broke it. U.S forces will be needed for years to make sense of the pieces of the shattered Iraq and to stabilize this region.
Without doubt, Iraq is a bloody mess, caused by the Bush administration's unnecessary war, fought incompetently. But picking up our marbles and going home is not the route to any type of sane conclusion to this mess. The Times itself states:
Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide
Let's look around the region. The BBC reports
Compared with most other parts of Iraq, the Kurds in the north of the country are doing very well for themselves, enjoying greater security and relative prosperity than most other places.
At the same time, Iraq's Anbar province may have turned a corner, with Sunni sheiks deciding that Al Qaeda is more of a threat to their safety than the United States.See this report in the Sunday Times's Week in Review.
SUNNI merchants watched warily from behind neat stacks of fruit and vegetables as Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno walked with a platoon of bodyguards through the Qatana bazaar here one recent afternoon. At last, one leathery-faced trader glanced furtively up and down the narrow, refuse-strewn street to check who might be listening, then broke the silence.
“America good! Al Qaeda bad!” he said in halting English, flashing a thumb’s-up in the direction of America’s second-ranking commander in Iraq.
Until only a few months ago, the Central Street bazaar was enemy territory, watched over by American machine-gunners in sandbagged bunkers on the roof of the governor’s building across the road. Ramadi was Iraq’s most dangerous city, and the area around the building the most deadly place in Ramadi. Now, a pact between local tribal sheiks and American commanders has sent thousands of young Iraqis from Anbar Province into the fight against extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The deal has all but ended the fighting in Ramadi and recast the city as a symbol of hope that the tide of the war may yet be reversed to favor the Americans and their Iraqi allies.
Finally, Sadr City , the Shiite slum, seems to be calm after the initial American push into that area:
By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — U.S. and Iraqi troops conducted door-to-door searches in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday, marking a critical step in the new Baghdad security plan.
More than 600 U.S. troops and 550 Iraqi soldiers cleared out safe houses and searched for militants and weapons, according to a U.S. military statement. They met no major resistance.
The troops seek to establish a permanent security outpost in Sadr City, home to the powerful Mahdi Army militia. The operation marks a major shift in strategy by Iraq's Shiite-led government, which blocked several attempts last year by U.S. troops to enter the area.
"Many people felt we would never go into Sadr City because that was the prime minister's power base," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq. "It's just another example of the political will that the prime minister and council of representatives are exerting to make this work."
The entity we know as Iraq resulted from some lines drawn on a map by Winston Churchill after World War 1 when the former Ottoman Empire land was given to England to administer as a mandate. Churchill's map making did not take into account the various tribal conflicts that existed in the area, even as Lloyd George congratulated Churchill for having turned "a mere collection of tribes into a nation" in Iraq.( Take a look at this interesting sidebar I found at winstonchurchill.org. ) In fact, "Iraq" has existed as a nation only as a result of power residing in a strongman, such as Saddam Hussein, who could keep all of the various factions from breaking apart.
The Iraqis have been fighting their religious and tribal wars for 1200 years. It could only be a drug induced fantasy to try to impose on the Iraqis our American ideal-myth of both a unified democratic country and ethnic melting pot.
Therefore, the time may be ripe for American policy-makers to heed the words of Andrew Jackson to "elevate them guns a little lower" and allow Iraq to break up into its natural component states, specifically, separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite republics, each with their own separate and distinct populations and territories. Some might perceive horror in the voluntary relocation of families from the mixed ethnic areas where they currently live; however, such relocation has already taken place, with millions of Iraqis fleeing the country, or fleeing into Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish areas to be with their co-religionists.
An example of such a relocation took place after Indian independence when that country's Muslims and Hindus found that they could not live in peace with each other. As a result, two independent Muslim states, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively) were split off from India.
The three separate former Iraqi regions may decide initially to form a loose confederation to efficiently exploit oil and other natural resources. If confidence building experiences develop between those regions, those micro states might evolve into a geographically larger and politically more unified federal form of government. Such evolution in government is not unusual. After all, the United States began as a loose confederation (remember our "Articles of Confederation" from high school?) before the nation's fathers found that to be unworkable and they enacted our current constitution and our federal government.
Years ago, Colin Powell warned Bush of what he called the "Pottery Barn" theory of Iraq, "If we break it, we own it." We broke it. U.S forces will be needed for years to make sense of the pieces of the shattered Iraq and to stabilize this region.
Scooter Skates
Here is this from Newsweek on line.
Those of you who had trouble with the Libby commutation might like to focus on these two sentences:
Remember when Bush stated that he would take appropriate action if anyone in his administration was found guilty of criminal activity in this case? Is this what he meant?
A pardon is a done deal, gang. Bet the house on it.
Those of you who had trouble with the Libby commutation might like to focus on these two sentences:
Bush's choice of words rankled Libby's supporters, since it seemed to make it harder for Bush to grant a full pardon. (The next day, Bush said he wouldn't "rule out" a pardon.)
Remember when Bush stated that he would take appropriate action if anyone in his administration was found guilty of criminal activity in this case? Is this what he meant?
A pardon is a done deal, gang. Bet the house on it.
Constitutional Crisis? What Constitution???
Then there is this little item that keeps raising its ugly head:
And you thought the issue of the US attorney firings was going to disappear? Nope.
Once again the White House hides behind "executive privilege". Don't get me wrong, "executive privilege" might very well be a necessary and tenable position. However, the situation changes when "executive privilege" is always used as a cover-up for executive malfeasance. This administration has absolutely no credibility to assert any privilege, real or imagined, which prevents the thorough examination of its actions.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says.
The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said.
Eggleston stated, in a letter this weekend to committee leaders and White House counsel Fred Fielding, that Taylor expects a letter from Fielding asking her not to comply with the subpoena.
And you thought the issue of the US attorney firings was going to disappear? Nope.
Once again the White House hides behind "executive privilege". Don't get me wrong, "executive privilege" might very well be a necessary and tenable position. However, the situation changes when "executive privilege" is always used as a cover-up for executive malfeasance. This administration has absolutely no credibility to assert any privilege, real or imagined, which prevents the thorough examination of its actions.
Impeachment Follies
A friend recently sent me this little left wing screed:
I think this administration may, in fact, be guilty of actionable offenses; however a razor thin Democratic majority will never convict. We do not need to embroil the country in impeachment follies through the end of the Bush term. Further, any move to impeach will just convince some fence-sitters that the Democrats are controlled by the whacky left, are untrustworthy with the controls of government, and probably again vote for a Republican in the next elections.
But I wonder if charges can be brought after these guys leave office?
Subject: Last Chance for IMPEACH Cheney Caps, Greenwald Video and More
Dear Impeachment Movement Heros,
We are participating in a national coordinated emailing to promote the new Robert Greenwald Impeach Cheney video, and we reproduce the text of that alert in the next section just below. So for those of you who are looking for yet more things to do, this is another.
But first we want you to know that to meet YOUR demand we have already bumped the first run of "IMPEACH CHENEY?" caps from 2,500 to 3,500, and this coming Tuesday (when we start taking delivery) we will tell the manufacturer how many MORE we need to make sure that every one of you who wants one gets one So if you have not yet requested your very own custom embroidered cap, to get more people to ASK themselves "Should Vice President Cheney be Impeached?", remember we will send you one for no charge. If you can ALSO make a donation to help finance the enormous cost of getting all these caps sewn and shipped, please consider chipping in for that too. Either way just submit this request form:
LAST CHANCE FIRST RUN IMPEACHMENT CAP REQUESTS: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_cap.php
New video: Impeach Dick Cheney from Robert Greenwald
That's right, we said the "I" word. And you should be saying it too -- to your family, your friends, your neighbors, your pets and the hearty 26% of Americans who somehow still believe the Bush/Cheney team more worthy of sitting in the Oval Office than an undisclosed location stripped of all authority to further damage the country we love.
You'll want to say it even more after watching our video with the evidence for impeachment right there: http://impeachcheney.org/
Dick Cheney has been a malevolent force on the checks and balances of American government for over six years. He has subverted government processes to lead us into this tragedy in Iraq, and is now seeking to do the same with Iran. Two countries, mind you, he did business with while CEO of Halliburton.
We are at an important moment in American history. For if we don't take action in light of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by one Richard Cheney, we might as well throw the word away. Because there will never be a time when it is more justified.
Sign the petition: http://impeachcheney.org/petition.php
14 representatives already support H. Res 333, the articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney. Your signatures will be used to get other House members to to sign on. We are working with a substantial and growing coalition led by Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org.
Let's make this travesty a turning point in our history. Please join us in restoring democratic principles to our government by IMPEACHING DICK CHENEY.
Sincerely,
Robert, Cliff, Paris, Jim G and the entire Brave New Films team
I think this administration may, in fact, be guilty of actionable offenses; however a razor thin Democratic majority will never convict. We do not need to embroil the country in impeachment follies through the end of the Bush term. Further, any move to impeach will just convince some fence-sitters that the Democrats are controlled by the whacky left, are untrustworthy with the controls of government, and probably again vote for a Republican in the next elections.
But I wonder if charges can be brought after these guys leave office?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Bush Clueless
Check this breaking story in the New York Times which reports that a 2005 a military operation to "snatch and grab" high ranking Al Qaeda terrorists was called off by then SecDef Rumsfeld.
Say what you will about the relative merits of the operation, this is the sentence that really caught my eye:
So here's the deal: top level US officials are contemplating an operation into a sovereign state, Pakistan- to capture some bad guys AND W IS KEPT IN THE DARK BY HIS OWN PEOPLE.
I remember when the military tried to pull of that rescue operation of our hostages in Iran. Totally FUBAR'd, but Jimmy Carter stood up and took the weight. As they say in college courses, "compare and contrast this with W's behavior".
How many people in America are making a short-timers chain for this administration?
Say what you will about the relative merits of the operation, this is the sentence that really caught my eye:
It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation.
So here's the deal: top level US officials are contemplating an operation into a sovereign state, Pakistan- to capture some bad guys AND W IS KEPT IN THE DARK BY HIS OWN PEOPLE.
I remember when the military tried to pull of that rescue operation of our hostages in Iran. Totally FUBAR'd, but Jimmy Carter stood up and took the weight. As they say in college courses, "compare and contrast this with W's behavior".
How many people in America are making a short-timers chain for this administration?
A Letter from Michael
Michael writes:
Thanks for the latest on the blog. It seems like every time you take
a break you come back even better and more energetic.
One item - I can't believe you haven't mentioned the commuted
sentence of iScooter (not the new Steve Jobs device).
As much as I try to support our President, even I shake my head at
this one. This one ranks up there with his nominating
his legal counsel to the Supreme Court.
Again, keep up the good work.
Michael,
You are surprised about the Scooter Libby deal? WHY? Everyone could see this one coming from miles away. Don't shocked when the full pardon comes down before W leaves office.
I can understand honorable people wanting to support the president, but W has done absolutely nothing over his two terms in office to earn the support of any rational American, irrespective of political philosophy. Nothing. W's incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance are a toxic brew.
Thanks so much for your kind words. As I said when I started this endeavor, I have a day job so I don't spend my days sitting in my underwear at my computer. Matt Drudge pretty much has that gig. I blog for fun as I define it, and since it's my blog, I can pretty much define it as I want. I tend to do my better work when I am in high dudgeon. And sometimes there just isn't a hell of a lot that I find intriguing. I feel no compulsion to write daily if nothing grabs me . I don't have an editor sitting on my shoulder demanding 800 words by deadline. I have been in the journalism business, and while working against a tight deadline can be a rush, it can also be a pain in the ass.
Again, thanks for your kind words and please pass along this website to those who might appreciate it.
TRM
Thanks for the latest on the blog. It seems like every time you take
a break you come back even better and more energetic.
One item - I can't believe you haven't mentioned the commuted
sentence of iScooter (not the new Steve Jobs device).
As much as I try to support our President, even I shake my head at
this one. This one ranks up there with his nominating
his legal counsel to the Supreme Court.
Again, keep up the good work.
Michael,
You are surprised about the Scooter Libby deal? WHY? Everyone could see this one coming from miles away. Don't shocked when the full pardon comes down before W leaves office.
I can understand honorable people wanting to support the president, but W has done absolutely nothing over his two terms in office to earn the support of any rational American, irrespective of political philosophy. Nothing. W's incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance are a toxic brew.
Thanks so much for your kind words. As I said when I started this endeavor, I have a day job so I don't spend my days sitting in my underwear at my computer. Matt Drudge pretty much has that gig. I blog for fun as I define it, and since it's my blog, I can pretty much define it as I want. I tend to do my better work when I am in high dudgeon. And sometimes there just isn't a hell of a lot that I find intriguing. I feel no compulsion to write daily if nothing grabs me . I don't have an editor sitting on my shoulder demanding 800 words by deadline. I have been in the journalism business, and while working against a tight deadline can be a rush, it can also be a pain in the ass.
Again, thanks for your kind words and please pass along this website to those who might appreciate it.
TRM
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Brian Writes...
Thanks so much for reprinting the Declaration of Independence on your blog.
It is amazing, reading through the grievances of our forefathers against King George III, the horrifying parallels of crimes that our sitting President is inflicting upon our citizenry.
I can only hope & pray that common sense returns to the Body Collective soon and justice once again reigns supreme.
Brian
Brian, it seems that "Common Sense" is not so common anymore.(Where is Tom Paine when you really need him?!)
All I am trying to achieve is to create a place where rational discourse can take place. Real conservatives have something valuable to say. Liberals have something valuable to say. But those high profile crypto-(and not so crypto) fascists of the right, and the jackals of the media who have created the so-called " freak-show" have so poisoned the political atmosphere that rational discourse is almost impossible.
As I said, it is my tradition to read the Declaration of Independence each year to remind me, and those around me, what those framers struggled to bring forth. It was an earth shattering concept in government. That precious heritage belongs to all of us, not just those who grandly wrap themselves in the flag and declare all who disagree with them to be traitors. Thats why I fight my fight.
So, friend Brian, thanks for dropping by and adding your words.
TRM
PS Great movie to watch on a rainy Independence Day-- 1776 - starring William Daniels, Ken Howard, and Howard da Silva
It is amazing, reading through the grievances of our forefathers against King George III, the horrifying parallels of crimes that our sitting President is inflicting upon our citizenry.
I can only hope & pray that common sense returns to the Body Collective soon and justice once again reigns supreme.
Brian
Brian, it seems that "Common Sense" is not so common anymore.(Where is Tom Paine when you really need him?!)
All I am trying to achieve is to create a place where rational discourse can take place. Real conservatives have something valuable to say. Liberals have something valuable to say. But those high profile crypto-(and not so crypto) fascists of the right, and the jackals of the media who have created the so-called " freak-show" have so poisoned the political atmosphere that rational discourse is almost impossible.
As I said, it is my tradition to read the Declaration of Independence each year to remind me, and those around me, what those framers struggled to bring forth. It was an earth shattering concept in government. That precious heritage belongs to all of us, not just those who grandly wrap themselves in the flag and declare all who disagree with them to be traitors. Thats why I fight my fight.
So, friend Brian, thanks for dropping by and adding your words.
TRM
PS Great movie to watch on a rainy Independence Day-- 1776 - starring William Daniels, Ken Howard, and Howard da Silva
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
A Sublime Intersection
Ah , yes, science and food. World famous food scientist Harold McGee on potato chips.
Why We Eat
July 4th is a day for cook-outs, fireworks, sales and other forms of entertainment. But never forget the real reason this holiday exists.
It is my tradition to read aloud to those assembled the Declaration of Independence.
Please join me.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:
* National Archives and Records Administration: Declaration of Independence
* Library of Congress: About the Declaration of Independence
It is my tradition to read aloud to those assembled the Declaration of Independence.
Please join me.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:
* National Archives and Records Administration: Declaration of Independence
* Library of Congress: About the Declaration of Independence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
