Donna in un Tratto di Penna - di Antonio Attinà

Donna in un Tratto di Penna - di Antonio Attinà

Donna in un tratto di penna Registered & Protected 




Contante Libero

Franklin banner

Franklin banner












Friday, July 18, 2014

Putin rebels against playing Washington and much more


On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.


Putin rebels against playing Washington and much more

Released on 2012-10-19 08:00 GMT
Email-ID 295225
Date 2007-11-24 01:21:58

HNN Judith Apter Klinghoffer


"If he does that (relinquishes the presidency), he will be the greatest
man in the world," Said King George III about George Washington. The same
can be said today about Vladimir Putin. If he steps down as he vows, he
would create a new Russia. He seems to know that and vows to do just that.
Yet to listen to him, it is clear that every fiber in his body rebels
against the idea. He is sure his successors cannot be trusted to defend
and nourish the Russia he constructed. Just read this excerpt from his
November 21st campaign speech ( Translated by A. Ignatkin):

Nothing is preordained. Social stability, economic growth, even peace in
Russia, and some improvement in living standards are not an unexpected
windfall. This is a result of constant political struggle, sometimes a
vicious struggle, both domestically and internationally. It is a result
of a clash of interests. No battle can be fought without your

Nothing would please our adversaries more than disruption of our plans,
because they have other plans and designs for Russia.

They want it to be weak. They want us to be a disorganized and
disoriented society, a divided society, so that they can line their
pockets behind our backs and at our expense. Regrettably, there are
still certain forces in this country who grovel before foreign embassies
and rely on foreign grants rather than on support from their own people.
. . .

The authorities do make mistakes. They deserve criticism when they do. .
. .

And those who controlled the commanding heights in the federal
parliament and government only a decade ago, in the 1990s, those who
damaged our society and the state in pursuing the interests of
oligarchic structures and looting our national wealth. It is these same
people who are now trying to tell us what to do - the same people who
made corruption the principal instrument of political and economic
competition. It was those people who kept passing unbalanced and
irresponsible budgets year after year, and who brought about the default
and deterioration of living standards. . . .

I don't think anyone has any doubts as to what would follow their return
to power. These people would once again rob millions of ordinary
citizens and line their own pockets, in their typically cynical manner.

Everyone knows that Russia has accumulated vast resources. So there is
once again a desire to confiscate it all, divide it all, and ruin
everything again.

All our enemies would like to see us enslaved.

The fate of our country will be decided on December 2! Vote United

To watch the Russian people's enthusiastic response to his speeches, it is
obvious that they too share his instincts. All evidence points to a major
party victory. Moreover, the Russian people seem as nervous as he is about
the passing of the presidential torch. The helm is certainly there for his
keeping just as it was in the case of Washington. Yet Washington overcame
his fears and potential hubris; he overcame the oh so flattering belief
that he was irreplaceable. That "Apres moi, le deluge!"

Much depends on Putin's ability to do what no Russian leader ever did: Bow
out at the height of his power because the Constitution demands it. It is
one of the most important democratic pillars. A few years ago, I suggested
to the director of the Nobel Institute that the Peace Prize be awarded to
Julius Nyerere for stepping down voluntarily as Tanzania's president.
Alas, they had other priorities. Fortunately, Egypt's Mo Ibrahim who knows
all so well the consequences of the refusal of a president to step down
(think Mubarak!) established a Foundation just for such a purpose. The
first award of five million dollars went to Joaquim Chissano, the former
President of Mozambique. Perhaps some wealthy Russian should do the same.
Perhaps, a few million dollars would help convince Putin that their is
life without power?!

Just a thought.


James R. Russell, Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies, Harvard
University writes about Ideaology over intergrity in Academe in The
Current. It starts thus:

Is this Columbia University? A professor of anthropology calls for a
million Mogadishus, a professor of Arabic and Islamic Science tells a
girl she isn't a Semite because her eyes are green, and a professor of
Persian hails the destruction of the World Trade Center as the
castrating of a double phallus. The most recent tenured addition to this
rogues' gallery is to be an anthropologist, the principal thrust of
whose magnum opus is the suggestion that archaeology in Israel is a sort
of con game meant to persuade the unwary that Jews lived there in

Turkey tries to have its cake and eat it too or as R. Krespin writes
Turkey's Parallel Policies - One for Peace, One Against:

Two conferences took place last week in Turkey. The first, a summit held
November 13, 2007 in Ankara, was dedicated to advancing the peace
process, with the participation of Turkish President Abdullah Gul,
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

The second, held November 15-17 in Istanbul and titled The Al-Quds
International Forum Meeting, was dedicated to support for jihadist
organizations' quest for Jerusalem, and was hosted by Turkey's Waqf for
Volunteering Organizations (TGTV), whose leaders include AKP officials,
current and former MPs, and government ministers and which has been
linked in international intelligence reports to other Islamist
organizations suspected of transferring funds to Al-Qaeda.

The good news, not everybody approved!

Israel abandons Pollard yet again. I do understand it is a sensitive issue
both to the government of Israel and the Jewish diaspora but enough is

Watch Anti-Semitism redefined:

Pamela has more on the antics of UN's Human Right Council. It includes
ending the scrutiny of Cuba and Belarus and indicting Israel.

I grant you none of this can be classified as news. Still . . .

Nathan Sharansky explains that the folly of Annapolis lies in
Strengthening them again. Money paragraphs:

"We must strengthen Abu Mazen," say Israel's leaders as a kind of
mantra. It is of no importance that along the way they are educating
another generation of Palestinians to hatred, violence and the
aspiration to destroy Israel. It is of no importance that the way to the
strengthening is the diametric opposite of peace and dialogue. The main
thing is that we are strengthening Abu Mazen.

The old argument of President Shimon Peres and Meretz MK Yossi Beilin
and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on "with whom to make peace, a strong
leader or a weak leader" is no longer relevant. A look back over the
years since the Oslo Accords shows clearly that the direction in which
Palestinian society has marched is not the direction of peace. It was
all in all just a hudna (truce) before another intifada. And when the
society is becoming more extreme, what difference is it to us if the
leader is strong or weak?

Finally, for the benefit of those likeme who are not subscribing to the
Wall Street Journal, I posted bellow Boris Volodarsky's Terror's KGB Roots




Bruce Kessler draws attention to the global incident map map wesite. It is
scarry yet necessary. For it will convince you that we are not alone and
we have not brought it on ourselves!

So What?

We have no choice but to fight back.

Click to see moderate Muslims fight back. They dare stand up to the Cult
of Honor and Shame.

Read Honest Reporting's study of the New York Time's coverage of the
Israeli/Palestinian dispute.


Capitalism as system based on private ownership of the economy may be
slowly being replaced by a global system based state ownership of the
economy. No, I am not talking about states merely controlling their own
economic systems but those of other countries. Sovereign Wealth Funds are
all the rage. Russia and China are reveling in them while Japan and India
are considering them. For Sovereign wealth funds: Power magnifies as
petrodollar gains ground and if you cannot beat them, you may as well join

To reassure nervous Nellies, the IMF suggested the funds practice
VOLUNTARY TRANSPARENCY. In other words, the IMF suggested that they let us
know what they are doing with their money. In the meantime we have to rely
on guesses of experts with less than sterling records.

Not on your life, is their response. It is unfair to ask us such questions
and if you do not stop it. We will not invest in your country! Now there!
And if this is not scary enough, try adding to it a weak dollar and
Western businessmen anxious to sell and you will end up with the

He told the Financial Times on Monday that the more sophisticated
investors were likely to look beyond bank stocks, buying distressed debt
instruments either directly or through hedge funds.

His comments were made as some international bankers have recently been
courting investors in the Gulf, a region seeing an unprecedented
oil-fueled boom, in hopes of finding new buyers for distressed assets
created by the credit turmoil.

But Mr bin Sulaiman also warned that any attempt to suck new Gulf buyers
into US markets could be damaged by its attitude towards sovereign
wealth funds, which have faced a political backlash driven by concerns
over transparency and fears that the government funds could turn their
financial power into political leverage.

This backlash, he said, could encourage regional houses to turn their
backs on western markets and seek more buying opportunities in Asia,
where they face little or no such backlash.

"If you need foreign direct investment, you need to be welcoming, not
scaring [investors] off," he said. "Talk about sovereign wealth funds is
creating a lot of sensitivity, even for private investors. They are
already looking elsewhere to hedge their positions."

The International Monetary Fund has been recommending voluntary
transparency from sovereign wealth funds to pre-empt compulsory
disclosure that could be imposed by some western states. Mr bin Sulaiman
said some of the regional funds made such big investments that
disclosures would have an impact on markets and put these groups at a

His comments echo the position of other government-backed investors in
the region, who cherish the secrecy of their investments and have balked
at suggestions they should become more transparent. The DIFC, which has
established itself as a regional financial centre, is also part of the
new breed of Gulf investors that have pursued aggressive acquisitions

DIFC Investment, the centre's investment arm, has acquired stakes in
pan-European exchanges company Euronext and in Deutsche Bank. Borse
Dubai, a government entity partly owned by DIFC, has tied with the US
Nasdaq to acquire OMX, the Nordic exchange, and to buy a stake in the
London Stock Exchange.

Mr bin Sulaiman confirmed that Borse Dubai's next move was likely to be
an investment into an Asian exchange. "It's only logical," he said.
"It's a matter of when rather than whether we will [make an acquisition
in Asia]."

Nor are these threats falling on deaf ears. I have recently heard Rush
Limbaugh tell his audience that it was his feeling that the reason Dubai
bought Airbus instead of Boeing is because they resent the American
refusal to let them take over the running of our ports!

The FT/DIFC World Financial Centres Summit taking place in Dubai is
certainly worth following. We are in the midst of a complicated GO
(American know it as Othello) game whose importance cannot be overstated.


Columbia University is boiling. Professors find swastikas and nooses on
their office doors and strenuous denials not withstanding Columbia
president Lee Bollinger may soon be following in the footsteps Larry
Summers. Why? Because he stepped into the maelstrom that is Middle East
politics on campus. First, he invited Ahmadinejad to speak and then
chastised him prior to his speech.

It was a truly disastrously performance which is currently exploited by
Islamist/leftist faculty members to secure tenure for two of their
members. They secured one for Nadia Abu El-Haj at Barnard. Now, they are
well on their way to secure another Joseph Massad at Columbia. How? With
the help of a public letter signed by 109 professors. 69 professors
responded with a letter expressing their support for the president. For
the first time the post Sixties steady take over of the campuses by
proponents of a radical leftist/Islamist anti-Semitic, anti-American
relativistic agenda is seriously challenged. Why?

Because 9/11 demonstrated the vile consequences Western education has when
offered to Third World students has not only to the Third World but also
to the First world. Al Qaeda achieved what the Kmer Rouge failed to do. It
convinced increasing number of intellectuals to challenge the academic
consensus which blamed everything on Western imperialism and nothing on
indigenous Third World forces.

Democracy, Capitalism and technological innovation thrive on critical
thinking. In that sense far from breaking the back of Democratic
Capitalism, even tenured radicals ultimately served to strengthen it by
teaching students that it is good to rebel, i.e., challenge established
verities. Here and there a student such as Theodore Kaczynski took the
critics seriously and became a unabomber, but those instances were too few
and far between to justify a costly challenge to the system.

The trouble is that the system which worked well for the developed world
has been truly harmful to the developed world by misleading its best and
brightest. Not all Third World tyrants were necessarily educated in the
great Western universities but their educated elites did swallowed the
radical critic of Democratic Capitalism whole hog and it helped them
justify their mismanagement of their home countries. The same can be said
of the leading Islamists, Maoists and various National liberation
commanders. If the academia had a tough time turning against the Kmer
Rouge, it was because Pol Pot was "one of them." He merely put to practice
what he learn in the Sorbonne. Voices trying to direct attention to the
phenomenon were either silenced or marginalized. Moreover, these ideas
were widely distributed in the Third World.

9/11 focused attention on the effect of education on Third World students.
At first, few challenged academics directing attention to the usual
suspects or root causes such as poverty, hopelessness and racism. Then
came the serious research and revealed that terrorists tended to be well
educated young people who bought into the fashionable Post Colonial critic
and became determined to punish their "oppressors" for destroying their
veritable "havens" that their homelands used to be and, indeed, bring
about a return to those old time paradises. Princeton University economist
Alan Krueger writes:

Pakistan, and Turkey, involving about 1,000 respondents in each country.
One of the questions asked was, "What about suicide bombing carried out
against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq? Do you personally
believe that this is justifiable or not justifiable?" Pew kindly
provided me with tabulations of these data by respondents' personal

The clear finding was that people with a higher level of education are
in general more likely to say that suicide attacks against Westerners in
Iraq are justified. I have also broken this pattern down by income
level. There is no indication that people with higher incomes are less
likely to say that suicide-bombing attacks are justified.

Another source of opinion data is the Palestinian Center for Policy and
Survey Research, headquartered in Ramallah. The center collects data in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip. One question, asked in December 2001 of
1,300 adults, addressed attitudes toward armed attacks on Israeli
targets. Options were "strongly support," "support," "oppose," "strongly
oppose," or "no opinion."

Support turned out to be stronger among those with a higher level of
education. For example, while 26 percent of illiterates and 18 percent
of those with only an elementary education opposed or strongly opposed
armed attacks, the figure for those with a high school education was
just 12 percent. The least supportive group turned out to be the
unemployed, 74 percent of whom said they support or strongly back armed
attacks. By comparison, the support level for merchants and
professionals was 87 percent.

Clearly terrorism is being taught and, therefore, to stop it the teaching
of the reasons terror is justified must stop.

How? First and foremost by challenging the scholarship of the those
teaching it. Second, by making their propagators face public scrutiny.
When such scrutiny leads to demands for sanctions against irresponsible
professors, their colleagues often rush to their defense crying foul in
the name of academic freedom. This is what is happening in Columbia and
this is what happened at Harvard. We must realize that this battle has
only just been joined and it is not going to be short, easy or pretty.

Still, nothing less than the survival of the developed world and the
defeat of totalitarianism in the Developing world is at stake. For what
9/11 ultimately taught us is that the two are ultimately connected. To
paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the world cannot forever continue to be half
free and half slave and the young cannot forever be taught that there is
no difference between the two.


This is heartbreaking if not unexpected:

According to statistics gathered from the Palestinian Central Bureau of
Statistics and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), 93.3
percent of Palestinian children have experienced domestic violence,
amounting to 1,950,739 children - 953,950 of whom are girls.

Of course, researchers taught to expect nothing of the Palestinians, place
the blame on (who else?) Israel!


Tonight BBC America featured a truly bizarre report by Katya Adler. There
they were, Palestinian militants from Gaza wearing ski masks practicing
first aid in an immaculate Geneva office. It was part of an ongoing IRCR
program to give terrorists a chance to relax, excuse me learn about the
Geneva Convention -

The International Red Cross has begun training Palestinian militants in
Gaza as part of what it says is its worldwide effort to teach the rules
of international humanitarian law in areas of armed conflict.

All armed factions in Gaza have signed up to the course, which explains
the rules of war under the Geneva Convention and how to protect

The Red Cross says it gives the same courses to the Israeli army.

Katya Adler asked the trainees whether they will follow the laws they were
taught. It will depend on our commanders they answered.

Adler asked a commander whether he will stop lobbing missiles at Israeli
civilians now that he knows international law considers it illegal. No, he

Katty Kay asked why they came to Geneva? Katya failed to answer. Hard to
believe that it never occurred to either that the "gunmen" may enjoy the
paid vacation. I wonder about the "all armed factions." It is doubtful
that Gaza and Hamas gunmen could share a classroom but then maybe they
will do anything for a Swiss vacation.

I hope somebody will get hold of the video. It is a priceless piece of
absurdity. Unless one is a terrorist, one does know whether to laugh or

The terrorists must laugh. Who can ask for a more cooperative and helpful

Next time you think of contributing to the Red Cross, remember your
dollars will be used to provide terrorists with a much needed vacation!


Iranian journalist Amir Taheri pleaded with Al Baradei not to repeat the
mistake he and Blix made before the Iraq War:

His report should debunk Ahmadinejad's claims by stating unequivocally
that the Islamic Republic has already violated the terms of the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty on 32 issues over more than 18 years.

Al Baradei should also expose Ahmadinejad's bogus claim that Iran is
enriching uranium as fuel for power stations. Iran has no nuclear power
plants and thus has no need of enriched uranium.

The only nuclear power plant under construction in Iran is to be
completed by Russians at an unspecified date. But the uranium enriched
by Iran at Natanz is not suitable for the plant being built by the
Russians because it needs a different-type of fuel designated by an
exclusive scientific code - a code that Moscow has refused to
communicate to Tehran.

Because nuclear fuel has a lifespan of three to four years, the Natanz
uranium cannot be intended for any of the 22 nuclear power plants that
Ahmadinejad says he wants to build in Iran over the next 25 years. (None
of those is even in the drawing stage.)

If the centrifuges are working to train Iranian scientists, Al Baradei
should know that, at the level of scientific research, Iran was already
able to enrich uranium in 1978.

The centrifuges working at Natanz can only be producing ingredients for
nuclear warheads. Al Baradei should tell that truth to the Iranian
people and the world at large.

But the Egyptian refused to listen or tell the truth. Hence, Iran's
official news agency boasts: ElBaradei report vindicates Iran

Those who had hoped against hope that Ayatolla Khamenei would clip
Ahmadinejad's wings must come to terms with the fact that Al Baradei's
report only served to convince the Ayatollah that the Iranian President
was right and that he should be permitted to further consolidate his

Here are some of the consequences - Crack Down on Iranian internet hosts ,
Tough measures for Iranians students abroad. There are bound to be plenty
more. Of course, the ambitious now know who is the stronger horse.

I am sure Al Baradei gets it but does not care. All he cares about is
avoiding the opprobrium of his transnationalist brethren who consider any
enemy of the US, a friend.

Disgusting but true.

If Iran is bombed, he will be justly blamed.


Our petrodollars at work there and at a Saudi financed mosque near us. The
photo of the woman and sent to Dr. Homa Darabi 20 days after she received
50 lashes in Iran. Now figure - 200 lashes for the crime of being gang

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a
female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a
newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced
to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being
in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council
ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than
doubled the number of lashes to 200.

A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had
decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and
influence the judiciary through the media."

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and
forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans
women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five
years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a
member of the minority Shiite community.

But the woman's lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the
punishments were too lenient in a country where the offense can carry
the death penalty.

In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also
toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine
years in prison.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The
convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich
Gulf state.

Lahem, also a human rights activist, told AFP on Wednesday that the
court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his
license to practice law because he challenged the verdict.

He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear
before a disciplinary committee in December.

Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial
institutions, and "contradicts King Abdullah's quest to introduce
reform, especially in the justice system."

King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the
judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or
Islamic law.

Update: Jushuapundit reports on the Saudi attempt to try to justify
verdict by focusing on the girl's meeting with a non relative male and a

In a statement the mis-named Saudi Justice ministry said:

"We would like to state that the system has ensured them the right to
object to the ruling and to request an appeal," the statement continued,
"without resorting to sensationalism through the media that may not be
fair or may not grant anyone any rights, and instead may negatively
affect all the other parties involved in the case."

In other words, keep your mouth shut this time, sweetie or you'll get
even worse.

Absolutely appalling...but then, that's the wahabi culture the Saudis
are spending millions to import to the West - with our tacit consent.

If only it would not have been so!


The Danes went to the polls and gave their conservative prime minister an
unprecedented third term or as they say, Fogh More Years. They also gave
the party created by Naser Khader, the nemesis of extremist Imam Abu
Laban, 5 mandates.

Remember Khader's response to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy?

Reaction to Jyllands-Posten's depiction of the prophet Mohammed has
again scaled new heights. Now Saudi Arabia and a couple of other Muslim
countries also feel insulted and offended, and consumers in those
countries are therefore going to boycott Danish goods. The line-up of
the insulted gets longer by the minute and I want to take my place in
the queue: You insult my democratic conviction. And I demand an apology.

He was no less direct during the election campaign. When challenged by the
Social Democrats to admit that he supported the conservative Prime
Minister, he did just that:

We've always said we support the prime minister as lead negotiator. A
lot of people have become confused, so I'll say it clearly now: he is
our candidate for prime minister.

His straightforwardness should serve him well in the upcoming coalition

It seems that the Danes took to heart the astute words of their minister
of social affairs the co-author of "Islamists and the Naive," Karen

THE book did not equate the movements (Islamism, Nazism and Communism).
. . but they had in common that one truth was in the world, and that one
truth goes deeply into your private life. . . . Not all Muslims are
reading the Koran in that sense, but those who interpret it this way are
growing fast, in organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, though I am
convinced we can isolate them.

I think we are letting down freedom-loving Muslims if we are not
fighting the radical Islamists.

Naser Khader dared stand up to Islamist Jihadists and was rewarded though
not as much as he had hoped. He is not going to be the Kingmaker which
means his ability to demand a loosening of Denmark tough immigration laws
will be limited. But the success of his new party demonstrates that
nothing can ameliorate the damage to the Muslim Diaspora caused by the
proponents of radical Islam more than moderate Muslim resistance.

Ameliorate though not negate. For despite everything, the far right Danish
People's Party increased its number of mandates to 25. This in one of the
most liberal countries in Europe!

The Muslim Diaspora has a huge stake in fighting radical Islam and the
sooner it realizes it, the better. Crying Islamophobia will not suffice
but standing up to Islamists is not only the right and courageous thing to
do but it is also the self interested thing to do. Covering up for
Islamists is sure to awaken the fascist tigers and undermine the image of
Islam and Muslims as a whole. This prime minister was reelected in part
because he reduced the number of refugees (mainly Muslims) from 10,000 in
2001 to 2000!

Ask the Danish Muslims. Ask Naser Khader.


Something rather momentous is happening in a French court. Journalist are
forced to acknowledge that they fabricate the news. Photojournalists are
forced to show the row footage from which they cut and sliced their
inaccurate reports. Ironically, they were forced to do so because they
sued Phillipe Karsesnty for asserting that France 2's inaccurate reporting
amounted to a blood libel.

Still, there is hope that journalists will be seen in their true colors,
unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy professionals who use their clout
to forward personal agendas. In other words, they are no better than the
other professionals, politicians and corporate executives.

So what? So plenty. The news media has successfully argued that to fulfill
its special mission of informing the public mandates that it would not he
held to the same standards it holds others. The BBC has so far been
successfully in preventing the publication of an internal report critical
of the anti Israeli bias of its Middle East coverage. A new media shield
law is pending in Congress which would extend the privileges enjoyed by
journalists to bloggers.

Freedom of the press is the mother's milk of democracy. But so is the
ability of politicians to cut deals and reach compromises. Yet, no one
would suggest that politicians should enjoy special immunity.

Technological advances have geometrically increased the power of the
media. The Al Dura rushes screen in the French court proves yet again that
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely applies to the media.
Hence, it is absolutely mandatory that the media should be held
accountable in the same manner that other exercisers of powers are. It is
too early to judge the ripple effect of the French court proceedings but
at the very least, it should encourage others to follow in the footsteps
of Phillipe Karsenty and Richard Landes as they wrestle to save the truth
from journalist turned propagandists.

Hat tip: Yaakov and David.

Landes concludes that the tapes were doctored and here is Honest Reporting
on today in court:



In an article entitled Democracy's root: Diversity, Tom Friedman writes:

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West,
rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East - a notion
tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once
colonized the region - should be focusing on promoting diversity, which
has historical roots in the area.

It's a valid point. The very essence of democracy is peaceful rotations
of power, no matter whose party or tribe is in or out. But that ethic
does not apply in most of the Arab-Muslim world today, where the
political ethos remains "Rule or Die." Either my group is in power or
I'm dead, in prison, in exile or lying very low. But democracy is not
about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture
of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with
equal rights, real democracy can't take root.

The "Rule or Die" part is right as the news from Gaza demonstrate this
morning: 8 killed in Gaza How come? Because Fatah commemorated the three
year anniversary of their founder, Yassir Arafat.

The notion that diversity has historical roots in the region is also true.
Unfortunately, the notion of minority equal rights is still NOT the one
which has roots familiar to much of the Muslim world. The toleration of
Non Muslims is not enough. Historically, minorities have been tolerated
but in such a way as to induce them to convert. It was called Dhimmitude.
Consequently, missionaries entering the Middle East in the 19th Century,
were shocked at the backwardness and poverty of their Christian brethren.
Indeed, much of the European intervention in the diversified Ottoman
Empire originated in efforts on behalf of Christian minorities and
protection of Christian holy sites.

Muslim states and their organizations as evidenced in their response to
the Muhammad Cartoons and to the Pope's Regensburg discourse, have
recently embarked on a similar intervention program on behalf of Islam and
the Muslim Diaspora. The dialogue movement and King Abdallah's visit to
Rome is part of that effort. There is nothing wrong with it. Equal
treatment of citizens is, indeed, the essence of democracy.

Still, it would be only fair to demand reciprocity. If the Organization of
Muslim Countries demands a voice in the formulation of European treatment
of Islam and Muslims, Europe should demand a voice in the treatment of
Christians in the Muslim world. Indeed, when Friedman suggests that
instead of giving the Pope a sword, he should have extended an invitation
to Mecca, he is demanding reciprocity, not merely diversity.


Mike Perloff clearly had enough of the fashionable, if baseless, reference
to Israel as an Apartheid state. So, he left this post on my site. I
thought it is worthy of sharing:

==A Lesson About Middle East Apartheid
== Which group being compared in the chart below appears to be engaged
in the practice of Apartheid?

Read the chart and reach your own conclusions.

The identity of each group appears at the end.

Official languages
* Group 1: Arabic & Hebrew Group 2: Arabic

Religious minorities

* Group 1: Growing Group 2: Shrinking

Both Mosques and Synagogues allowed

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Education/Medical care for all

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arab & Jewish judges

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arabs & Jews in government

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arabs & Jews in diplomatic corps

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arabs & Jews on sports teams

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arabs & Jews can serve in army and

* police Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arab & Jewish civilian killings condemned

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Arabs & Jews allowed to buy homes

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

People are killed for selling homes or property to members of the
other group

* Group 1: No Group 2: Yes

Children taught respect for life

* Group 1: Yes Group 2: No

Children taught martyrdom & hate

* Group 1: No Group 2: Yes



Why do we remember? asks Niall Ferguson. Aren't we overdoing a good thing?

I remember; you commemorate; he just can't get over it. Yet we - all of
us - are surely now in danger of devaluing the coinage of commemoration
to the point of worthlessness. For if everything ends up being the
object of formal remembrance, perhaps nothing will actually be
remembered. And one November morning, as I struggle to find my poppy in
a drawer full of Aids awareness red ribbons and global warming
wristbands, I may finally be driven to exclaim: ''Oh, forget about it!''

He is absolutely right, I thought to myself. So, when somebody reminded of
the anniversary of Kristallnacht, I decided to just ignore the whole

Enough is Enough.

Unfortunately, the Neo Nazis and the Islamists refuse to let me. In Prague
Neo Nazis (some traveling in special buses from Germany) decided to
commemorate Kristallnacht by marching through the old Jewish quarter of
Prague with banner ostensibly "to demonstrate against the War in Iraq."
The Al Qaeda reader demonstrate that Islamist basically rehash Mein Kampf
and to top it all of, both the Nazis and the Islamofascist shamelessly use
the holocaust to block any attempt to stop them from spreading their
poisonous ideologies.

Hence, if we do not want to lose control of this historical narrative the
way we lost control of the Zionist one, I/we have no choice. We must
Watch, read Martin Gilbert's Kristallnacht and STAND RESOLUTELY IN THEIR
WAY as the good people of Prague did today:


John Bolton is doing what many an elected official rarely dare do. In his
book Surrender is not an Option and on his book tour he exposes
mercilessly the ongoing efforts of the State Department bureaucracy to
block or at least limit the influence of elected officials on the conduct
of foreign policy. This is a subject more often explored by Europeans were
bureaucracies are even more powerful than in the US where political
appointees are supposed to ameliorate the problem but do so most
inefficiently. The following exchange between the Prime minister and his
secretary included in the episode "Victory for Democracy" of the must see
British sitcom Yes Prime Minister illuminates the elected official's

PM: "Do you mean that the Foreign Office is keeping something from me?"



Sec:"I don't know. They're keeping it from me too."

PM:"Then how do you know?

Sec: "I don't."

PM: "You just said you did."

Sec.: 'No, I just said I didn't. . . . I don't know specifically what,
Prime Minister, but I do know the Foreign Office always keeps everything
from everybody. It's normal practice."

PM: "So who would know?"

Sec. "May I just clarify the question? You're asking who would know what
it is that I don't know, that they are keeping from you do that you
don't know but they do know, and all we know it that there is something
we don't know and we want to know but we don't know what because we
don't know? Is that it?

PM: May I clarify the question? Why knows Foreign Office secrets apart
from the Foreign Office?

Sec: Ah, that's easy. Only the Kremlin.

The sitcom was written in the Eighties but there is nothing new about
State Department "resistance" to presidential or Congressional efforts to
influence American policy. In 1967, They led John Roche to write Johnson:
"Which brings us back to the question once . . . attributed to you: "Whose
State Department is it?" Ambassador Luke Battle told me how he difficult
it was for him to convince Nasser not to pay attention to Congressional
pronouncements. It has never even occurred to him that there was something
wrong with such dismissal of the country's elected officials.

Presidents try to get control of the problem either by pushing the State
Department or placing a trusted official in the position. President Bush
like President Nixon used the first approach during his first term and the
second during his second term. Indeed, rightly or wrongly, Secretary
Powell's men (like Roger's ) spent the first 4 years of the administration
whining that they are being ignored.

In 2004 George Bush tried to avoid the problem by following in Nixon's
footsteps and sent his trusted National Security advisor, Condi Rice, to
head the State Department in the hope that she will be able to control it
the way Kissinger had. Alas, as Bolton tells anyone who listens, that she
failed. Instead, she went native. "Condi was sent to rein in the State
Department," a senior Republican congressional staffer said. "Instead, she
was reined in." Consequently, George W. Bush's foreign policy is in a free
fall with the sole exception of the Iraq policy which Bush placed in the
hands of General David Petraeus.

Unhappy with only a partial surrender, State Department bureaucrats moved
to teach the President a lesson by refusing assignments to Iraq. Savoring
their new found power, State Department officials went public with their
refusal to serve in Iraq when threatened with dismissal. One official
famously called an assignment there "a potential death sentence" and
another accused Secretary Rice for "not fighting for the department" which
as the British sitcom explains is what the bureaucracy believes to be a
secretary's primary function. Of course, not a single American diplomat
died in Iraq.

Asked to comment on the controversy, the well connected Dennis Ross said
that for the State Department officials it was "payback time." Bush has
failed to take their advice on Iraq, so they do not want to help him carry
out his policies! Used to the indulgence of the mainstream media, they
expected accolades. But they quickly discovered that the new media is not
as "understanding."

So, the Department's public relations machinery decided it was time for
some damage control. It comes in the form of an op-ed in the San Diego
Union Tribune written by Johann Schmonsees who did volunteer to serve in

When the director-general of the Foreign Service announced last week
that the State Department may order its personnel to serve in Iraq, many
of our critics took this as a sign that we are unwilling to face the
hardships and dangers encountered by our military colleagues. . . .

Famously, 48 positions remain open for the new crop of diplomats who
will arrive in Iraq next summer. That is what the current personnel
exercise is about. The department is still asking for volunteers, and
has approached more than 200 people who possess the qualifications or
the employment history making them candidates for these positions.

We understand that many have already answered that call, and hope that
all 48 positions will eventually be filled by volunteers. . . .

We possess a rich pool of talent, dedication and daring, and we have no
doubt that we will staff our Iraq mission with willing professionals.
They may come forward for a variety of reasons: patriotism, community
service, professional advancement, personal fulfillment, the promise of
a particular assignment after their Iraq service, or even something as
prosaic as danger pay.

They may volunteer for the main reason I did - as a foreign policy
professional, I wanted to work on our most prominent foreign policy
issue. But if our four-year experience in Iraq tells us anything, it is
that our colleagues will step up to meet the challenge.

Unfortunately, that assertion is far from the truth. They have done so all
along. Part of the reason Paul Bremer's failed so miserably was his
inability to secure the help of high quality experienced underlings. Those
did not volunteer and I suspect are still not volunteering.

In other words, the Department has been knocked on its heel a bit. But
clearly not enough to clip their wings. They have just moved to block the
meager funds Congress allotted to Iranian dissidents. They oppose regime
change. They would much rather go the North Korean route. So, they
pressure European business to curtail their dealings with Iran in the hope
of pressuring the Mullahs to agree to drop their nuclear ambitions.

Of course, in the case of North Korea, China helped. In the case of Iran,
neither Russia nor China are so inclined. Moreover, as John Bolton points
out, the North Korea deal has already been revealed as deeply flawed:

"They are not going to give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily," Mr.
Bolton said in the interview. "They might be forced to give up their
nuclear weapons, but that is not the policy that we're pursuing. So the
consequence of the policy is that it won't achieve the stated objective
and it will have the effect of legitimizing and reinforcing two
fundamentally illegitimate regimes."

He said North Korea's apparent assistance to Syria in the construction
of what analysts and officials said was a nuclear reactor showed that
the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, was already violating its pledge
in February to dismantle its nuclear weapons program even though the
administration points to a recent trip by Americans to a North Korean
nuclear reactor to begin disabling the facilities.

In other words, the ball is ultimately in the North Korean court and
Iranian courts. Nor are the ball games unconnected. If Iran succeeds in
defeating the West, North Korea is bound to break the deal. If Ahmadinejad
succumbs, Kim may have no choice but to stick to the agreement.

Stay tune. Hope for the best and expect the worse.


The NYT puts Sarkozy's speech on page 12 while the Financial Times places
in on the front page with a large picture and the headline "Sarkozy warns
Congress of Wall St. excesses." BBC's Katty Kay gripes that Sakozy stands
where Tony Blair used to and expressed her hope that the French will find
an adequate word for "poodle." The left is seething so are the rest of the
Europeans. For when all is said and done, each one of them wants to be the
favorite son even if they bad mouth the "parent."

No wonder the French are delighted. France 2 showed the text I posted
bellow from searing text of their newly elected, popular(!) "Jewish," pro
American president, Nicholas Sarkozy. It is the part in which he praises
American soldiers for going to far away lands to fight for the freedom of
others. Le Figaro editors say as much:

When - in the speech's most ringing phrase - he declared that "wherever
an American soldier dies in the world, I think of what the American army
did for France", it was a conscious effort to link the shared struggles
of the past with those of today.

"Realists", "Bush lied" "anti imperialist" crowds, are you listening? Here

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about
how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the
final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd
and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in
1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that
threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under
thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American
soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the
freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own
homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America
had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of
farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families
before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We
want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can
count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the
world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people
everywhere march with you."

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history
books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy
and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled
banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young
Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact
that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the
sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of
those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they
barely got a chance to know, I want to express France's eternal

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how
much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our
children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today
and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening,
one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express
the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you
that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think
of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad,
as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.

More stunningly he was speaking about the American dream with the obvious
intention of turning it into the new French dream.

Mon Dieu!

UPDATE: The FT lead editorial:Sarkozy must avoid Blair's Mistake i.e., not
become a poodle. How does Norman Mailer say: It is like a first child
waking up and discovering somebody usurped his place.


Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money
wasters of 2007.

No comments:

Post a Comment