Next Chapter: Socialism Surveyed and in the Abstract

Previous Chapter: Defining America

Hating America

“Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.”
-Mark Twain

Port of Spain Trinidad, Summit of the Americas 2009-Apr-18, photo: AP	UN 2006-Sep-19, photo: Reuters	UN 2006-Sep-20, photo: Associated Press
Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Four peas in a pod

Some photos (click for double size) from the 2007-Mar-18 Iraq War anniversary “peace” rally in Portland Oregon, from Portland IndyMedia (posted there by Rachael Palinkas rpalink@linfield.edu) via LittleGreenFootballs.com:

As James Taranto would say, “But we support the troops!” Yeah riiight.

The main reason that non-Americans dislike or hate America — and most of them do, as do many Americans who are alienated from America — is that it is human nature, forged in the crucible of tribal living in small communities, to see anyone who is superior in force, wealth, or influence, as a threat to one's own present and prospective force, wealth, and influence. In the tribal era, as now, those who jealously guarded their force, wealth, and influence, and undermined that of others, tended to be more procreationally successful. Thus the genes that tend to produce these attitudes came to pervade the species. The meek do not inherit the world, they go extinct.

Of course, many of the people who hate America also like, love, or admire America, because of its very force, wealth, and influence. Within envy are the raw materials of yearning and admiration.

But at the same time outsiders envy America, they also tell themselves, and advertise to anyone who will listen, the conceit that they are superior to America in various (uniformly fictitious) ways. Feelings of superiority have psychological dividends in themselves — they lead to satisfaction, and by boosting confidence, promote success. Feelings of inferiority have the opposite effect. People who are inclined to mentalities of superiority, and averse to those of inferiority, thus have a survival advantage, and so proliferate and come to predominate. But because subjective superiority is contingent on a perception that the other is inferior, perception must be corrupted when the other is in fact superior. Thus the United States, clearly by far the most successful nation in the world as measured by economics and influence, is routinely misrepresented and misperceived as inferior and evil. The French, German, Iranian, Russian, Chinese, European, Muslim, intelligentsia, workers', or global nation, can't feel superior unless they feel the United States is inferior.

Note of 2007-May-7: Openly pro-American anti-socialist Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidential election in France yesterday, defeating the openly anti-American socialist Ségolène Royal.

In recent years:

Openly pro-American anti-socialist Angela Merkel won the German chancellorship in late 2005, defeating the openly anti-American socialist Gerhard Schröder.
Openly pro-American anti-socialist Stephen Harper was elected prime minister of Canada in 2006, replacing socialist Paul Martin.
John Howard, ardently pro-American prime minister of Australia, was re-elected in 2001 and 2004.
Tony Blair, ardently pro-American prime minister of Great Britain, was re-elected in 2001 and 2005, and is the only person in his party's history to win three general elections consecutively.

When George W. Bush assumed office, openly anti-American Jacques Chirac was président of France, Gerhard Schröder was chancellor of Germany, and the somewhat prickly Jean Chrétien was prime minister of Canada. Thus the narrative provided by mainstream American socialists (Democrats such as John Kerry or Joe Biden) that the administration of George W. Bush has alienated America's closest friends is proved, by hard and fast electoral results, to be precisely opposite reality. They can't have possibly anticipated that allies of George W. Bush's America would come to power in France, Germany, and Canada, during Bush's tenure, but if they did, their vociferous cries of alienation would sure be easy to understand. The allegations of the American socialists, many of whose hatred of America is documented below, are likely wishful thinking. They likely hope to conjure broader hatred of America by convincing a broader population that this hatred is already popular and appropriate.

(These observations and theories were inspired by comments of Charles Krauthammer on Brit Hume's show this evening. After writing them, I noted that Glenn Beck made the same point Krauthammer did, at greater length, in his broadcast the following hour.)

Check out John Richardson's article in Esquire on Ramsey Clark.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Nov-29, by Fouad Ajami:

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
A foreign policy of penance has won America no friends.

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.

Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.

Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.

Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.

He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."

Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.

The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.

The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2007).

from the Weekly Standard, 2009-Oct-19, web-posted 2009-Oct-10, by Charles Krauthammer:

Decline Is a Choice
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.

The weathervanes of conventional wisdom are registering another round of angst about America in decline. New theories, old slogans: Imperial overstretch. The Asian awakening. The post-American world. Inexorable forces beyond our control bringing the inevitable humbling of the world hegemon.

On the other side of this debate are a few--notably Josef Joffe in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs--who resist the current fashion and insist that America remains the indispensable power. They note that declinist predictions are cyclical, that the rise of China (and perhaps India) are just the current version of the Japan panic of the late 1980s or of the earlier pessimism best captured by Jean-François Revel's How Democracies Perish.

The anti-declinists point out, for example, that the fear of China is overblown. It's based on the implausible assumption of indefinite, uninterrupted growth; ignores accumulating externalities like pollution (which can be ignored when growth starts from a very low baseline, but ends up making growth increasingly, chokingly difficult); and overlooks the unavoidable consequences of the one-child policy, which guarantees that China will get old before it gets rich.

And just as the rise of China is a straight-line projection of current economic trends, American decline is a straight-line projection of the fearful, pessimistic mood of a country war-weary and in the grip of a severe recession.

Among these crosscurrents, my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands.

Not that decline is always a choice. Britain's decline after World War II was foretold, as indeed was that of Europe, which had been the dominant global force of the preceding centuries. The civilizational suicide that was the two world wars, and the consequent physical and psychological exhaustion, made continued dominance impossible and decline inevitable.

The corollary to unchosen European collapse was unchosen American ascendancy. We--whom Lincoln once called God's "almost chosen people"--did not save Europe twice in order to emerge from the ashes as the world's co-hegemon. We went in to defend ourselves and save civilization. Our dominance after World War II was not sought. Nor was the even more remarkable dominance after the Soviet collapse. We are the rarest of geopolitical phenomena: the accidental hegemon and, given our history of isolationism and lack of instinctive imperial ambition, the reluctant hegemon--and now, after a near-decade of strenuous post-9/11 exertion, more reluctant than ever.

Which leads to my second proposition: Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States--controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture--has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome.

The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.

Indeed, as he made his hajj from Strasbourg to Prague to Ankara to Istanbul to Cairo and finally to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama drew the picture of an America quite exceptional--exceptional in moral culpability and heavy-handedness, exceptional in guilt for its treatment of other nations and peoples. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own country for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness (toward Europe), for maltreatment of natives, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantánamo, for unilateralism, and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

Quite an indictment, the fundamental consequence of which is to effectively undermine any moral claim that America might have to world leadership, as well as the moral confidence that any nation needs to have in order to justify to itself and to others its position of leadership. According to the new dispensation, having forfeited the mandate of heaven--if it ever had one--a newly humbled America now seeks a more modest place among the nations, not above them.

But that leads to the question: How does this new world govern itself? How is the international system to function?

Henry Kissinger once said that the only way to achieve peace is through hegemony or balance of power. Well, hegemony is out. As Obama said in his General Assembly address, "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." (The "can" in that declaration is priceless.) And if hegemony is out, so is balance of power: "No balance of power among nations will hold."

The president then denounced the idea of elevating any group of nations above others--which takes care, I suppose, of the Security Council, the G-20, and the Western alliance. And just to make the point unmistakable, he denounced "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" as making "no sense in an interconnected world." What does that say about NATO? Of our alliances with Japan and South Korea? Or even of the European Union?

This is nonsense. But it is not harmless nonsense. It's nonsense with a point. It reflects a fundamental view that the only legitimate authority in the international system is that which emanates from "the community of nations" as a whole. Which means, I suppose, acting through its most universal organs such as, again I suppose, the U.N. and its various agencies. Which is why when Obama said that those who doubt "the character and cause" of his own country should see what this new America--the America of the liberal ascendancy--had done in the last nine months, he listed among these restorative and relegitimizing initiatives paying up U.N. dues, renewing actions on various wholly vacuous universalist declarations and agreements, and joining such Orwellian U.N. bodies as the Human Rights Council.

These gestures have not gone unnoticed abroad. The Nobel Committee effused about Obama's radical reorientation of U.S. foreign policy. Its citation awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize lauded him for having "created a new climate" in international relations in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other institutions can play."

Of course, the idea of the "international community" acting through the U.N.--a fiction and a farce respectively--to enforce norms and maintain stability is absurd. So absurd that I suspect it's really just a metaphor for a world run by a kind of multipolar arrangement not of nation-states but of groups of states acting through multilateral bodies, whether institutional (like the International Atomic Energy Agency) or ad hoc (like the P5+1 Iran negotiators).

But whatever bizarre form of multilateral or universal structures is envisioned for keeping world order, certainly hegemony--and specifically American hegemony--is to be retired.

This renunciation of primacy is not entirely new. Liberal internationalism as practiced by the center-left Clinton administrations of the 1990s--the beginning of the unipolar era--was somewhat ambivalent about American hegemony, although it did allow America to be characterized as "the indispensable nation," to use Madeleine Albright's phrase. Clintonian center-left liberal internationalism did seek to restrain American power by tying Gulliver down with a myriad of treaties and agreements and international conventions. That conscious constraining of America within international bureaucratic and normative structures was rooted in the notion that power corrupts and that external restraints would curb arrogance and overreaching and break a willful America to the role of good international citizen.

But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power--the old Clintonian view--but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt--in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama's famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

And because we remain so imperfect a nation, we are in no position to dictate our professed values to others around the world. Demonstrators are shot in the streets of Tehran seeking nothing but freedom, but our president holds his tongue because, he says openly, of our own alleged transgressions towards Iran (presumably involvement in the 1953 coup). Our shortcomings are so grave, and our offenses both domestic and international so serious, that we lack the moral ground on which to justify hegemony.

These fundamental tenets of the New Liberalism are not just theory. They have strategic consequences. If we have been illegitimately playing the role of world hegemon, then for us to regain a legitimate place in the international system we must regain our moral authority. And recovering moral space means renouncing ill-gotten or ill-conceived strategic space.

Operationally, this manifests itself in various kinds of strategic retreat, most particularly in reversing policies stained by even the hint of American unilateralism or exceptionalism. Thus, for example, there is no more "Global War on Terror." It's not just that the term has been abolished or that the secretary of homeland security refers to terrorism as "man-caused disasters." It is that the very idea of our nation and civilization being engaged in a global mortal struggle with jihadism has been retired as well.

The operational consequences of that new view are already manifest. In our reversion to pre-9/11 normalcy--the pretense of pre-9/11 normalcy--antiterrorism has reverted from war fighting to law enforcement. High-level al Qaeda prisoners, for example, will henceforth be interrogated not by the CIA but by the FBI, just as our response to the attack on the USS Cole pre-9/11--an act of war--was to send FBI agents to Yemen.

The operational consequences of voluntary contraction are already evident:

* Unilateral abrogation of our missile-defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic--a retreat being felt all through Eastern Europe to Ukraine and Georgia as a signal of U.S. concession of strategic space to Russia in its old sphere of influence.

* Indecision on Afghanistan--a widely expressed ambivalence about the mission and a serious contemplation of minimalist strategies that our commanders on the ground have reported to the president have no chance of success. In short, a serious contemplation of strategic retreat in Afghanistan (only two months ago it was declared by the president to be a "war of necessity") with possibly catastrophic consequences for Pakistan.

* In Iraq, a determination to end the war according to rigid timetables, with almost no interest in garnering the fruits of a very costly and very bloody success--namely, using our Strategic Framework Agreement to turn the new Iraq into a strategic partner and anchor for U.S. influence in the most volatile area of the world. Iraq is a prize--we can debate endlessly whether it was worth the cost--of great strategic significance that the administration seems to have no intention of exploiting in its determination to execute a full and final exit.

* In Honduras, where again because of our allegedly sinful imperial history, we back a Chávista caudillo seeking illegal extension of his presidency who was removed from power by the legitimate organs of state--from the supreme court to the national congress--for grave constitutional violations.

The New Liberalism will protest that despite its rhetoric, it is not engaging in moral reparations, but seeking real strategic advantage for the United States on the assumption that the reason we have not gotten cooperation from, say, the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, or even our European allies on various urgent agendas is American arrogance, unilateralism, and dismissiveness. And therefore, if we constrict and rebrand and diminish ourselves deliberately--try to make ourselves equal partners with obviously unequal powers abroad--we will gain the moral high ground and rally the world to our causes.

Well, being a strategic argument, the hypothesis is testable. Let's tally up the empirical evidence of what nine months of self-abasement has brought.

With all the bowing and scraping and apologizing and renouncing, we couldn't even sway the International Olympic Committee. Given the humiliation incurred there in pursuit of a trinket, it is no surprise how little our new international posture has yielded in the coin of real strategic goods. Unilateral American concessions and offers of unconditional engagement have moved neither Iran nor Russia nor North Korea to accommodate us. Nor have the Arab states--or even the powerless Palestinian Authority--offered so much as a gesture of accommodation in response to heavy and gratuitous American pressure on Israel. Nor have even our European allies responded: They have anted up essentially nothing in response to our pleas for more assistance in Afghanistan.

The very expectation that these concessions would yield results is puzzling. Thus, for example, the president is proposing radical reductions in nuclear weapons and presided over a Security Council meeting passing a resolution whose goal is universal nuclear disarmament, on the theory that unless the existing nuclear powers reduce their weaponry, they can never have the moral standing to demand that other states not go nuclear.

But whatever the merits of unilateral or even bilateral U.S.-Russian disarmament, the notion that it will lead to reciprocal gestures from the likes of Iran and North Korea is simply childish. They are seeking the bomb for reasons of power, prestige, intimidation, blackmail, and regime preservation. They don't give a whit about the level of nuclear arms among the great powers. Indeed, both Iran and North Korea launched their nuclear weapons ambitions in the 1980s and the 1990s--precisely when the United States and Russia were radically reducing their arsenals.

This deliberate choice of strategic retreats to engender good feeling is based on the naïve hope of exchanges of reciprocal goodwill with rogue states. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the theory--as policy--has demonstrably produced no strategic advances. But that will not deter the New Liberalism because the ultimate purpose of its foreign policy is to make America less hegemonic, less arrogant, less dominant.

In a word, it is a foreign policy designed to produce American decline--to make America essentially one nation among many. And for that purpose, its domestic policies are perfectly complementary.

Domestic policy, of course, is not designed to curb our power abroad. But what it lacks in intent, it makes up in effect. Decline will be an unintended, but powerful, side effect of the New Liberalism's ambition of moving America from its traditional dynamic individualism to the more equitable but static model of European social democracy.

This is not the place to debate the intrinsic merits of the social democratic versus the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. There's much to be said for the decency and relative equity of social democracy. But it comes at a cost: diminished social mobility, higher unemployment, less innovation, less dynamism and creative destruction, less overall economic growth.

This affects the ability to project power. Growth provides the sinews of dominance--the ability to maintain a large military establishment capable of projecting power to all corners of the earth. The Europeans, rich and developed, have almost no such capacity. They made the choice long ago to devote their resources to a vast welfare state. Their expenditures on defense are minimal, as are their consequent military capacities. They rely on the U.S. Navy for open seas and on the U.S. Air Force for airlift. It's the U.S. Marines who go ashore, not just in battle, but for such global social services as tsunami relief. The United States can do all of this because we spend infinitely more on defense--more than the next nine countries combined.

Those are the conditions today. But they are not static or permanent. They require constant renewal. The express agenda of the New Liberalism is a vast expansion of social services--massive intervention and expenditures in energy, health care, and education--that will necessarily, as in Europe, take away from defense spending.

This shift in resources is not hypothetical. It has already begun. At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars are being lavished on stimulus and other appropriations in an endless array of domestic programs, the defense budget is practically frozen. Almost every other department is expanding, and the Defense Department is singled out for making "hard choices"--forced to look everywhere for cuts, to abandon highly advanced weapons systems, to choose between readiness and research, between today's urgencies and tomorrow's looming threats.

Take, for example, missile defense, in which the United States has a great technological edge and one perfectly designed to maintain American preeminence in a century that will be dominated by the ballistic missile. Missile defense is actually being cut. The number of interceptors in Alaska to defend against a North Korean attack has been reduced, and the airborne laser program (the most promising technology for a boost-phase antiballistic missile) has been cut back--at the same time that the federal education budget has been increased 100 percent in one year.

This preference for social goods over security needs is not just evident in budgetary allocations and priorities. It is seen, for example, in the liberal preference for environmental goods. By prohibiting the drilling of offshore and Arctic deposits, the United States is voluntarily denying itself access to vast amounts of oil that would relieve dependency on--and help curb the wealth and power of--various petro-dollar challengers, from Iran to Venezuela to Russia. Again, we can argue whether the environment versus security trade-off is warranted. But there is no denying that there is a trade-off.

Nor are these the only trade-offs. Primacy in space--a galvanizing symbol of American greatness, so deeply understood and openly championed by John Kennedy--is gradually being relinquished. In the current reconsideration of all things Bush, the idea of returning to the moon in the next decade is being jettisoned. After next September, the space shuttle will never fly again, and its replacement is being reconsidered and delayed. That will leave the United States totally incapable of returning even to near-Earth orbit, let alone to the moon. Instead, for years to come, we shall be entirely dependent on the Russians, or perhaps eventually even the Chinese.

Of symbolic but also more concrete importance is the status of the dollar. The social democratic vision necessarily involves huge increases in domestic expenditures, most immediately for expanded health care. The plans currently under consideration will cost in the range of $1 trillion. And once the budget gimmicks are discounted (such as promises of $500 billion cuts in Medicare which will never eventuate), that means hundreds of billions of dollars added to the monstrous budgetary deficits that the Congressional Budget Office projects conservatively at $7 trillion over the next decade.

The effect on the dollar is already being felt and could ultimately lead to a catastrophic collapse and/or hyperinflation. Having control of the world's reserve currency is an irreplaceable national asset. Yet with every new and growing estimate of the explosion of the national debt, there are more voices calling for replacement of the dollar as the world currency--not just adversaries like Russia and China, Iran and Venezuela, which one would expect, but just last month the head of the World Bank.

There is no free lunch. Social democracy and its attendant goods may be highly desirable, but they have their price--a price that will be exacted on the dollar, on our primacy in space, on missile defense, on energy security, and on our military capacities and future power projection.

But, of course, if one's foreign policy is to reject the very notion of international primacy in the first place, a domestic agenda that takes away the resources to maintain such primacy is perfectly complementary. Indeed, the two are synergistic. Renunciation of primacy abroad provides the added resources for more social goods at home. To put it in the language of the 1990s, the expanded domestic agenda is fed by a peace dividend--except that in the absence of peace, it is a retreat dividend.

And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.

So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?

The temptation to abdicate has always been strong in America. Our interventionist tradition is recent. Our isolationist tradition goes far deeper. Nor is it restricted to the American left. Historically, of course, it was championed by the American right until the Vandenberg conversion. And it remains a bipartisan instinct.

When the era of maximum dominance began 20 years ago--when to general surprise a unipolar world emerged rather than a post-Cold War multipolar one--there was hesitation about accepting the mantle. And it wasn't just among liberals. In the fall of 1990, Jeane Kirkpatrick, -heroine in the struggle to defeat the Soviet Union, argued that, after a half-century of exertion fighting fascism, Nazism, and communism, "it is time to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status," time to give up the "unusual burdens" of the past and "return to 'normal' times." No more balancing power in Europe or in Asia. We should aspire instead to be "a normal country in a normal time."

That call to retreat was rejected by most of American conservatism (as Pat Buchanan has amply demonstrated by his very marginality). But it did find some resonance in mainstream liberalism. At first, however, only some resonance. As noted earlier, the liberal internationalism of the 1990s, the center-left Clintonian version, was reluctant to fully embrace American hegemony and did try to rein it in by creating external restraints. Nonetheless, in practice, it did boldly intervene in the Balkan wars (without the sanction of the Security Council, mind you) and openly accepted a kind of intermediate status as "the indispensable nation."

Not today. The ascendant New Liberalism goes much further, actively seeking to subsume America within the international community--inter pares, not even primus--and to enact a domestic social agenda to suit.

So why not? Why not choose ease and bask in the adulation of the world as we serially renounce, withdraw, and concede?

Because, while globalization has produced in some the illusion that human nature has changed, it has not. The international arena remains a Hobbesian state of nature in which countries naturally strive for power. If we voluntarily renounce much of ours, others will not follow suit. They will fill the vacuum. Inevitably, an inversion of power relations will occur.

Do we really want to live under unknown, untested, shifting multipolarity? Or even worse, under the gauzy internationalism of the New Liberalism with its magically self-enforcing norms? This is sometimes passed off as "realism." In fact, it is the worst of utopianisms, a fiction that can lead only to chaos. Indeed, in an age on the threshold of hyper-proliferation, it is a prescription for catastrophe.

Heavy are the burdens of the hegemon. After the blood and treasure expended in the post-9/11 wars, America is quite ready to ease its burden with a gentle descent into abdication and decline.

Decline is a choice. More than a choice, a temptation. How to resist it?

First, accept our role as hegemon. And reject those who deny its essential benignity. There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in modern history to have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive counter-hegemonic alliance--as occurred, for example, against Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. There is a reason so many countries of the Pacific Rim and the Middle East and Eastern Europe and Latin America welcome our presence as balancer of power and guarantor of their freedom.

And that reason is simple: We are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen.

So, resistance to decline begins with moral self-confidence and will. But maintaining dominance is a matter not just of will but of wallet. We are not inherently in economic decline. We have the most dynamic, innovative, technologically advanced economy in the world. We enjoy the highest productivity. It is true that in the natural and often painful global division of labor wrought by globalization, less skilled endeavors like factory work migrate abroad, but America more than compensates by pioneering the newer technologies and industries of the information age.

There are, of course, major threats to the American economy. But there is nothing inevitable and inexorable about them. Take, for example, the threat to the dollar (as the world's reserve currency) that comes from our massive trade deficits. Here again, the China threat is vastly exaggerated. In fact, fully two-thirds of our trade imbalance comes from imported oil. This is not a fixed fact of life. We have a choice. We have it in our power, for example, to reverse the absurd de facto 30-year ban on new nuclear power plants. We have it in our power to release huge domestic petroleum reserves by dropping the ban on offshore and Arctic drilling. We have it in our power to institute a serious gasoline tax (refunded immediately through a payroll tax reduction) to curb consumption and induce conservation.

Nothing is written. Nothing is predetermined. We can reverse the slide, we can undo dependence if we will it.

The other looming threat to our economy--and to the dollar--comes from our fiscal deficits. They are not out of our control. There is no reason we should be structurally perpetuating the massive deficits incurred as temporary crisis measures during the financial panic of 2008. A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit when it is taken by the New Liberalism as a mandate for massive expansion of the state and of national debt--threatening the dollar, the entire economy, and consequently our superpower status abroad.

There are things to be done. Resist retreat as a matter of strategy and principle. And provide the means to continue our dominant role in the world by keeping our economic house in order. And finally, we can follow the advice of Demosthenes when asked what was to be done about the decline of Athens. His reply? "I will give what I believe is the fairest and truest answer: Don't do what you are doing now."

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD. This essay is adapted from his 2009 Wriston Lecture delivered for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York on October 5.

from Policy Review via OpinionJournal.com, 2003-Jan-15, by Lee Harris:

Marx Without the Realism
The intellectual roots of America-bashing.

A specter haunts the world, and that specter is America. This is not the America discoverable in the pages of a world atlas, but a mythical America that is the target of the new form of anti-Americanism that Salman Rushdie, writing in the Guardian (Feb. 6, 2002), says "is presently taking the world by storm" and that forms the subject of a Washington Post essay by Martin Kettle significantly entitled "U.S. Bashing: It's All the Rage in Europe" (Jan. 7, 2002). It is an America that Anatol Lieven assures us, in a recent article in the London Review of Books, is nothing less than "a menace to itself and to mankind," and that Noam Chomsky has repeatedly characterized as the world's major terrorist state.

But above all it is the America that is responsible for the evils of the rest of the world. As Dario Fo, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, put it in a notorious post-September 11 e-mail subsequently quoted in the New York Times (Sept. 22, 2001): "The great speculators [of American capitalism] wallow in an economy that every years kills tens of millions of people with poverty [in the Third World]--so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre [of Sept. 11], this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation."

It is this sort of America that is at the hub of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt's revision of Marxism in their intellectually influential book "Empire" (Harvard University Press, 2000)--a reinterpretation of historical materialism in which the global capitalist system will be overthrown not by those who have helped to create it, namely, the working class, but rather by a polyglot global social force vaguely referred to as "the multitude"--the alleged victims of this system.

America-bashing is anti-Americanism at its most radical and totalizing. Its goal is not to advise, but to condemn; not to fix, but to destroy. It repudiates every thought of reform in any normal sense; it sees no difference between American liberals and American conservatives; it views every American action, both present and past, as an act of deliberate oppression and systemic exploitation. It is not that America went wrong here or there; it is that it is wrong root and branch. The conviction at the heart of those who engage in it is really quite simple: that America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity.

This is the specter that is haunting the world today. Indeed, one may even go so far as to argue that this America is the fundamental organizing principle of the left as it exists today: To be against America is to be on the right side of history; to be for it is to be on the wrong side.

But let's pause to ask a question whose answer the America-bashers appear to assume they know: What is the right side of history at this point in history?

The concept of a right side of history is derived from Marxism, and it is founded on the belief that there is a forward advance toward a socialist future that can be resisted, but not ultimately defeated. But does anyone believe this anymore? Does anyone take seriously the claim that the present state of affairs will be set aside and a wholly new order of things implemented in its place, and that such a transformation of the world will happen as a matter of course?

And, finally, if in fact there are those who believe such a thing, what is the status of this belief? Is it a realistic assessment of the objective conditions of the present world order, or is it merely wishful thinking?

The importance of these questions should be obvious to anyone familiar with the thought of Marx. Marx's uniqueness as a thinker of the left is his absolute commitment to the principles of political realism. This is the view that any political energy that is put into what is clearly a hopeless cause is a waste. Utopianism is not only impractical; it is an obstacle to obtaining socialism's true objective, since it diverts badly needed resources away from the pursuit of viable goals, wasting them instead on the pursuit of political fantasies.

The concept of fantasy as a political category assumed its central place in Marxist thought in "The Communist Manifesto," in which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used it as the distinguishing mark of their own brand of socialism. It was this that condemned all previous forms of socialism to the realm of vague dreams and good intentions, and that gave Marxism the claim to be a "scientific" form of socialism.

Marx's use of the term scientific in this text has often been criticized. But in his defense, it should be remembered that the German Wissenschaft describes a far wider category than the English science. It means what we know as opposed to what we merely opine, or feel, or imagine; the objective as opposed to the subjective; realistic thinking as opposed to impractical daydreaming. And it is in this last sense that Marx and Engels use it: For the opposite of the scientific is none other than the utopian.

This is the basis of Marx's condemnation of all forms of utopian socialism, the essence of which is the enormous gap between the "fantastic pictures of future society" the utopian socialist dreams of achieving, on one hand, and any realistic assessment of the objective conditions of the actual social order on the other.

This concept of fantasy as "fantastic pictures" inside the head of impractical daydreamers is a classic theme of German Romantic literature and is perhaps most closely identified with the characters of E.T.A. Hoffman's stories, such as Kapellmeister Kreisler. The fantasist, in this literature, is a character type: He lives in his own dream world and can manage only the most tenuous relationship to the real world around him. But unlike the character type of the absent-minded professor, the Romantic fantasist is not content to putter around in his own world. Instead, he is forever insisting that his world is the real one, and in the process of doing this, he reduces the real world around him, and the people in it, to an elaborate stage setting for the enactment of his own private fantasies.

Marx and Engels's wholesale condemnation of all previous socialism as utopian fantasy is the fundamental innovation of their own work. It is the basis of their claim to be taken seriously, not merely by Hoffmanesque daydreamers, but by men of practical judgment and shrewd common sense. To fail to make this distinction, or to fail to stay on the right side of this distinction once it has been made, is to cease to be a Marxist and to fall back into mere Träumerei.

This demarcation line arose because Marx believed that he had grasped something that no previous utopian socialist had even suspected. He believed that he had shown that socialism was inevitable and that it would come about through certain ironclad laws of history--laws that Marx believed were revealed through the study of the very nature of capitalism. Socialism, in short, would come about not because a handful of daydreamers had wished for it, or because pious moralists had urged it, but because the unavoidable breakdown of the capitalist system would force the turn to socialism upon those societies that, prior to this breakdown, had been organized along capitalist lines.

Schematically the scenario went something like this:

• The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.

• The workers would therefore be "immiserized"; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.

• The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system--their poverty, not their ideals.

What is interesting here is that, once you accept the initial premise about the falling rate of profit, the rest does indeed follow realistically. Now, this does not mean that it follows necessarily or according to an ironclad scientific law; but it certainly conveys what any reasonable person would take as the most probable outcome of a hypothetical failure of capitalism.

For Marx it is absolutely essential that revolutionary activities be justifiable on realistic premises. If they cannot be, then they are actions that cannot possibly have a real political objective--and therefore, their only value can be the private emotional or spiritual satisfaction of the people carrying out this pseudopolitical action.

So in order for revolutionary activity to have a chance of succeeding, there is an unavoidable precondition: The workers must have become much poorer over time. Furthermore, there had to be not merely an increase of poverty, but a conviction on the part of the workers that their material circumstances would only get worse, and not better--and this would require genuine misery.

This is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force.

In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe. Without this catastrophic upheaval, capitalism would remain completely in control of the social order and all socialist schemes would be reduced to pipe dreams.

The immiserization thesis, therefore, is critical to Marx, for without it there would be no objective conditions in response to which workers might be driven to overthrow the capitalist system. If the workers were becoming better off with time, then why jump into an utterly untested and highly speculative economic scheme? Especially when even socialists themselves were bitterly divided over what such a scheme would be like in actual practice. Indeed, Marx never committed himself to offering a single suggestion about how socialism would actually function in the real world.

By the 20th century the immiserization thesis was already beginning to look shaky. Empirical evidence, drawn either by impressionistic observation or systematic statistical studies, began to suggest that there was something wrong with the classical version of the thesis, and an attempt was made to save it by redefining immiserization to mean not an absolute increase in misery, but merely a relative one. This gloss allowed a vast increase in empirical plausibility, since it accepted the fact that the workers were indeed getting better off under the capitalist system but went on to argue that they were not getting better off at the same rate as the capitalists.

The problem with this revision lay not in its economic premises, but in its political ones. Could one realistically believe that workers would overthrow an economic system that was continually improving their own lot, simply because that of the capitalist class was improving at a marginally better rate? Certainly, the workers might envy the capitalists; but such emotions simply could not supply the gigantic impetus required to overthrow a structure as massive as the capitalist system. Before the workers of a capitalist society could unite, they had to feel that they had literally nothing to lose--nothing to lose but their proverbial chains. For if they had homes and cars and boats and RVs to lose as well, then it became quite another matter.

In short, the relative immiserization thesis was simply not the stuff that drives people to the barricades. At most it could fuel the gradualist reforms of the evolutionary ideal of socialism--a position identified with Eduard Bernstein.

The post-World War II period demolished the last traces of the classical immiserization thesis. Workers in the most advanced capitalist countries were prosperous by any standard imaginable, either absolute or relative; and what is even more important, they felt themselves to be well off, and believed that the future would only make them and their children even better off than they had been in the past. This was a deadly blow to the immiserization thesis and hence to Marxism. For the failure of the immiserization thesis is in fact the failure of classical Marxism. If there is no misery, there is no revolution; and if there is no revolution, there is no socialism. Q.E.D. Socialism goes back once more to being merely a utopian fantasy.

Yet those who still claim to derive their heritage from Marx are mostly unwilling to acknowledge that their political aims are merely utopian, not scientific. How is that possible?

There might be several reasons advanced for this, but certainly one of them is Paul Baran. A Polish-born American economist and a Marxist, Baran was the author of "The Political Economy of Growth" (Monthly Review Press, 1957). In it, for the first time in Marxist literature, Baran propounded a causal connection between the prosperity of the advanced capitalist countries and the impoverishment of the Third World. It was no longer the case, as it was for Marx, that poverty--as well as idiocy--was the natural condition of man living in an agricultural mode of production. Rather, poverty had been introduced into the Third World by the capitalist system. The colonies no longer served the purpose of consuming overstocked inventories, but were now the positive victims of capitalism.

What needs to be stressed here is that prior to Baran, no Marxist had ever suspected that capitalism was the cause of the poverty of the rest of the world. Not only had Marx and Engels failed to notice this momentous fact, but so had all of their followers. Yet this omission was certainly not due to Marx's lack of knowledge about, or interest in, the question of European colonies. In his writing on India, Marx shows himself under no illusions concerning the brutal and mercenary nature of British rule. He is also aware of the "misery and degradation" effected by the impact of British industry's "devastating effects" on India. Yet all of this is considered by Marx to be a dialectical necessity; that is to say, these effects were the unavoidable precondition of India's progress and advance--an example of the "creative destruction" that Schumpeter spoke of as the essence of capitalist dynamics. Or, as Marx put it in "On Colonialism": "The English bourgeoisie . . . will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the [Indian] people . . . but . . . what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both" the emancipation and the mending of this social condition.

The radical nature of Baran's reformulation of Marxist doctrine is obscured by an understandable tendency to confuse Baran's theory with Lenin's earlier theory of imperialism. In fact, the two have nothing in common. Lenin's theory had evolved in order to explain the continuing survival of capitalism into the early 20th century, and hence the delay of the coming of socialism. In Lenin's view, imperialism is not the cause of Third World immiserization, but rather a stopgap means of postponing immiserization in the capitalist countries themselves. It is the capitalist countries' way of keeping their own work force relatively prosperous--and hence politically placid--by selling surplus goods into captive colonial markets. It is not a way of exploiting, much less impoverishing, these colonies. It was rather a way "to bribe the upper strata of the proletariat, and . . . to . . . strengthen opportunism," as Lenin put it in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (International Publishers, 1933).

This gives us the proper perspective from which to judge the revolutionary quality of Baran's reformulation. For, in essence, what Baran has done is to globalize the traditional doctrine of immiserization so that, instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism. It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries.

Baran's global immiserization thesis, after its initial launch, was taken up by other Marxists, but it was nowhere given a more elaborate intellectual foundation than in Immanuel Wallerstein's monumental study "The Modern World-System" (Academic Press, 1974), which was essentially a fleshing out in greater historical and statistical detail of Baran's thesis. Hence, for the sake of convenience, I will call the global immiserization thesis the Baran-Wallerstein revision.

What I now would like to consider is not the thesis itself, but the role that this thesis played in bolstering and revitalizing late-20th-century Marxism. For it is here that we find the intellectual origins of the international phenomenon of America-bashing. If there is any element of genuine seriousness in this movement--if, indeed, it aspires to be an objective and realistic assessment of the relationship of America to the rest of the world--then that element of seriousness is to be found in the global immiserization thesis: America has gotten rich by making other countries poor.

Furthermore, this is no less true of those who, like Mr. Chomsky, have focused on what is seen as American military aggression against the rest of the world, for this aggression is understood as having its "root cause" in America's systematic exploitation of the remainder of the human race. If American exploitation did not create misery, it would not need to use military force. It is the global immiserization thesis that makes the use of force an indispensable tool of American foreign policy and that is responsible, according to this view, for turning America into a terrorist state. This explains the absolute centrality of the global immiserization thesis in the creation of the specter of America now haunting so much of our world.

The Baran-Wallerstein revision of the classical immiserization thesis into its global context was far better adapted to fix what was wrong in Marxist theory than the revisionist notion of relative immiserization discussed above. For, as we have seen, what was needed was real misery, and not merely comparative misery, since without such misery there would be no breakdown of capitalism: no civil war, no revolution, no socialism. And who can doubt that great real misery exists in the Third World?

In addition to providing a new and previously untapped source of misery, the Baran-Wallerstein revision provided several other benefits. For example, there was no longer any difficulty in accepting the astonishingly high level of prosperity achieved by the work force of the advanced capitalist countries--indeed, it was now even possible to arraign the workers of these countries alongside of the capitalists for whom they labored--or rather, more precisely, with whom they collaborated in order to exploit both the material resources and the cheap labor of the Third World. In the new configuration, both the workers and the capitalists of the advanced countries became the oppressor class, while it was the general population of the less advanced countries that became the oppressed--including, curiously enough, even the rulers of these countries, who often, to the untutored eye, seemed remarkably like oppressors themselves.

With this demystification of the capitalist working class came an end to even a feigned enthusiasm among Marxists for solidarity with the hopelessly middle-class aspirations of the American blue-collar work force. The Baran-Wallerstein revision offered an exotic new object of sympathy--namely, the comfortably distant and abstract Third World victims of the capitalist world system.

Perhaps most important, the Baran-Wallerstein revision also neatly solved the most pressing dilemma that worker prosperity in advanced capitalist countries bequeathed to classical Marxism: the absolute lack of revolutionary spirit among these workers--the very workers, it must be remembered, who were originally cast in the critical role of world revolutionaries. In the new theoretical configuration, this problem no longer mattered simply because the workers of the capitalist countries no longer mattered.

Hence the appeal of the global immiserization thesis: The Baran-Wallerstein revision neatly obviates all the most outstanding objections to the classical Marxist theory. This leaves two questions unanswered: Is it true? And even if it is true, does it save Marxism?

Whether the immiserization thesis is true or not is simply too complex a topic to deal with here. Indeed, for the sake of the present argument, I am willing to assume that it is absolutely true--truer than anything has ever been true before. For what I want to concentrate on is the question of whether the Baran-Wallerstein revision is consistent with Marxism's claim to represent a realistic political agenda as opposed to a mere utopian fantasy. And the short answer is that, no matter how true the global immiserization thesis might be, it does not save the Baran-Wallerstein revision of Marxism from being condemned as utopian fantasy--and condemned not by my standards or yours, but by those of Marx and Engels.

This is because the original immiserization thesis was set within the context of a class war within a society--an actual civil war between different classes of one and the same society, and not between different nations on different continents. This makes an enormous difference, for it is not at all unreasonable to think that a revolutionary movement could succeed, by means of a violent and bloody civil war, in gaining the monopoly of force within a capitalist society, and thus be able to dictate terms to the routed capitalists, if any survived.

But this is an utterly different scenario from one in which the most advanced capitalist societies have a monopoly of force--and brutally effective force--at their disposal. For in this case it is absurd to think that the exploited Third World countries could possibly be able to alter the world order by even a hair, provided the advanced capitalist societies were intent on not being altered.

What could they do to us?

The answer to this question, according to many of those who accept the global immiserization thesis, came on September 11. Noam Chomsky, perhaps America's most celebrated proponent of the Baran-Wallerstein thesis, expressed this idea in the immediate aftermath. Here, for the first time, the world had witnessed the oppressed finally striking a blow against the oppressor--a politically immature blow, perhaps, comparable to the taking of the Bastille by the Parisian mob in its furious disregard of all laws of humanity, but still an act equally world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era.

This judgment can make sense only in the context of the Baran-Wallerstein thesis. For if 9/11 was in fact a realistic blow against the advanced capitalist countries--or even just the most advanced--then here was an escape from the utopian deadlock of the global immiserization thesis. Here was a way that the overthrow of world capitalism could be made a viable historical outcome once again, and not merely the fantastic delusions of a sect. This explains the otherwise baffling valorization of 9/11 on the part of the left--by which I mean the enormous world-historical significance that they have been prepared to attribute to al Qaeda's act of terror.

But was 9/11 truly world-historical in the precise sense required to sustain the Baran-Wallerstein revision? For 9/11 to be world-historical in this sense, it would have to contain within it the seeds of a gigantic shift in the order of things: something on the scale of the decline and collapse of capitalist America and with it the final realization of the socialist realm.

But this investment of world-historical significance to 9/11 is simply wishful thinking on the part of the left. It is an effort to transform the demented acts of a group of fantasists into the vanguard of the world revolution. Because if there is to be a world revolution at all there has to be a vanguard of that revolution, an agent whose actions are such as to represent a threat to the capacity of the capitalist system simply to survive. This means that it is not enough to injure it; it is not enough to wound or madden it; it is not enough to rouse it to rage--the agent must kill it, too. He must be capable of overthrowing the hegemonic power at the center of the capitalist world system.

But this is absolutely implausible. Any realistic assessment of any possible scenario will inevitably conclude that nothing that al Qaeda can do can cause the collapse of America and the capitalist system. The worse eventuality in the long run would be that America would be forced to break its hallowed ideal of universal tolerance, in order to make an exception of those who fit the racial profile of an al Qaeda terrorist. It is ridiculous to think that if al Qaeda continued to attack us such measures would not be taken. They would be forced upon the government by the people (and anyone who thinks that the supposed cultural hegemony of the left might stop this populist fury is deluded).

In other words, the only effect on America of a continuation of September 11-style attacks would be an increasingly repressive state apparatus domestically and a populist home-front demand for increasingly severe retaliation against those nations supporting or hiding terrorists. But neither one of these reactions would seriously undermine the strength of the United States--indeed, it is quite evident that further attacks would continue to unite the overwhelming majority of the American population, creating an irresistible "general will" to eradicate terrorism by any means necessary, including the most brutal and ruthless.

But this condition, let us recall, is precisely the opposite of the objective political conditions that, according to Marx, must be present in order for capitalism to be overthrown. For classical Marxism demands, quite realistically, a state that is literally being torn apart by internal dissension. Revolution, in short, requires a full-fledged civil war within the capitalist social order itself, since nothing short of this can possibly achieve the goal that the revolution is seeking. Hence, 9/11-style attacks that serve only to strengthen the already considerable solidarity between classes in the United States are, from the perspective of classical Marxism, fatally flawed. For such attacks not only fail to further any revolutionary aims; they actually make the revolution less probable. A society of 300 million individuals whose bumper stickers say "United We Stand" is not a breeding ground for revolutionary activity. Nor is it a society that can be easily intimidated into mending its ways, even if we make the assumption that its ways need mending.

But if the result of 9/11 was to strengthen the political unity of the United States, then 9/11 was definitely not world-historical. The unspeakable human horror of 9/11 should not blind us to the ghastly triviality of the motive and the inevitable nullity of the aftermath.

The Baran-Wallerstein revision of Marxism does provide a new global reformulation of the immiserization thesis. But the locus of this misery, the Third World, does not and cannot provide an adequate objective foundation for a revolutionary struggle against the capitalist system. Rather, this foundation can be provided only by a majority of the workers in the advanced capitalist countries themselves; but, as we have seen, the effect of 9/11 on the working class of the United States was not one conducive to the overthrow and demise of capitalism. On the contrary, nowhere was the desire to retaliate against the terrorists more powerfully visceral than among the working class of the United States. The overwhelming majority of its members instantly responded with collective and spontaneous expression of solidarity with other Americans and expressions of outrage against those who had planned and carried out the attack, as well as those who attempted to palliate it.

For those who are persuaded by the Baran-Wallerstein thesis, 9/11 represents a classic temptation. It is the temptation that every fantasy ideology offers to those who become caught up in it--the temptation to replace serious thought and analysis, fidelity to the facts and scrupulous objectivity, with the worst kind of wishful thinking. The attempt to cast 9/11 as a second taking of the Bastille simply overlooks what is most critical about both of these events, namely, that the Bastille was a symbol of oppression to the masses of French men and women who first overthrew it and then tore it down, brick by brick. And while it is true that the Bastille had become the stuff of fantasy, thanks to the pre-1789 "horrors of the Bastille" literature, it was still a fantasy that worked potently on the minds of the Parisian mob and hence provided the objective political conditions necessary to undermine the Bourbon state.

But the fantasy embodied in 9/11, far from weakening the American political order, strengthened it immeasurably, while the only mobs that were motivated by the enactment of this fantasy were those inhabiting the Arab streets--a population pathetically unable to control even the most elementary aspects of its own political destiny, and hence scarcely the material out of which a realistically minded revolutionary could hope to fashion an instrument of world-historical transformation. These people are badly miscast in the role of the vanguard of the world revolution. And what can we say about those in the West, allegedly acting within the tradition of Marxist thought, who encourage such spectacularly utopian flights of fantasy?

The Baran-Wallerstein thesis cannot save Marxism; and, in fact, it is a betrayal of what is genuinely valid in Marx--namely, the insistence that any realistic hope of a world-historical transformation from one stage of social organization to a more humane one can come only if men and women do not yield to the temptation of fantasy ideology, even--and, indeed, especially--when it is a fantasy ideology dressed up to look like Marxism.

Instead, the Baran-Wallerstein thesis has sadly come to provide merely a theoretical justification for the most irrational and infantile forms of America-bashing. There is nothing Marxist about this. On the contrary, according to Marx, it was the duty of the nonutopian socialist, prior to the advent of genuine socialism, to support whatever state happened to represent the most fully developed and consistently carried out form of capitalism; and, indeed, it was his duty to defend it against the irrational onslaughts of those reactionary and backward forces that tried to thwart its development. In fact, this was a duty that Marx took upon himself, and nowhere more clearly than in his defense of the United States against the Confederacy in the Civil War. Only in this case he was defending capitalism against a fantasy ideology that, unlike that of radical Islam, wished to roll back the clock a mere handful of centuries, not several millennia.

Those who, speaking in Marx's name, try to defend the fantasy ideology embodied in 9/11 are betraying everything that Marx represented. They are replacing his hard-nosed insistence on realism with a self-indulgent flight into sheer fantasy, just as they are abandoning his strenuous commitment to pursuit of a higher stage of social organization in order to glorify the feudal regimes that the world has long since condemned to Marx's own celebrated trash bin of history.

America-bashing has sadly come to be "the opium of the intellectual," to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the 20th century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

This is an intellectual tragedy. The Marxist left, whatever else one might say about it, has traditionally offered a valuable perspective from which even the greatest conservative thinkers have learned--including Schumpeter and Thomas Sowell. But if it cannot rid itself of its current penchant for fantasy ideology of the worst type, not only will it be incapable of serving this purpose; it will become worse than useless. It will become a justification for a return to that state of barbarism mankind has spent millennia struggling to transcend--a struggle that no one felt more keenly than Marx himself. For the essence of utopianism, according to Marx, is the refusal to acknowledge just how much suffering and pain every upward step of man's ascent inflicts upon those who are taking it, and instead to dream that there are easier ways of getting there. There are not, and it is helpful to no party to pretend that there are. To argue that the great inequalities of wealth now existing between the advanced capitalist countries and the Third World can be cured by outbreaks of frenzied and irrational America-bashing is not only utopian; it is immoral.

The left, if it is not to condemn itself to become a fantasy ideology, must reconcile itself not only with the reality of America, but with its dialectical necessity--America is the sine qua non of any future progress that mankind can make, no matter what direction that progress may take.

The belief that mankind's progress, by any conceivable standard of measurement recognized by Karl Marx, could be achieved through the destruction or even decline of American power is a dangerous delusion. Respect for the deep structural laws that govern the historical process--whatever these laws may be--must dictate a proportionate respect for any social order that has achieved the degree of stability and prosperity the United States has achieved and has been signally decisive in permitting other nations around the world to achieve as well. To ignore these facts in favor of surreal ideals and utterly utopian fantasies is a sign not merely of intellectual bankruptcy, but of a disturbing moral immaturity. For nothing indicates a failure to understand the nature of a moral principle better than to believe that it is capable of enforcing itself.

It is not. It requires an entire social order to shelter and protect it. And if it cannot find these, it will perish.

Mr. Harris is an Atlanta writer. This article appears in the December/January issue of Policy Review, published by the Hoover Institution.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Oct-10, by Conor Dougherty and Sudeep Reddy:

Is Columbus Day Sailing Off the Calendar?
Parades Get Dumped, the Holiday Renamed; Brown's 'Fall Weekend'

Arrivederci, Columbus Day.

The tradition of honoring Christopher Columbus for sailing the ocean blue in 1492 is facing rougher seas than the Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria.

Philadelphia's annual Columbus Day parade has been canceled. Brown University this year renamed the holiday "Fall Weekend" following a campaign by a Native American student group opposed to celebrating an explorer who helped enslave some of the people he "discovered."

And while the Italian adventurer is generally thought to have arrived in the New World on Oct. 12, 517 years ago on Monday, his holiday is getting bounced all over the calendar. Tennessee routinely celebrates it the Friday after Thanksgiving to give people an extra-long weekend.

"You can celebrate the hell out of it if you get it the day after Thanksgiving -- it gives you four days off," says former Tennessee Gov. Ned McWherter.

In California, Columbus Day is one of two paid holidays getting blown away by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of a budget-cut proposal. In Washington, D.C., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid canceled this year's weeklong Columbus Day recess so the senators can buckle down on health care. (They still get Monday off, though.)

Another obstacle: Columbus Day hasn't transcended its original purpose, as some other holidays have. Sure, Columbus Day celebrates one of the world's great explorers. But Memorial Day and Labor Day also do double duty as summer's official bookends, whereas Columbus Day is stuck in mid-October, halfway between summertime and Christmas. And many Americans apparently prefer more days off around Christmas.

So some employers have turned to "holiday swapping." In Calimesa, Calif., the city council recently voted to swap two holidays -- Columbus Day, and a day honoring labor organizer Cesar Chavez -- for one floating holiday and day off on New Year's Eve.

Mayor Jim Hyatt says the swap is partly a reward to give workers more flexible use of their time off. "Nothing against Columbus Day," he says.

In Wilmette, Ill., teachers and staff are working this Columbus Day, but they get a make-up day off on Dec. 23. Ray Lechner, superintendent of Wilmette District 39, says the reality is that Columbus Day is a low holiday priority. "We would not mess with religious holidays," he says.

Columbus Day itself was created during a holiday switcheroo. Back in 1968, Congress passed the Monday Holiday Law, which not only established Columbus Day on the second Monday of October, but also moved three other federal holidays -- Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and Washington's Birthday (a.k.a Presidents' Day) -- so that they always fell on Mondays, too. And the golden age of three-day weekends was born.

The fact that this year's holiday falls on the actual date that Columbus is believed to have landed is mere coincidence. It won't happen again until 2015, assuming the holiday exists.

A spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, the fraternal society founded in 1882 with the explorer's name, said: "So far as we're concerned, it's quite obviously an appropriate holiday."

Columbus Day used to be a big deal in Columbus, Ohio. But it has been 11 years since the city had an official parade for its namesake, in part because of the controversy swirling around Columbus. There were fireworks and a beauty contest.

"It was the biggest parade in town," says Joseph Contino, a local who flies tanker jets for the national guard and is trying to refuel the idea of celebrating the big day with a big parade.

The city isn't helping, Mr. Contino says. "Their reaction is as if it was the Ku Klux Klan."

A city official says that's not right. "The mayor thinks a parade is a great idea and thinks that the Italian community should take the lead on that," says Dan Williamson, a spokesman for Mayor Michael B. Coleman.

"It would be stupid to pretend there is no controversy around Christopher Columbus," he adds. But the mayor of Columbus isn't taking sides.

The holiday isn't under threat everywhere. New York City's longtime Columbus Day parade will still be marching up Fifth Avenue this year, as it has since 1929. The bond market takes the day off, too.

But 22 states don't give their employees the day off, according to the Council of State Governments. And in other places, Columbus Day is under attack. "We're going after state governments to drop this holiday for whatever reason they come up with," said Mike Graham, founder of United Native America, a group fighting for a federal holiday honoring Native Americans.

His group's agenda: Rename Columbus Day "Italian Heritage Day" and put it somewhere else on the calendar, then claim the second Monday in October as "Native American Day." South Dakota already calls it that.

Other organizations want to rename the day "Indigenous Peoples' Day," as several California cities, including Berkeley, have done.

Columbus's defenders aren't prepared to watch their hero's holiday sail off the edge of the earth. They say he should be celebrated for risking his life to explore the world and for forging modern ties between Europe and the Americas.

His supporters acknowledge Columbus took slaves back to Spain and opened the door to conquistadors who killed Native Americans. But much of the criticism is built on "judging a 16th century man by 21st century standards," says Dona De Sanctis of the Order Sons of Italy in America, a group of half a million Italian-Americans that tries to defend Columbus' legacy.

At Brown University, the rename-the-holiday activists "stressed this was against Columbus, but not Italian-Americans," says Reiko Koyama, a junior who led the effort to persuade the school to change the name to "Fall Weekend." Brown happens to be in Rhode Island, a state with the largest proportion of Italian-Americans in the U.S.

Ground zero of the Columbus battle has been Colorado, home to the nation's first official Columbus holiday about a century ago. Columbus Day parades in Denver have faced acrimonious protests for much of the past decade. Marchers have been on the receiving end of dismembered dolls and fake blood strewn across the parade route. Dozens of protesters have been arrested over the years.

This year, the attacks took a new twist: A prankster sent an email to local media -- purporting to be from parade organizers -- saying the event had been canceled.

"I consider it much more than a hoax. This is a personal attack on me," says Richard SaBell, president of the Denver Columbus Day Parade Committee. "As in years past, we are undeterred. The parade will not be stopped."

from the Associated Press, 2009-Oct-2, by Barry Schweid:

Political scientists report drop in US standing

Washington — The United States' standing in the world declined in the past decade to below Cold War levels, according to a leading group of political scientists.

Favorable attitudes have risen sharply under President Barack Obama with his commitment to "restore American standing," but confidence in him appears to be in conflict with unfavorable attitudes about U.S. foreign policy, the American Political Science Association said in a report released Thursday.

"Many American leaders and citizens worry that this decline, despite a recent upturn, may be part of a long-term trend, one that will be hard to reverse," the report said.

While Obama has raised American esteem, he has not produced more European troops for Afghanistan, secured concessions from North Korea nor made any headway with Iran, the academics said.

Twenty political scientists worked on the report for more than a year. Two of them dissented from the conclusions, saying that "political bias affects perceptions" and that "the academic community, unbalanced as it is between self-identified Republicans and Democrats, is not immune to such bias."

The dissenters, Stephen D. Krasner of Stanford University and Henry R. Nau of The George Washington University, said U.S. standing is heavily influenced by political bias in the United States and political attitudes in foreign countries. Krasner was director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush.

The findings are based on analyses of public opinion surveys, votes in the U.N. General Assembly and the expert judgment of specialists in the field of comparative geopolitics, said Peter J. Katzenstein of Cornell University, a former president of the association.

American standing plunged most sharply in the Middle East and Europe, although authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are more supportive of U.S. policy than they can say publicly, the report said.

In Europe, there is a growing European identity and "a conscious political attempt to delink Europe from American policies," according to the report.

At the United Nations, support for U.S. positions has declined since the 1960s, and the decline was especially pronounced during the George W. Bush administration, the academics said. After some initial success, such as toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States grew mired in Iraq and Osama bin Laden remained at large. The success of the troop surge in Iraq may have helped improve attitudes toward the United States, the report said.

Helping raise U.S. esteem now are Obama's rhetorical skills and "what his election signifies about the openness of America," the report said.

"In policy terms, however, most (foreigners) believe that there has been little change in the U.S. disregard for the interests of their country, and that U.S. influence in the world is still mostly bad," the report said.

The American Political Science Association has more than 15,000 members.

On the Net:

• American Political Science Association: http://www.apsanet.org

from Commentary Magazine's Contentions blog, 2009-Oct-5, by Peter Wehner:

Who Is Rooting Against America?

Democrats — increasingly desperate as their political troubles mount and in need of finding a political enemy — have decided to go after Republicans and conservatives who were delighted that President Obama's appeal to the IOC on behalf of Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid failed. “Some of these people are starting to put politics first and country second,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The American people are starting to wonder if they are rooting against America,” he added.

The New York Times's Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos have added their calm, elegant, and reasoned voices to the discussion as well (“So when did wingnuts start cheering against America?” Moulitsas wrote. “Their unbridled joy at losing out to Brazil is a bit unseemly, isn't it? `America , f— yeah!' has become `F— America, Yeah!' ”).

Now that is rich, isn't it? The head of the Democratic party, Barack Obama, has engaged in an unprecedented apology tour for America since he was sworn into office. He has slammed our nation in Europe, in Cairo, before the UN, and in several others places. Has it dawned on Democrats that the IOC might have turned down Chicago because of the portrait of the country painted by Barack Obama? If you took Obama's word for it, this is in many respects a very unpleasant nation guilty of multiple serious sins, both from long ago and just prior to noon on January 20, 2009.

In addition — and the Politico story alludes to this topic — Democrats opposed the surge in Iraq, which was an understandable if terribly unwise thing to do. But they also intentionally downplayed its success even when its evidence became indisputable (I documented this here and here). Any disinterested analysis of the debate will show, I think, that many Democrats misrepresented the facts in order to force an American withdrawal from Iraq, a war they had grown to hate, waged by a president they had come to loathe. The results of their efforts would have been a historic American defeat. It was among the most dispiriting developments I have ever witnessed in American politics. So Democrats should be very careful when throwing out the “rooting against America” charge. The Olympics is not a terribly important event in the life of this nation; losing a war, however, is.

from the Times of London, 2009-Oct-9, by Philippe Naughton:

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama sensationally won the Nobel Peace Prize today after just nine months in the White House in recognition of his efforts to return America to a multilateralist foreign policy.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it was honouring the 48-year-old President for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". It said that it had attached "special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons".

Mr Obama was elected America's first black president last December and assumed office on January 20, succeeding George W Bush. Nominations for the prize closed less than two weeks later, on February 1.

But even though he has yet to serve a full year in office, the Norwegian committee said that Mr Obama had already managed to create "a new climate in international politics".

It said in its citation: "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

It went on: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

from Reuters, 2009-Oct-10, by Jeff Franks with editing by John O'Callaghan:

Fidel Castro lauds Nobel prize for Obama

HAVANA - Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro lauded the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, saying on Saturday it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than a recognition of Obama's accomplishments.

Castro said the prize made up for the blow Obama suffered last week when the International Olympic Committee awarded the 2016 Summer Games to Rio de Janeiro after Obama had flown to Copenhagen to pitch for Chicago, his adoptive hometown.

The Nobel Committee announced on Friday that Obama had won the peace price for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The decision prompted surprise in many quarters and anger from Obama's conservative foes in the United States. [Actually, his “conservative foes” were mostly amused, with some even expressing support, whereas many benchmark progressive pundits expressed anger and dismay. -AMPP Ed.]

But Castro, who has generally written positively about Obama, was pleased at the decision by the committee.

"I don't always share the positions of that institution but I'm obligated to recognize that in this instance it was, in my judgment, a positive measure," Castro wrote in a column published in state-run media.

"Many will say that he still hasn't earned the right to receive such distinction. We prefer to see in the decision, more than a prize for the president of the United States, a criticism of the genocidal policies that not a few presidents of that country have followed."

Such policies, Castro said, had "brought the world to the crossroads where it finds itself; an exhortation for peace and the search for solutions to assure the survival of the species."

The Nobel prize made up for "the reverse Obama suffered in Copenhagen ... which provoked angry attacks by his adversaries of the extreme right," Castro wrote.

His comments were part of a long piece entitled "The Bell Tolls for the Dollar" in which he said the U.S. dollar was losing its position as the preeminent world currency.

Also, he criticized the United States, as he often does, for not doing more to cut emission of greenhouse gases said to be causing global warming.

Castro, 83, ran Cuba for 49 years after taking power in a 1959 revolution but stepped down last year and was replaced as president by his younger brother Raul Castro.

The elder Castro has been seen only in occasional photos and videos since having surgery for an undisclosed intestinal ailment in July 2006. But he still has a behind-the-scenes role in government and keeps a high profile through his writings.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Oct-10, p.A14:

The Nobel Hope Prize
An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.

Maybe he really is The One.

Mr. Obama seemed more than a little amazed himself, after only nine months on the job and having been inaugurated only 12 days before Nobel nominations were due in February. The prize isn't "a recognition of my own accomplishment," the President said yesterday, adding that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Humility grace note accepted.

Yet something more than the power of charisma induced the Norwegians to honor Mr. Obama, so this is also a teachable moment. The committee's citation provides a crib sheet. The Norwegians hailed "Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," noting "a new climate" in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position."

The statement extols the American's support for the U.N. and notes that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." Praise comes as well for Mr. Obama's commitment to fight climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions. George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again. Counting Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, this is the third Nobel Non-Bush Peace Prize.

On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda. But somehow we doubt Mr. Obama would have received the Nobel merely for believing in climate change. The Norwegians rightly detect something larger in Mr. Obama's vision. As Thorbjørn Jagland, who chairs the Nobel Committee, told CNN: "He has done a lot already" and this award will "enhance the ideals Barack Obama is promoting."

What ideals are those? Well, the Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."

The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.

Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary.

Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment. Appearing at the Rose Garden yesterday, Mr. Obama seemed to have noticed what the Norwegians have noticed about him, as he was at pains to spin his award for Americans. For once, he refrained from making his habitual remark about having restored America's standing in the world, or apologizing for some U.S. transgression. Instead he wrapped the Nobel in the U.S. flag "as an affirmation of American leadership" and concluded that, "I believe America will continue to lead."

We all have at least three more years to learn if Mr. Obama will fulfill the audacity of hope that the Nobel Committee has put on him to bow to the values of the world's "majority."

from the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, 2009-Oct-12, by James Taranto:

Blame the Victim
The Nobel Peace Prize is partly Obama's fault.

Having agreed with almost everyone else on Friday [see next item -AMPP Ed.] that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama makes him look ridiculous, we would now like to take exception from several points of conventional wisdom about the award.

The first point, offered by fair-minded critics and embarrassed supporters of the president, is that he is not to blame for the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision: "President Obama has won the Nobel Prize for Peace--but that's not his fault," declares a Washington Post editorial. "Assuming the White House did nothing to encourage or lobby for the award, it is not Barack Obama's fault that he has been embarrassed by this honor," writes our own Peggy Noonan. "You can't blame Obama for this," adds Glenn Reynolds; "he seems to have been as surprised as anyone."

The few pro-Obama commentators who have gamely tried to defend the award as both prestigious and deserved have argued that if he has accomplished nothing else, Obama has at least put a stop to Bush-era anti-Americanism: "Countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama's great achievements in less than nine months in office," claim the New York Times editorialists. Andrew Sullivan claims Americans "haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished." Fareed Zakaria said on CNN Friday that "for those of us who travel around the world, it really is true that there is a palpable shift in people's attitudes towards America."

Finally, there is the claim--and this is such a commonplace that we won't even bother citing examples--that Obama got the award for being "not George W. Bush."

Let's tackle this last one first. Not being George W. Bush was not a sufficient condition for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If it had been, anyone could have gotten it, with the sole exception of George W. Bush. More to the point, the combination not being George W. Bush and being president almost certainly wasn't sufficient either. Does anyone think the Norwegians would have given the prize to President Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

What everyone, including this column, agrees on is that the prize was a rebuke to George W. Bush, now a private citizen in Dallas. That is why the claim that Obama has inspired a turnaround in the so-called world's attitude toward America is not only false but laughable. When George W. Bush was president, the Norwegian Nobel Committee delivered three similar rebukes: in 2002 (by naming Jimmy Carter), 2005 (Mohammad ElBaradei) and 2007 (Al Gore). The Obama award is a continuation of, not a break from, the committee's behavior of the past eight years.

Actually, it is an escalation. Whatever one may think of Carter, ElBaradei and Gore, each man at least had some sort of record on which the committee could plausibly claim to have based its decision. This Nobel Prize is a naked attack on the former president--and, by implication, on the country that elected him.

Obama's record of accomplishment consists of nothing more than a successful political campaign against, as he put it in his convention speech, "the failed policies of George W. Bush." At the time, we doubted whether running against a man who would not appear on the ballot made political sense. The outcome speaks for itself.

But whether out of political calculation or sheer carelessness, Obama has continued, in effect, campaigning against George W. Bush. He frequently laments the "mess" he "inherited"--as if he had been born into the presidency or won it in a lottery rather than seeking out the responsibility he now holds. In May he declared, "The problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place." Actually, Guantanamo was a solution to the problem of what to do with the detainees; the current problem was caused by Obama's rejecting it without first coming up with an alternative plan. In August, as we noted, the president sounded downright thuggish in blaming his predecessors for the lousy economy: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

We don't remember any president in our lifetime attacking his predecessor in this manner, or at all. We haven't exhaustively researched the question, but our impression is that you'd have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt to find one who did--and his denunciations of Herbert Hoover were for domestic, not foreign, consumption.

Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Because he pandered to the prejudices of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Surely he didn't do it with the Peace Prize (or at least this year's Peace Prize) in mind. He did it because disparaging George W. Bush is a cheap way of winning approval among certain constituencies, both foreign and domestic.

Until last Friday, one might have argued that this was all quite harmless. But by seeking adulation that he did not deserve, the president of the United States helped make himself into a figure of ridicule. Barack Obama did not award himself the Nobel Peace Prize, but his reckless rhetoric encouraged those who did.

from the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, 2009-Oct-9, by James Taranto:

Most Embarrassing Moment
The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes President Obama look ridiculous.

Yasser Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize, too. In a way, though, this comparison is unfair to Arafat, who, by signing the Oslo Accords, had at least accomplished something on paper. What has Barack Obama, in office less than nine months, actually done to promote peace?

Besides the beer summit, we mean.

You see the problem here. The jokes write themselves. Six days ago, "Saturday Night Live" was mocking Obama for having accomplished nothing, and the president's media protectors were crying foul. After all, can't expect a guy to accomplish very much in a few short months. But the incongruity of this staggeringly premature honor--the equivalent of a lifetime-achievement Oscar for a child star--makes yesterday's satire into today's news. Thus Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press:

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what? . . .

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world--in Iraq and Afghanistan--and can't get a climate change bill through his own Congress.

His scorecard for the year is largely an "incomplete," if he's being graded.

Loven goes on to list the promises yet unkept: closing Guantanamo, bringing the troops home from Iraq, making peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, etc. The only thing missing is "Live, from New York . . .!"

Oh, and actually, we're not sure the beer summit even counts. CNN noted earlier (in a passage that has been cut from this story):

Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1--only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September--two months before Obama was elected president.

So Obama was already a nominee by the time he had completed 0.82% of his presidential term. "There is one lovely, delicious, delectable thing about it: it will drive the American right wing up the wall," writes Michael Tomasky, Washington correspondent for London's left-wing Guardian. And indeed, it has prompted such up-the-wall right-wing commentary as this:

This is so out of nowhere that it could be almost embarrassing for the White House. If Obama and his people try to act like this was really deserved, he could actually damage himself politically.

If I were in the boiler room over there, I would begin by suggesting to the president that he demur altogether. That he tell the committee that while he's deeply touched, he does not in fact feel that he has yet done the work to earn this award

Oh, sorry! That wasn't a right-winger, it was Michael Tomasky. The truth be told, the American right is the least likely group to be driven "up the wall" by this. They have already discounted the Nobel Peace Prize for parochial partisanship. Obama's is the third of the past eight Nobel Peace Prizes to go to a member of the U.S. Democratic Party (after Jimmy Carter and Al Gore), and the fourth of the eight that seems a direct rebuke to now-former president George W. Bush (Mohammed ElBaradei being the non-American among this category).

Thus a conservative can argue that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because it is already so devalued. Commentary's John Podhoretz:

The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization's highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than "the indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

But if you think the prize is still a source of prestige, you have to be mystified or embarrassed. "Obama Peace Prize Win Has Americans Asking Why?" reads a Reuters headline, and the dispatch, datelined New York, quotes many people from liberal precincts:

"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for."

Itya Silverio, 33, of Brooklyn, was also surprised. "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black," she said. "What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." . . .

Some said the choice could damage the Nobel committee's credibility and that of the award.

"It looks less like an objective award than it does a political endorsement," said William Jelani Cobb, a history professor at Spelman College in Atlanta and author of a forthcoming book on Obama.

"Guantanamo is not closed yet and it makes it difficult for him to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan," he said. . . .

Many seemed happy even if they weren't sure why Obama won.

"How wonderful, I think that's fantastic," said David Spierer, 48, from New York who works in medical sales. "I know what he's doing but what has he done? Change is coming but you don't win a Nobel Peace Prize for the future."

"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."

Perhaps the strongest evidence that the prize is embarrassing to the president is that it has prompted a display of vicious partisanship--from the Democrats. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued a statement quoted by the Baltimore Sun:

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights," Steele said.

"One thing is certain--President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action," added the former Maryland lieutenant governor.

If Obama had really won something worth winning, his supporters would have replied to Steele with a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger disparagement of partisan sour grapes. Instead, as Politico's Ben Smith reports, the Democratic National Committee went into an insane rage:

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists--the Taliban and Hamas this morning--in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told Politico. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize--an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride--unless of course you are the Republican Party.

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore--it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

So within hours of the president's being honored for his commitment to "multilateral diplomacy . . . dialogue and negotiations," his surrogates were attacking his domestic opponents in the most crudely jingoistic terms. The question is not whether Obama can live up to the Nobel Peace Prize, but whether he will be able to live it down.

Life Imitates 'The Simpsons'

Sideshow Bob: "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?"--dialogue from "Sideshow Bob Roberts," aired Oct. 9, 1994
"Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 [Nobel Peace] prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit."--Associated Press, Oct. 9, 2009
Life Imitates the Onion Imitating Life

"Gore Wins Oscar, Nobel Peace Prize for Slide-Show Presentation"--headline, Onion, Dec. 18, 2007
"When I saw this morning's top New York Times headline--'Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize'--I had the same immediate reaction which I'm certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing."--Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, Oct. 9, 2009
"Maybe it was because I saw the headline early this morning not on the N.Y. Times's website or the Wall Street Journal's, but rather on Google News. I instantly assumed that the Onion had successfully landed a story on the home page of that fine aggregator. "Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize," the headline said. I chuckled, silently congratulated the Onion on its clever idea, and clicked the link."--Stephen Dubner, New York Times Web site, Oct. 9, 2009
"I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead. I hit refresh. Still there: 'Obama Wins Nobel for Diplomacy.' "--Richard Kim, The Nation Web site, Oct. 9, 2009
Taliban to Nobel Laureate: Drop Dead
"President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night," London's Times reports:

That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban.

How are the Taliban reacting to the Nobel Peace Prize winner's peace offering? Not well, as Agence France-Presse reports:

The Taliban Friday condemned the decision to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, saying he had "not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan".

"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.

The Washington Post reports on the Obama administration's "emerging goal" of not defeating the Taliban:

Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but the group has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process.

Some White House advisers have noted that although Hezbollah is a source of regional instability, it is not a threat to the United States.

The Associated Press reports on the latest atrocity in Kabul:

A suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy in the bustling center of the Afghan capital Thursday, killing 17 people in the second major attack in the city in less than a month. . . .

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack--the second against the Indian Embassy in the past two years--and specified that the Indians were the target.

And this is totally consistent with what the Post's White House sources say. Hezbollah attacks Lebanese and Israelis, the Taliban attacks Indians--no big whoop, they're not a threat to the United States. It's true that America can't be expected to solve all the world's problems, but how such shortsightedly selfish isolationism gets identified with world peace is beyond us.

from the Washington Post online, 2009-Sep-26, by Michael Gerson:

All About Obama

I've refrained from commenting on President Obama's address to the United Nations General Assembly because the speech made me angry. And most postings -- or letters, or e-mails -- written while angry are better discarded or deleted.

But this address grows more disturbing on further reading. Some major presidential speeches deserve to be remembered, quoted and celebrated. Some deserve to be forgotten. A few deserve to be remembered and criticized, because they dishonor the history of presidential rhetoric.

Obama's rhetorical method in international contexts -- given supreme expression at the United Nations this week -- is a moral dialectic. The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like…me.

On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” -- a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” -- which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.

The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted “misperceptions and misinformation.” It can be guilty of a “reflexive anti-Americanism.” “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.” Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than America's flawed past. But don't just stand there loving me, do something.

I can recall no other major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced. It might be compared to Gen. Douglas MacArthur's “I shall return” -- which made it sound like MacArthur intended to reconquer the Philippines single-handedly. But MacArthur, at least, imagined himself as embodying his country, not transcending it. He did not assert that while the Japanese invasion was certainly excessive, America had been guilty of provocations of its own -- and now, in the MacArthur era, things would be finally different.

Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt's rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful -- as indeed it is.

At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech -- except to deride it.

from Fox News via CQPolitics.com, 2009-Sep-27, by Chris Wallace and Charles Krauthammer:

[Krauthammer on Obama's 2009-Sep-23 speech to the UN General Assembly]
[excerpted from a transcript of Fox News Sunday 2009-Sep-27]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others, and this has fed an almost reflexive anti- Americanism which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Obama telling the U.N. General Assembly this week that multilateralism is a two-way street.

And it's time now for our Sunday panel of Fox News contributors -- former White House press secretary and first-time panelist Dana Perino, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

So the president told the world's leaders this week what he said during the campaign, that he wants to engage with the global community.

Charles, what did the president have to show for his new policy?

KRAUTHAMMER: Right up until now, he has nothing to show. I think he indulged himself in his speech at the General Assembly, which started out as sort of adolescent utopianism and then it went downhill.

He started out saying things like no nation can dominate another. He said no group of nations ought to be above others. Well, what about the Security Council on which he sat the very next day?

And then he said that no -- that alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War are senseless. Does that mean that NATO is senseless, that our alliance with Japan is senseless?

What do our allies think when they hear that and when they hear, as we saw in that clip, Obama denigrating his own country and presenting himself as the man who will redeem America from its wickedness?

And he said that those of you who doubt the character of America should look at what we, meaning I, have done in the last eight months, including a bunch of gestures -- including joining the Human Rights Council at the U.N., which is a body which we should take no pride in being on.

I thought it was a sorry performance. It did not advance our interest in the least.

from Newsweek.com, 2009-Oct-10 (to appear in Newsweek 2009-Oct-19), by Howard Fineman:

President of Planet Earth
Why Obama's Nobel was inevitable.

In the rose garden last Friday, Barack Obama, with a deep sense of humility and in the name of all mankind, reluctantly accepted the Nobel Peace Prize committee's decision proclaiming him president of planet Earth. He will be sworn in at a glittering ceremony in Oslo in December. In the meantime, Obama has decided to retain the title and the powers of president of the United States, commander in chief of land, sea, and air forces, and team captain of pickup games behind the South Portico.

OK, I'm joking. Obama isn't going to be sworn in as planetary president. But it doesn't matter; in his mind, he already is. From the time he announced his candidacy, his appeal—and his sense of himself—has been global. After years of war and fear, he would be what George W. Bush was not: a man who thought of the whole world first and viewed it as one multicultural family.

Obama was the first presidential candidate to campaign from the outside in. He traveled to Africa to emphasize his Third World roots and then to Berlin, where he appeared at a delirious rally designed to impress the voters back home. It worked, and Obama took that global outlook with him into the Oval Office. For one of his first major speeches, he flew to Cairo, offering himself as a human bridge between the West and Islam in an event that had the aura of a Second Inaugural Address, this one aimed at the whole world. In New York City late last month, he became the first U.S. president to preside over a session of the U.N. Security Council.

In office for a mere nine months, Obama is now a full-blown "ism." And Obamaism—the idea that there must be shared global responsibility for virtually every problem we face—makes some obvious sense. Most of America's problems are indeed global: terrorism (though the president doesn't like to use that word anymore); rampant, job-killing capital flows; climate change; nuclear proliferation; the digital networking revolution. The Bush world view, in which we were a gated community, won't work. We cannot revive our economy, for example, without the coordination that world leaders talked about at the G20 in Pittsburgh. In that sense, the only thing the Nobel committee did by offering Obama the peace prize—and the only thing he did by accepting it—was to dramatize this soothing message.

But the president had better be careful. For one, what the world wants is not necessarily what America needs, or what the voters care about. Most of the world wants us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Most of the world would like to see the dollar lose its role as the reserve currency. Many, many citizens of the world think that Hugo Chávez is a cool dude and that Iran has every right to buy uranium centrifuges and stash them underground. Obama might want to recall the cautionary tale of another president, Woodrow Wilson. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his leading role in founding the League of Nations—a naive, toothless enterprise that most historians now view as a tragic wellspring of World War II. And nothing the Nobel committee can offer him in Oslo is going to help him reduce the unemployment rate here in America, the biggest political threat that he and his party now face.

The bigger risk for Obama is personal. No one in recent decades has come into office with such high—perhaps dangerously high—expectations. Most of them are as yet unfulfilled. Now they are higher, even though the prize itself is regarded by some as too political to be taken seriously. If Obama were real estate, he'd be the most highly leveraged condo in the world, a one-man in--vest-ment bubble in Florida. Journalist Mickey Kaus suggested that the president decline the award pending some actual accomplishments in world affairs. Shrewd advice, but Obama did not take it.

To be sure, he tried to be humble in the Rose Garden. He allowed as how he did not feel he deserved the award for anything he had personally done—yet. Instead, he was accepting the award as a "call to action" for a "new-era engagement, an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Still, he wanted to reassure us that, against all the odds, he remains a regular, grounded fellow. He cited as evidence a conversation that he had had that very morning with his daughters about more important news: the birthday of Bo, the family dog. Bo has not won any prizes yet, but give him time. He is an Obama.

Howard Fineman is also the author of The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country .

from the Globalist, 2009-Oct-12, by Craig Kennedy:

Obama, Europe and the Inevitable

While many are celebrating the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, it has raised questions in the minds of others. Yet, as German Marshall Fund President Craig Kennedy points out, the U.S. public should really be asking how Obama's popularity in Europe can improve cooperation on some tough issues.

What will the overwhelming European support of President Obama mean for transatlantic relations?

Will this unprecedented level of confidence in an American leader preface a new golden age of common perspectives on global and bilateral issues? I hope so, but I doubt it.

The past seven years have been trying for me and my colleagues who work the North American-European beat.

Intergovernmental cooperation has not been the issue. In fact, since September 11, 2001, one could argue that there has not been such deep and broad collaboration since the period immediately after World War II.

But this common work was driven by necessity and not respect for U.S. policy or admiration for its president. Europeans — the political elites and everyday citizens — were almost uniform in their dissatisfaction with George Bush and with many things American.

Some might try to explain how much they really do admire the United States and its economy and culture, but they would choke on the idea of saying something positive about President Bush, or any other Republican for that matter.

What a difference an election makes! The German Marshall Fund's new Transatlantic Trends survey documents an almost euphoric level of support for the leadership of Barack Obama. In 2008, only 19% of Europeans had a favorable view of George Bush's foreign policy. Yet, 77% have a positive view of Barack Obama's in 2009.

Over 90% of Germans have a favorable view of the current president, an 80 percentage-point increase over last year's number for the then-incumbent. Even in Turkey, the new president received 50% support when his predecessor had less than 10% last year.

The European passion for Obama surely explains the changed views on the United States throughout the continent. For the first time in six years, a majority of Europeans have a positive view of this country.

More importantly for transatlantic cooperation, a plurality of Europeans now want their political leaders to work with the United States rather than take a more independent course, which was the dominant opinion in 2008.

And, in all countries, American leadership on international challenges is viewed much more positively than it was under the previous administration.

For all Americans, the president's popularity abroad should be viewed as an asset if it means that Europeans and others will be more likely to support U.S. policies on Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and the Middle East.

Deep divides still exist across the Atlantic on how best to deal with these issues, with Europeans tending to favor strategies that depend largely on diplomacy and “soft power” and Americans tending to see a role, albeit a diminished one, for “hard power.”

When asked if military force is ever necessary to obtain justice in the world, 71% of Americans agree, while only 25% of Europeans see it the same way. This is a big gap in fundamental attitudes about how to deal with global problems.

Is European admiration of President Obama enough to bridge that gap and, for example, shore up the German, British and Dutch troop commitments to Afghanistan at a time when public opinion in those countries is moving in the opposite direction?

We now reach the Obama dilemma. Americans may want him to use his clout with Europe to bring them closer to us on major issues, but Europeans have a parallel wish. I suspect that the outpouring of support for Barack Obama throughout Western Europe is rooted in a belief that he is really “European” — not by birth but by sensibility.

Dozens of European friends and acquaintances have read “Dreams from My Father” and find evidence in those pages that Barack Obama thinks like they do and not like the typical American. For them and many of their fellow citizens, the popularity of the president rests in what they perceive as his common grounding with them, and their hope is that he will convert the rest of America to a similar perspective.

So, just as we may want him to change the minds of Europeans, they are fervently hoping that he will make us less bellicose, more multilateral and committee practitioners of “soft power.”

What are the chances that he can please one or both of these publics? Unfortunately, I think it is an almost impossible task to achieve either goal. Europeans will see his efforts to lead them in the direction of American policy as indicative that he isn't really one of them even if they would like him to be.

If he tries to push Americans too hard to embrace the European standard, he will lose the center of the American public even as he pleases much of Europe. First-term presidents want to be re-elected, so I suspect that he will disappoint his many, nonvoting supporters in Europe.

Transatlantic Trends 2010 should indicate whether I am correct in this analysis. It is possible that Europeans just genuinely like the president and will ignore his more “American” qualities? Or, it is possible that they will simply blame the U.S. Congress and the American electorate for thwarting the “European” intentions of a good politician?

However, I suspect that, as real political decisions have to be made, we will see “Obama Euphoria” fade as the Europeans begin to see him more as an American and less like themselves.

This essay is a Transatlantic Takes feature, published by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The views expressed here are the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Oct-1, p.A21, by Daniel Henninger:

Obama, Dictators and democrats

In his Inaugural Address, President Obama spoke directly to the world's rogue nations. "[W]e will extend a hand," he said, "if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Question: How many rogue nations can you hold in one hand? Let's try to count.

Iran remains rogue No. 1. The world is riveted by the expanding Iranian nuclear threat, and one might expect a mess of this magnitude would occupy most of the diplomatic energies of any presidency. But this one has time for more.

The Monday after last Friday's bombshell that Iran has a hidden nuclear site, the State Department announced the start of a "direct dialogue" with Burma's hopeless junta. The administration has dispatched a special envoy to Sudan and its genocidal leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad got his own Obama envoy, plus a visit from John Kerry.

At the Summit of the Americas, Mr. Obama himself did meet and greets for "dialogue" with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and Bolivia's Evo Morales, and reached out to Cuba's Raul Castro. Mr. Obama then dropped in on Russia's leaders for a "reset."

There is something slightly weird about all this activity. If the Obama team wanted to make a really significant break from past Bush policy, it would say it was not going to just talk with the world's worst strongmen but would give equal, public status to their democratic opposition groups. Instead, the baddest actors in the world get face time with Barack Obama, but their struggling opposition gets invisibility.

Iran's extraordinary and brave popular opposition, which broke out again this week at two universities, seems to have earned these pro-democracy Iranians nothing in the calculations of U.S. policy.

With Iran, one could argue that stopping the mullahs' nuclear program trumps the aspirations of its population. What about poor, harmless Guinea?

In July, Mr. Obama made a historic journey to Africa, giving a widely praised speech in Ghana in support of self-help and self-determination. In August, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton grandly visited seven African nations with a similar message. Three days ago in Guinea, government troops fired on a pro-democracy rally estimated at 50,000 in the capital of Conakry, killing more than 150 people. The State Department got out a written statement of condemnation. Why is it not possible for President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton, having encouraged these aspirations, to speak publicly in their defense, rather than let democratic movements rise, fall and die?

In trying to plumb why the U.S. won't promote or protect its own best idea, one starts with Mr. Obama's remarks at the "reset" visit in Moscow: "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

Setting aside that no one is talking about the U.S. literally "imposing" a government in this day and age, what is one to make of a left-of-center American political leader taking such a diffident stance toward democratic movements? The people who live under the sway of the top dog in all the nations that have earned high-level Obama envoys are the world's poor, and one would expect the social-justice left to support them. That may no longer be true on the American or European left.

Transforming dictatorships into nations with reasonably competitive democracies increases the odds that their people in time will find a competent leader, such as Colombia's Alvaro Uribe, who will introduce productive economic policies. That makes it more likely these peoples will join the global trading system, raising their incomes.

For the American left, now fused to financial support from domestic labor unions, the world's dispossessed represent a threat—less costly labor selling goods into the high-cost world.

Active help for democratic oppositions in Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, Iran or even Guinea hardly serves this interest. Today, social justice stops at the water's edge. Even as Mr. Obama extends his hand to a Chávez, Morales or Castro, he makes no effort to finish free-trade agreements with certifiably democratic Colombia and Panama.

The one thing the Obama tack of talking to dictators and slow-walking free trade assures is that many of these populations may be run indefinitely by economically incompetent psychopaths who pose no threat to the interests of American labor and their Democratic dependents. This anti-democratic protectionism of course has fans on the xenophobic right in the U.S., too.

This is a risky business. What if the new authoritarian, make-believe democratic model gains? Our dictator chat partners are getting brazen about staging and then rigging elections. Iran's mullahs proved there will be no sustained push-back from the U.S. or Western Europe to a fraudulent election. Instead the great powers' energies go into pounding tiny Honduras, which tried to save itself from the Chávez- and Castro-admiring Manuel Zelaya.

What if the world's real democrats, after enough bullets and dungeon time, lose belief in the American democracy's support for them on this central idea? They may come to regard their betters in the U.S. and Europe as inhabiting a world less animated by democratic belief than democratic decadence.

from the Miami Herald, 2009-Sep-24, by Warren P. Strobel:

At U.N., Chavez compliments Obama sort of

UNITED NATIONS -- "It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. ... It's gone. No, it smells of something else. It smells of hope."

With that phrase, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez paid President Barack Obama a backhanded - but major - compliment at the United Nations Thursday, while simultaneously questioning how much change Obama really represents.

It was Chavez who in 2006 famously compared then-President George W. Bush to the devil, taking his place at the podium a day after Bush spoke and declaring: "The devil was here yesterday. ... And it still smells of sulfur today."

Chavez returned to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday and, with a new U.S. president in office, devoted much of his speech to Obama's pros and cons. He was just one of many world leaders who are trying to assess the U.S. president and maneuver for advantage.

The Venezuelan leader, employing his trademark quips, bombast and literary references, suggested that Obama wasn't as much of an agent of change as he claims to be, and said he was in the thrall of a Pentagon-dominated American government.

"We wonder, are there two Obamas? The one who spoke here yesterday ... does he have a double?" Chavez said, referring to Obama's speech Wednesday calling for greater international cooperation and an invigorated United Nations.

Chavez called on the U.S. president to end what he called "the savage, murderous blockade on Cuba" and challenged him over what he called U.S. plans to build seven new military bases in Colombia. The U.S. government has said it wants to expand military access in Colombia but denies that is laying plans to build permanent bases.

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Chavez flatly ruled out any improvement in Venezuela's bitter relations with Colombia and its conservative government led by Alvaro Uribe, a close U.S. ally.

"As long as (Uribe's) government is there, it will be difficult. ... There will not be a restoration of relations," he told a Colombian journalist.

He also repeated accusations that the U.S. had a hand in the June coup against Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who made a surprise and covert return this week to Honduras, showing up at Brazil's embassy in Tegucigalpa.

Chavez clearly seems intensely interested in Obama, whom he met at a hemispheric summit earlier this year in Trinidad and Tobago - even worried about him. "I hope God will protect Obama from the bullets that killed (President John F.) Kennedy," he told the U.N. General Assembly.

"I don't think he's two-faced, no. I don't want to accuse him," Chavez said at the news conference, adding that he thought forces in Washington - specifically the Pentagon - were blocking Obama's hopes of a more Third World-friendly foreign policy. "There is Obama in his labyrinth ... and God help him."

Chavez spoke to the United Nations for nearly an hour, not nearly outdoing Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who rambled on for 96 minutes on Wednesday. "I'm not going to speak any more than Gadhafi. Gadhafi said everything there is to say," he jibed.

At another point, he invited Obama to join what he described as a global socialist revolution. "Come join the 'axis of evil' here," he quipped.

In an earlier speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu somberly denounced anti-Semitic comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who's denied the Holocaust, and challenged other U.N. members to do likewise.

Netanyahu held up copies of construction plans for the Auschwitz death camp, and the minutes of a meeting of senior Nazi officials in Berlin, where the destruction of Europe's Jews was planned. "Is this a lie?" he said.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Sep-23, p.A25, by Mark Helprin:

Obama and the Politics of Concession
Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice.

During last year's campaign, Sen. Joe Biden famously remarked that, if his ticket won, it wouldn't be long before "the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" on foreign affairs. Last week, President Obama, brilliantly wielding the powers of his office, managed to fail that test not just once but twice, buckling in the face of Russian pressure and taking a giant wooden nickel from Iran.

With both a collapsing economy and natural gas reserves sufficient to produce 270 years of electricity, the surplus of which it exports, Iran does not need nuclear electrical generation at a cost many times that of its gas-fired plants. It does, however, have every reason, according to its own lights, to seek nuclear weapons—to deter American intervention; to insure against a resurgent Iraq; to provide some offset to nearby nuclear powers Pakistan, Russia and Israel; to move toward hegemony in the Persian Gulf and address the embarrassment of a more militarily capable Saudi Arabia; to rid the Islamic world of Western domination; to neutralize Israel's nuclear capacity while simultaneously creating the opportunity to destroy it with one shot; and, pertinent to last week's events, by nuclear intimidation to turn Europe entirely against American interests in the Middle East.

Some security analysts may comfort themselves with the illusion that soon-to-be nuclear Iran is a rational actor, but no country gripped so intensely by a cult of martyrdom and death that to clear minefields it marched its own children across them can be deemed rational. Even the United States, twice employing nuclear weapons in World War II, seriously contemplated doing so again in Korea and then in Vietnam.

The West may be too pusillanimous to extirpate Iran's nuclear potential directly, but are we so far gone as to foreswear a passive defense? The president would have you think not, but how is that? We will cease developing the ability to intercept, within five years, the ICBMs that in five years Iran is likely to possess, in favor of a sea-based approach suitable only to Iranian missiles that cannot from Iranian soil threaten Rome, Paris, London or Berlin. Although it may be possible for the U.S. to modify Block II Standard Missiles with Advanced Technology Kill Vehicles that could disable Iranian missiles in their boost phase, this would require the Aegis destroyers carrying them to loiter in the confined and shallow waters of the Gulf, where antimissile operations would be subject to Iranian interference and attack.

Interceptors that would effectively cover Western Europe are too big for the vertical launch cells of the Aegis ships, or even their hulls. Thus, in light of the basing difficulties that frustrate a boost-phase kill, to protect Europe and the U.S. Mr. Obama proposes to deploy land-based missiles in Europe at some future date. If he is willing to do this, why not go ahead with the current plans? The answer is that, even if he says so, he will not deploy land-based missiles in Europe in place of the land-based missiles in Europe that he has cancelled because they are land-based in Europe.

What we have here is an inadvertent homage to Lewis Carroll: We are going to cancel a defense that takes five years to mount, because the threat will not materialize for five years. And we will not deploy land-based interceptors in Europe, because our new plan is to deploy land-based interceptors in Europe.

Added to what would be the instability and potentially grave injury following upon the appearance of Iranian nuclear ICBMs are two insults that may be more consequential than the issue from which they arise. Nothing short of force will turn Iran from the acquisition of nuclear weapons, its paramount aim during 25 years of secrecy and stalling. Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read "apology"), and taking the nuclear question off the table.

We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program and Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Mr. Ahmadinejad's chief political adviser, predicted "the defeat and collapse" of Western democracy, the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons. Even the zombified press awoke for long enough to harry State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who replied that, as Iran was willing to talk, "We are going to test that proposition, OK?"

Not OK. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich at least he thought he had obtained something in return for his appeasement. The new American diplomacy is nothing more than a sentimental flood of unilateral concessions—not least, after some minor Putinesque sabre rattling, to Russia. Canceling the missile deployment within NATO, which Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian ambassador to that body, characterizes as "the Americans . . . simply correcting their own mistake, and we are not duty bound to pay someone for putting their own mistakes right," is to grant Russia a veto over sovereign defensive measures—exactly the opposite of American resolve during the Euro Missile Crisis of 1983, the last and definitive battle of the Cold War.

Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Reagan, and, defying millions in the street (who are now the Obama base), Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian president and the Russian prime minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins).

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Sep-18, p.A22:

Obama's Missile Offense
It's better these days to be a U.S. adversary than its friend.

President Obama promised he would win America friends where, under George W. Bush, it had antagonists. The reality is that the U.S. is working hard to create antagonists where it previously had friends.

That's one conclusion to draw from President Obama's decision yesterday to scrap a missile-defense agreement the Bush Administration negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic. Both governments took huge political risks—including the ire of their former Russian overlords—in order to accommodate the U.S., which wanted the system to defend against a possible Iranian missile attack. Don't expect either government to follow America's lead anytime soon.

"If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," Jan Vidim, a conservative Czech lawmaker who voted for the system, told the Associated Press.

The White House justifies its decision by claiming to have new intelligence showing that Iran's long-range missile capabilities are not as advanced as previously believed. Instead, it intends to upgrade and deploy currently available missile interceptors that are useful mainly for intercepting short- and medium-range missiles, where, it says, Iranian capability "is developing more rapidly than previously projected."

We're all for deploying interceptors to stop Iranian missiles of every range. But the Administration's argument is difficult to credit, not least because our sources told us as early as February that the Administration was prepared to abandon those sites—which is to say, well before the allegedly new intelligence became available.

It's also hard to square the intelligence community's sanguine assessment with Iran's successful launch of the solid-fuel Sejil missile in May. With an estimated range of 1,560 miles, the Sejil could deliver a one-ton payload as far as Warsaw. That cannot be comforting when the International Atomic Energy Agency is now saying that Iran has "sufficient information" to build an atomic bomb and will also "overcome problems" involved in its delivery system.

The Administration's likelier motive for scrapping the interceptors is that it hopes to win Russia's vote at the U.N. Security Council for tougher sanctions on Iran. Maybe the Russians have secretly agreed to such a quid pro quo, though publicly they were quick to deny it following yesterday's decision.

And as Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov has noted, Vladimir Putin's Kremlin benefits by keeping the Iranian crisis on a low boil, because the threat of a Middle East crisis drives energy prices up while putting U.S. interests at risk. Russia also likes spooning out dollops of diplomatic help at the U.N. in exchange for material Western concessions. This time, the concession was missile defense. Next time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.

That's hardly an idle fear. It has been the tragic fate of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe to be treated as bargaining chips in the designs of their more powerful neighbors. Their inclusion in NATO and EU was supposed to have buried that history, but Russia's new assertiveness, including its willingness to cut off energy supplies in winter and invade Georgia last year, is reviving powerful fears. Officials in Warsaw surely noticed that President Obama cancelled the missile system 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany.

The U.S. decision also undermines the credibility of the U.S. nuclear defense umbrella. The Bush Administration sought to develop a global defense posture in part to reassure allies that they don't need their own nuclear deterrent, even as rogue regimes seek nuclear arms and the missiles to deliver them. America's Europe reversal tells other countries that they can't rely on the U.S. so it's best to follow the Israeli path and develop their own weapon and defenses. For that matter, this also makes the U.S. East Coast less safe; the ground-based system in Alaska and California covers the East, but barely. The Polish and Czech sites were to provide added protection.

The European switcheroo continues Mr. Obama's trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies. His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.

We're reminded of the rueful quip, by scholar Bernard Lewis, that the problem with becoming friends with the U.S. is that you never know when it will shoot itself in the foot.

from the Associated Press, 2009-Sep-18, by Vanessa Gera:

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

WARSAW, Poland — Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous "gray zone" between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

Recent events have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.

"Russia is testing us. It is testing how much we are afraid of it. It's pity that we won't be able to complete the test," said former Czech President Vaclav Havel.

The Bush administration's missile defense plan would have been "a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world," Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in Fakt that also was carried on his presidential Web site.

Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Obama's decision.

Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague.

Kaczynski expressed hopes that the U.S. will now offer Poland other forms of "strategic partnership."

Later Friday, U.S. ambassador Victor Ashe stressed that "the United States counts Poland among its closest allies and friends."

"Consultations on the way forward for missile defense will continue between our two governments," Ashe said in a statement. "The role Poland would play in the new, phased, adapted approach is as crucial now as in the past."

In Prague, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout said he made two concrete proposals to U.S. officials on Thursday in hopes of keeping the U.S.-Czech alliance strong: for the U.S. to establish a branch of West Point for NATO members in Central Europe and to "send a Czech scientist on the U.S. space shuttle to the international space station."

An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: "an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid."

The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.

The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat.

"No Radar. Russia won," the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.

Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.

The replacement system is to link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe.

Associated Press writers Karel Janicek in Prague and Liudas Dapkus in Vilnius, Lithuania, contributed to this report.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Jul-14, by Liz Cheney:

Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.

Ms. Cheney served as deputy assistant secretary of state and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-2004 and 2005-2006.

from Forbes.com, 2009-Aug-28, by Peter Robinson:

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
Considering the late senator's complete record requires digging into the USSR's archives.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy's motives? "Like other rational people," the memorandum explained, "[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations." But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy's motives.

"Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988," the memorandum continued. "Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president."

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov--the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring--at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian's story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. "The media," Kengor says, "ignored the revelation."

"The document," Kengor continues, "has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I've ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy's office did not deny it."

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum--within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead--and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator's opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure--perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day--we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes.

from the Times of London, 2009-Sep-30, by Tim Teeman:

Gore Vidal: `We'll have a dictatorship soon in the US'
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is `rotting away' — and don't expect Barack Obama to save it

A conversation with Gore Vidal unfolds at his pace. He answers questions imperiously, occasionally playfully, with a piercing, lethal dryness. He is 83 and in a wheelchair (a result of hypothermia suffered in the war, his left knee is made of titanium). But he can walk (“Of course I can”) and after a recent performance of Mother Courage at London’s National Theatre he stood to deliver an anti-war speech to the audience.

How was his friend Fiona Shaw in the title role? “Very good.” Where did they meet? Silence. The US? “Well, it wasn’t Russia.” What’s he writing at the moment? “It’s a little boring to talk about. Most writers seem to do little else but talk about themselves and their work, in majestic terms.” He means self-glorifying? “You’ve stumbled on the phrase,” he says, regally enough. “Continue to use it.”

Vidal is sitting in the Connaught Hotel in Mayfair, where he has been coming to stay for 60 years. He is wearing a brown suit jacket, brown jumper, tracksuit bottoms; his white hair twirled into a Tintin-esque quiff and with his hooded eyes, delicate yet craggy features and arch expression, he looks like Quentin Crisp, but accessorised with a low, lugubrious growl rather than camp lisp.

He points to an apartment opposite the hotel where Churchill stayed during the Second World War, as Downing Street was “getting hammered by the Nazis. The crowds would cheer him from the street, he knew great PR.”

In a flash, this memory reminds you of the swathe of history Vidal has experienced with great intimacy: he was friends with JFK, fought in the war, his father Gene, an Olympic decathlete and aeronautics teacher, founded TWA among other airlines and had a relationship with Amelia Earhart. (Vidal first flew and landed a plane when he was 10.) He was a screenwriter for MGM in the dying days of the studio system, toyed with being a politician, he has written 24 novels and is hailed as one of the world’s greatest essayists.

He has crossed every boundary, I say. “Crashed many barriers,” he corrects me.

Last year he famously switched allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama during the Democratic nomination process for president. Now, he reveals, he regrets his change of heart. How’s Obama doing? “Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.”

America should leave Afghanistan, he says. “We’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it.” The “War on Terror” was “made up”, Vidal says. “The whole thing was PR, just like ‘weapons of mass destruction’. It has wrecked the airline business, which my father founded in the 1930s. He’d be cutting his wrists. Now when you fly you’re both scared to death and bored to death, a most disagreeable combination.”

His voice strengthens. “One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS [he says that with bristling anger] and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don’t demand honour, that can be lies too. I don’t say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media.” The media is too supine? “Would that it was. They’re busy preparing us for an Iranian war.” He retains some optimism about Obama “because he doesn’t lie. We know the fool from Arizona [as he calls John McCain] is a liar. We never got the real story of how McCain crashed his plane [in 1967 near Hanoi, North Vietnam] and was held captive.”

Vidal originally became pro-Obama because he grew up in “a black city” (meaning Washington), as well as being impressed by Obama’s intelligence. “But he believes the generals. Even Bush knew the way to win a general was to give him another star. Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it’s a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative’ you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They’re not, they’re fascists.”

Another notable Obama mis-step has been on healthcare reform. “He f***ed it up. I don’t know how because the country wanted it. We’ll never see it happen.” As for his wider vision: “Maybe he doesn’t have one, not to imply he is a fraud. He loves quoting Lincoln and there’s a great Lincoln quote from a letter he wrote to one of his generals in the South after the Civil War. ‘I am President of the United States. I have full overall power and never forget it, because I will exercise it’. That’s what Obama needs — a bit of Lincoln’s chill.” Has he met Obama? “No,” he says quietly, “I’ve had my time with presidents.” Vidal raises his fingers to signify a gun and mutters: “Bang bang.” He is referring to the possibility of Obama being assassinated. “Just a mysterious lone gunman lurking in the shadows of the capital,” he says in a wry, dreamy way.

Vidal now believes, as he did originally, Clinton would be the better president. “Hillary knows more about the world and what to do with the generals. History has proven when the girls get involved, they’re good at it. Elizabeth I knew Raleigh would be a good man to give a ship to.”The Republicans will win the next election, Vidal believes; though for him there is little difference between the parties. “Remember the coup d’etat of 2000 when the Supreme Court fixed the selection, not election, of the stupidest man in the country, Mr Bush.”

Vidal says forcefully that he wished he’d never moved back to the US to live in Hollywood, from his clifftop home in Ravello, Italy, in 2000. His partner of 53 years, Howard Austen, who died in 2003, collated a lifetime’s-span of pictures of Vidal, for a new book out this autumn, Gore Vidal: Snapshots in History’s Glare (an oddly clunky title). The cover shows what a beautiful young man Vidal was, although his stare is as hawkish as it is today.

He observes presidential office-holders balefully. “The only one I knew well was Kennedy, but he didn’t impress me as a good president. It’s like asking, ‘What do I think of my brother?’ It’s complicated. I’d known him all my life and I liked him to the end, but he wrecked his chances with the Bay of Pigs and Suez crises, and because everyone was so keen to elect Bobby once Jack had gone, lies started to be told about him — that he was the greatest and the King of Camelot.”

Today religious mania has infected the political bloodstream and America has become corrosively isolationist, he says. “Ask an American what they know about Sweden and they’d say ‘They live well but they’re all alcoholics’. In fact a Scandinavian system could have benefited us many times over.” Instead, America has “no intellectual class” and is “rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realise how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush.”

Vidal adds menacingly: “Don’t ever make the mistake with people like me thinking we are looking for heroes. There aren’t any and if there were, they would be killed immediately. I’m never surprised by bad behaviour. I expect it.”

While materially comfortable, Vidal’s was not a happy childhood. Of his actress and socialite mother Nina, he says: “Give her a glass of vodka and she was as tame as could be. Growing up is going to be difficult if the one person you hate is your mother. I felt trapped. I was close to my grandparents and my father was a saint.” His parents’ many remarriages means that even today he hasn’t met all his step-siblings.

He wrote his first novel, Williwaw, at 19. In 1948, he was blacklisted by the media after writing The City and the Pillar, one of the earliest novels to deal graphically with homosexual desire. “You’ll be amazed to know it is still going strong,” he says. The “JT” it is dedicated to is James “Jimmy” Trimble, Vidal’s first love and, he once said, the love of his life. “That was a slight exaggeration. I said it because there wasn’t any other. In the new book there are wonderful pictures of him from our schooldays. He was a great athlete.” Here his voice softens, and he looks emotional, briefly. “We were both abandoned in our dormitory at St Alban’s [boarding school]. He was killed at the Battle of Iwo Jima [in 1945] because of bad G2 [intelligence].”

Vidal says Trimble’s death didn’t affect him. “No, I was in danger of dying too. A dead man can’t grieve a dead man.” Has love been important to him? “Don’t make the error that schoolteacher idiots make by thinking that gay men’s relationships are like heterosexual ones. They’re not.” He “wouldn’t begin to comment” on how they are different.

In 1956 he was hired by MGM, collaborated on the screenplay for Ben Hur and continued to write novels, most notoriously Myra Breckenridge about a transsexual. It is his satires, essays and memoirs — Live From Golgotha, Palimpsest and most recently, Point to Point Navigation — which have fully rounded our vision of this thorny contrarian, whose originality springs simply, and naturally, from having deliberately unfixed allegiances and an enduring belief in an American republic and railing sadness at how that ideal has been corrupted.

Vidal became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people. The huge loss of life, indeed McVeigh’s act of mass murder, goes unmentioned by Vidal. “He was a true patriot, a Constitution man,” Vidal claims. “And I was torn, my grandfather [the Democrat Senator Thomas Gore] had bought Oklahoma into the Union.” McVeigh claimed he had done it as a protest against tyrannical government. The writer Edmund White took the correspondence as the basis for a play, Terre Haute (the jail McVeigh was incarcerated in before he was executed in 2001), imagining an encounter between the bomber and Vidal charged with desire.

“He’s a filthy, low writer,” Vidal says of White. “He likes to attack his betters, which means he has a big field to go after.” Had he wanted to meet McVeigh? “I am not in the business of meeting people,” Vidal says. “That play implies I am madly in love with McVeigh. I looked at his [White’s] writing and all he writes about is being a fag and how it’s the greatest thing on Earth. He thinks I’m another queen and I’m not. I’m more interested in the Constitution and McVeigh than the loving tryst he saw. It was vulgar fag-ism.”

Vidal says that he hates labels and has said he believes in homosexual acts rather than homosexual people. He claims his relationship with Austen was platonic (though they reputedly met at a legendary New York bath-house). He was once quoted as saying that he’d had sex with a 1,000 men by the time he was 25. It must have been a little strange for Austen, Vidal’s life companion, to source those pictures of Trimble, his first, perhaps only, love.

Vidal puts on a scornful, campy voice. “People ask [of he and Austen], ‘How did you live together so long?’ The only rule was no sex. They can’t believe that. That was when I realised I was dealing with a public too stupid by half. They can’t tell the difference between ‘The Sun rose in the East’ and ‘The Sun is made of yeast’.” Was sex important to Vidal? “It must have been yes.”

He is single now. “I’m not into partnerships,” he says dismissively. I don’t even know what it means.” He “couldn’t care less” about gay marriage. “Does anyone care what Americans think? They’re the worst-educated people in the First World. They don’t have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.” You could have been the first gay president, I say. “No, I would have married and had nine children,” he replies quickly and seriously. “I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.”

Impaired mobility doesn’t bother him — he “rose like a miracle” on stage at the National — and he doesn’t dwell on mortality either. “Either you accept there is such a thing or you’re so dumb that you can’t grasp it.” Is he in good health? “No, of course not. I’m diabetic. It’s odd, I’ve never been fat and I don’t like candy, which most Americans are hooked on.”

There is a trace of thwarted ambition about him. “I would have liked to have been president, but I never had the money. I was a friend of the throne. The only time I envied Jack was when Joe [Kennedy, JFK’s father] was buying him his Senate seat, then the presidency. He didn’t know how lucky he was. Here’s a story I’ve never told. In 1960, after he had spent so much on the presidential campaign, Joe took all nine children to Palm Beach to lecture them. He was really angry. He said, ‘All you read about the Kennedy fortune is untrue. It’s non-existent. We’ve spent so much getting Jack elected and not one of you is living within your income’. They all sat there, shame-faced. Jack was whistling. He used to tap his teeth: they were big teeth, like a xylophone. Joe turned to Jack and he says, ‘Mr President, what’s the solution?’ Jack said, ‘The solution is simple. You all gotta work harder’.” Vidal guffaws heartily.

Hollywood living proved less fun. “If there was a social whirl, you can be sure I would not be part of it.” He does a fabulous impression of Katharine Hepburn complaining about playing the matriarch in Suddenly Last Summer, which he wrote. “I hate this script,” he recalls Hepburn saying . “I’m far too healthy a person to know people like this.” Vidal snorts. “She had Parkinson’s. She shook like a leper in the wind.”

I ask what he wants to do next. “My usual answer to ‘What am I proudest of?’ is my novels, but really I am most proud that, despite enormous temptation, I have never killed anybody and you don’t know how tempted I have been.”

That wasn’t my question, I say. “Well, given that I’m proudest that I haven’t killed anybody, I might be saving something up for someone.” A perfect line: we both laugh.

Is he happy? “What a question,” he sighs and then smiles mischievously. “I’ll respond with a quote from Aeschylus: ‘Call no man happy till he is dead’.”

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Apr-22, by Dorothy Rabinowitz:

Obama Blames America
Demonizing Harry Truman may not play well with voters.

The president of the United States has completed another outing abroad in his now standard form: as the un-Bush. At one stop after another -- the latest in Latin America, where Hugo Chávez expressed wishes to be his friend -- Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign vows to show the nations of the world that a new American leadership stood ready to atone for the transgressions of the old.

All went as expected in these travels, not counting certain unforeseen results of that triumphal European tour. The images of that trip, in which Mr. Obama dazzled ecstatic Europeans with citations of the offenses against international goodwill and humanity committed by the nation he leads, are now firmly imprinted on the minds of Americans. That this is so, and that it is not good news for him, is truth of a kind not quite fathomable to this president and his men.

Now, on the heels of those travels, comes his release of the guidelines known as "torture memos" -- a decision designed to emphasize, again, the superior ethical and moral leadership the world can expect from this administration as compared with that of presidencies past. This exercise in comparisons is one of which Mr. Obama may well never tire.

The memos' publication had its consequences, most of them intentional. First, declaring his intention to have a forward-looking administration, the president had, to his credit, announced that there would be no trials of CIA personnel involved in the interrogations of terrorists.

Then came the memos. With his decision to release them, Mr. Obama guaranteed an instant explosion of outrage of a kind that could never have happened otherwise, notwithstanding his claim that most of the contents were already public. The results of the president's decision were predictable. Each day now brings, in the usual media quarters, fevered exhortations calling for the trials and punishment of Bush administration officials.

This decision may also have unintended consequences, none more interesting perhaps than the effects of the nonstop repetition of the president's rationale for this act. We could begin to see the possibilities clearly on Sunday, when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," where he confronted questions about the memo decision.

Turning aside the quest for answers to knotty questions -- including several on the point that most of what we now know about al Qaeda had been gleaned precisely from these enhanced interrogations -- Mr. Emanuel indicated that the Obama administration was guided by higher concerns. He proceeded patiently, to explain. By revealing the memos, with their detailed information on those interrogation techniques (now banned), we had elevated our moral status in the eyes of the world. More important, we had improved our standing in the eyes of potential terrorists. This would undermine al Qaeda, Mr. Emanuel explained, because those interrogations of ours helped to enlist terrorists to their cause. All of which was why the publication of the memos -- news of which would presumably touch the hearts of militants around the world -- would make America safer.

There is always danger in repeating propositions like this often, among them the likelihood that their irrationality will begin to make itself clear to anyone hearing it over time.

Any number of people listening to Mr. Emanuel -- those acquainted with terror's recent history, at any rate -- would have recalled, instantly, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the rest of the unending chain of terror assaults mounted against Americans long before anyone had ever heard of enhanced interrogation techniques.

In his appearance before employees of the CIA Monday -- part inspirational, part pep rally -- Mr. Obama held forth on the need to improve our image in the world, and on how in adhering to this great nation's principles of justice and right we could only be made safer. He was here to assure the employees of the CIA of his support, to explain, again, the release of those memos. And to describe, as he did, with some eloquence, how great and exceptional a democracy we were.

That no such estimation of the United States managed to infiltrate the content or tone of the president's remarks during his European tour -- nary a hint -- we know, and it is not surprising. He had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. Which were, as he perceived them -- arrogance, dismissiveness, Guantanamo, deficiencies in its attitudes toward the Muslim world, and the presidency of Harry Truman and his decision to drop the atomic bomb, which ended World War II.

No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home, or been so ostentatiously modest about the character and accomplishment of the nation he led. He was mediator, an agent of change, a judge, apportioning blame -- and he was above the battle.

None of this display during Mr. Obama's recent travels could have come as a surprise to legions of his supporters, nor would many of them be daunted by their new president's preoccupation with our moral failures. Five decades of teaching in colleges and universities across the land, portraying the U.S. as a power mainly responsible for injustice and evil, whose military might was ever a danger to the world -- a nation built on the fruits of greed, rapacity and racism -- have had their effect. The products of this education find nothing strange in a president quick to focus on the theme of American moral failure. He may not share many of their views, but there is, nonetheless, much that they find familiar about him.

The same can't be said for the large numbers of Americans who caught up with the details of the president's apology tour. Presidents have been transformed by office, and Mr. Obama may yet be one of them. But on the evidence so far, he has, as few presidents before him, much to transform. Or, at least, to understand.

Since that bridge too far to Europe, ordinary Americans, including some who voted for Mr. Obama, have shown evidence of a quiet but durable resentment over the list of grievances against the United States that the president brought to the world's attention while overseas. There are certain things that can't be taken back. There are images that are hard to forget. Anger of this kind has an enduring power that could, in the end, haunt this presidency.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

from the New York Daily News, 2009-Oct-2, by Filip Bondy:

Olympic vote deals U.S. another humiliating defeat as Chicago gets bounced early

The fine city of Chicago lost the Olympics Friday in the very first round of voting, and let this be yet another lesson to any foolhardy American city tempted to bid for a future Summer Games: Stay far, far away from the International Olympic Committee.

The bidding process is demeaning and expensive. The results are unfathomable and inevitably disappointing.

These people said no to Oprah. Nobody does that.

Here in New York, we knew all about this nonsense already. We could have warned Chicago to drop out with Second City dignity intact - long before Rio was declared the latest mystery winner.

Four years ago in Singapore, it was New York City's turn to be humiliated by the IOC. I was there, and remember how NYC2012 officials began displaying irrational exuberance toward the end of that campaign; how they became convinced by their own promotional works.

The morning of that vote, officials put together a slick, music-video-style presentation that appeared to go over well. Mayor Bloomberg talked to people who talked to people who reported the votes just might be there. Mario Vazquez Rana, an IOC delegate of considerable influence, gave some very real hints that he might push the Latin American vote into the New York column.

Then it all fell apart in the second round of balloting. New York had garnered 19 votes to survive the first round; just 16 votes in the second. This made no sense whatsoever, considering there were now fewer candidates left.

"I believe it's a political competition that's very difficult to analyze," said Hillary Clinton, then the New York Senator on site. "I'm not going to look into the minds of those who voted."

Now Chicago gets to scratch its head, wonder what happened after receiving just 18 of 94 votes in the first round. Most knowledgeable insiders had believed this was a two-city race between Chicago and Rio coming down the stretch.

Logically, nobody wanted to deal with yet another inconvenient time zone, after Sydney and Beijing. That seemed to disqualify Tokyo. The 2012 Olympics are in London, another European city, so Madrid had little chance in terms of geographic rotation.

On paper, at least, Chicago's bid appeared far stronger than New York's. Four years ago, we couldn't get our act together about an Olympic Stadium. The Chicago committee made all kinds of financial and architectural guarantees, spending $50 million on the bid alone.

Yet, after all that, Chicago was the first one out. And now everybody can start guessing at what went wrong and blaming anyone he wants.

One foreign official complained that President Obama's speech was too short. Perhaps there remains some resentment against the Americans for the commercialization of the Games so evident in Atlanta. Or maybe there was legitimate concern, as one Pakistani delegate mentioned during the session, that it is a "harrowing experience" for some foreigners to enter the U.S. The U.S. Olympic Committee did nobody any favors with its recent decisions to replace leadership and to suggest it might broker its own broadcasting deal?

Most likely, however, it was just a matter of indecipherable voting blocs. Chicago required support from one outside region or another, and didn't get it.

"I'm shocked," Kevan Gosper, an influential IOC member from Australia, told the Times. "The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote. To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving."

As we could have told Chicago, nothing about this process is fortifying or sensible. For four years, a city kisses the feet of these self-important IOC junketeers, lays prone and submissive while enduring all kinds of critiques and demands. Then the vote comes down and it has virtually nothing to do with the blueprints or promises.

Worst of all, nobody ever finds out who whacked whom, or why.

Seventy-six out of 94 members voted against Chicago, against Oprah and the Obamas. That's a landslide. America has now nominated two of its finest cities in a four-year span, only to have them both rejected out of hand. We get it.

"The USOC will continue to be active internationally and demonstrate that our efforts and support of the international Olympic Movement is a long-term commitment," stated USOC chairman Larry Probst, and acting CEO Stephanie Streeter.

If I'm San Francisco, I keep my money in my pocket and all blueprints blank.

from FoxNews.com, 2009-Sep-3:

'Green Jobs' Adviser's Past Could Stir Trouble for White House at Critical Time

White House green jobs adviser Van Jones' past associations and remarks are stirring controversy at a time when the Obama administration is trying to keep controversy at a minimum.

President Obama's "green jobs" adviser could become a mounting liability for the Obama administration, as the latest revelation about Van Jones shows his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may have been an inside job.

Jones joined the "9/11 truther" movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for "deeper inquiry." It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

The discovery comes after Jones had to apologize Wednesday night for "offensive words" he uttered in February when he called Republicans "assholes." He said the remarks "do not reflect the views of this administration" and its bipartisan aims.

But such statements just scratch the surface of Jones' past commentary.

He also has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at "white polluters and the white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy.

A declared "communist" during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.

Jones' exceptional past is reminiscent of associations noted during the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama doggedly fended off claims that he was tied to radicals and overzealous activists.

But with now-President Obama entering the perhaps trickiest phase of his young presidency -- building the kind of consensus around health care reform that President Clinton could not -- a divisive figure could prove disfiguring.

"In this environment, I think the Obama administration should be very careful of its dealings with anybody who can be labeled communist accurately," said Christopher C. Hull, an adjunct government professor at Georgetown University who runs the public affairs firm Issue Management.

"That's just going to play to the political sensibility that those on the right have that the Obama administration is socialist, literally socialist. ... It is unwise to bring in people who actually do label themselves socialist or communist."

Jones has mellowed considerably since the '90s. In some respects, he is about as mainstream as environmentalists come -- with recognition streaming in from high places over the past few years.

He's won plaudits from former Vice President Al Gore, who declared, "I love Van Jones," in an interview with The New Yorker.

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio penned the write-up on Jones when the presidential adviser was featured in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People."

"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote.

Jones was also named one of the magazine's "Heroes of the Environment 2008." He's earned a slew of other recognitions from other publications and institutions. He was even named one of Salon.com's "Sexiest Men Living" in late 2008.

Plus he's the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, "The Green Collar Economy."

Now a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, his book's central premise is that environmentalism and green jobs can lift up the economy and lift up low-income Americans.

He is the founder of Green for All, which focuses on creating green jobs in poor areas. He helped the city of Oakland pass a "green jobs corps" program in 2007. Green jobs is also one platform of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which he co-founded in 1996.

He also co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group that focuses on black issues, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Jones' history has drifted between mainstream activism surrounding issues of race, poverty and the environment, and activity he has described as "revolutionary."

Originally from Tennessee, Jones graduated from Yale Law School in 1993. But his life took a turn after he was swept up in arrests during a rally following the Rodney King verdict.

Jones has claimed he was monitoring police activity at the time, but that he met people in jail who changed his thinking.

"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was like, 'This is what I need to be a part of,'" he said in a 2005 interview with the East Bay Express. Jones told the newspaper he stayed in San Francisco, and for the next 10 years worked with a lot of the people he met in jail. Months after the King verdict came down, Jones said, "I was a communist."

At the time he became involved with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which described itself as committed to Marxist and Leninist ideas. He also started putting pressure on police in San Francisco, monitoring and drawing attention to allegations of police brutality. He was quoted accusing the police department of "killing black people."

He became a vocal critic of the federal government during the Bush administration. He and groups he was associated with assailed "U.S. imperialism" after the Sept. 11 attacks and called the assumption that an Arab group was responsible a "rush to judgment." He later co-signed the petition calling for an investigation into government involvement in the attacks.

For conservative critics, he has -- as Hull warned -- served as a ready target.

"You can't nominate all of these czars ... and then say, well, you know, I'm not responsible for all these people," said conservative commentator Ann Coulter. "People will start to blame Obama."

The White House has voiced great confidence in Jones, announcing in March that the "green jobs visionary" would in his new role advance the goal of improving energy efficiency and tapping renewable resources.

from Commentary Magazine, 2009-May-15, by Abe Greenwald:

It's a Good Time to Be George W. Bush

Let's face it, this is shaping up as George W. Bush's best month in years. The last time the 43^rd president enjoyed this kind of vindication was when a bedraggled Saddam Hussein was pulled from a hole in the ground by American soldiers in 2003. All of Barack Obama's efforts to cast the Bush administration as an immoral stain on American history have not merely collapsed, but collapsed on the heads of Bush's most public and vocal critics.

Here's a non-stammering Nancy Pelosi talking about Bush last July: "God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."

Don't mind if I do. How about national security? It turns out that support for a criminal investigation of Bush policies yielded an important finding after all: Pelosi's own long-standing agreement with the Bush administration's toughest measures. On that point she's in sync with the rest of the country. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll found that Americans approve of the interrogation methods Bush okayed by a margin of 50% to 46%. In other words, she didn't have to go through the condemnation charade to begin with.

Then there's Iraq. That July interview with Pelosi is quite a goldmine. When faced with a 14% approval rating for Congress, she counters: "Everything I see says this is about ending the war. . . " Well, that's not happening anytime soon. Everything I see says "ending the war" was as phony as Nancy Pelosi's outrage. Hillary Clinton went to Baghdad three weeks ago to reassure the Maliki government that the Obama administration will not abandon Iraq. On top of that, Gen. Ray Odierno said the U.S. might "maintain a presence" in some Iraqi cities beyond the scheduled draw-down date if the Iraqis request it. Did Pelosi mean the other war, in Afghanistan? Obama has done an outstanding job of taking that challenge seriously, and for those keeping score, his pick of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (the man who hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq) has met with the gushing approval of Dick Cheney.

And speaking of Dick Cheney: Not only has he proved to be an important and articulate defender of the Bush administration's national-security policy; his repeated interviews and statements have done Bush the service of drawing fire away from the former president. Bush not only looks wise these days; he looks modest and thoughtful as well. And Cheney's (denied) request to declassify more CIA interrogation memos explodes the myth of the "most secretive administration in American history."

Let us not forget the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility. For years adduced as a monument to the Bush administration's disdain for due process and human rights, Gitmo was slated to be shut down by Barack Obama as a first order of business. Today, the posture without a plan has come up against a bi-partisan roadblock. Thursday, the House denied the Obama administration a requested $80 million to close the facility. The Senate's version of the bill in question contains $50 million for the Pentagon to shutter the place, but the money can only be tapped 30 days after Robert Gates devises a plan to relocate detainees outside the U.S. -- so far France will take one. To top it all off, on Friday Obama announced the revival of Guantanamo military tribunals.

On Iran, the Obama administration is veering from its stance of bottomless "respect" and "perseverance." This week Obama set early October as a "target" to determine whether Iran is really deserving of all that extended goodwill. Additionally, the administration has drawn up benchmarks to gauge Tehran's cooperation in halting their march toward a nuclear weapon. As Robert Kagan put it, "[Obama's] policy toward Iran makes sense, so long as he is ready with a serious Plan B if the negotiating track with Tehran fails." The October non-surprise will be the revelation that Bush wasn't merely neglecting to smile at the mullahs and to ask nicely.

Finally, there's the strange and frankly unsettling image makeover of the Saudi royals. The Bush family's alleged intimacy with an extremist monarchy formed the very backbone of the anti-Bush industry. Yet, upon taking office Barack Obama commented on the bravery of King Abdullah and went on to virtually adopt the Saudi Peace Initiative as American policy. The administration is also seriously considering sending released Guantanamo detainees through the Saudi "jihad rehab" program. A week ago, "60 Minutes" aired a prime-time broadcast praising the same absurdity. The free pass Barack Obama gets on his all-encompassing embrace of Riyadh leaves the score of anti-Bush best sellers and documentaries looking a little less than credible.

President Obama, and the country at large, is finding out that George W. Bush's most controversial policies were not born of ideological delusion, American arrogance, or missionary zeal. They were imperfect but sound (with the exception of our ties to Riyadh) responses to complicated threats. But the validation of the last president runs a very distant second to the most compelling aspect of all this: the drama over CIA interrogations and Guantanamo will hopefully serve to set the administration on a more serious national security course. And it would be helpful if the American public finally dropped moral outrage as the preferred mode of political argumentation.

from FOX News, 2009-Sep-1, with Bill Sammon contributing:

House Reverses Decision to Drop Patriotic Songs From On-Hold Music

A spokesman for House Chief Administrative Officer Daniel Beard says that after a three-week trial period constituents will once again hear patriotic favorites while on hold -- after the House temporarily switched over to smooth jazz.

So long, John Philip Sousa. Hello, Kenny G.

That was the short-lived message House leadership sent to lawmakers over the break, as the "on-hold" music that so many constituents hear when they call their congressman was switched from patriotic tunes to smooth jazz standards -- or, as one lawmaker complained, "elevator music."

The switch was quickly reversed, though, following complaints and controversy.

A spokesman for House Chief Administrative Officer Daniel Beard, who reports to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Tuesday that after a three-week trial period constituents will once again hear patriotic favorites while on hold.

"The music was changed during recess as a pilot program in an attempt to offer offices a choice of hold music," said CAO spokesman Jeff Ventura. "But based on the feedback we received, the old music was preferred and we reactivated it today."

Some of that feedback came from Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who wrote a blistering letter to Beard on Friday.

"We should proudly embrace our nation's patriotic songs, not callously shun them for elevator music," Upton fumed.

"Believe me, I was not at all happy with how this matter was handled," he wrote, complaining that lawmakers were not told in advance that the patriotic songs would be replaced by smooth jazz.

Upton said during the "pilot program," congressional offices could either choose "elevator music" or no music at all, even though they had used patriotic music for years.

"Certainly we would prefer not to put those who contact our offices on hold; however with the high volume of calls we receive it is sometimes necessary," he added. "Callers routinely express their delight in listening to a few notes of Americana while briefly waiting for their call to go through."

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Apr-28, p.A13:

The ACLU's Photo Shoot
Another misguided attempt at 'moral superiority.'

As if disclosing interrogation memos hasn't caused enough trouble, now the Obama Administration plans to release photographs collected as part of military probes into prisoner abuse. "I think it will be in the hundreds," a Pentagon official said Friday, referring to plans to release the photographs by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

It's hard to imagine a more self-destructive act. Spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Pentagon doesn't have much choice given a pair of lower-court rulings, and that in any case the probes show the U.S. doesn't tolerate prisoner abuse. "We felt this case had pretty much run its course," Mr. Whitman said. "Legal options at this point had become pretty limited."

Whatever their context, you can be sure the photographs will be used by Islamic radicals to inflame anti-American sentiment. Mr. Obama has promised to improve America's image in the world, and we doubt the Taliban and al Qaeda will distribute the photographs with the caveat that Mr. Obama is a breath of fresh air. They'll use them as a way to indict all American purposes.

This may do particular harm in Pakistan, which is under siege from terrorist violence and growing Taliban control in the north. U.S. officials have been trying to get Pakistan's military and its civilian government to resist the radicals more forcefully, but they say it is unpopular to be seen assisting U.S. policy. Another Abu Ghraib-type photo spread would make that cooperation even harder to obtain.

The ACLU may think that humiliating the U.S. and indicting the Bush Administration are more important than protecting American interests. American soldiers and diplomats may have a different view.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Apr-23, by Daniel Henninger:

Obama Among the Dictators

The now-famous photograph of Barack Obama sharing a handshake and mile-wide smile with happy Hugo Chávez recalled to mind a visit years ago of Philippine strong man Ferdinand Marcos to The Wall Street Journal's offices in lower Manhattan.

AP

Barack Obama greets Hugo Chávez.

The Marcos entourage emerged from the elevators in a stream that included not only the dictator's entire cabinet but Philippine TV crews, cameras aloft, lights aglow. Some of the editors recognized the game and did a slow fade into the corners of the room. Others told the commando cameramen to shut down.

They had been sending the Philippines images of Marcos in the company of American symbols -- bankers, journalists, politicians. Propaganda. The message for the Philippine opposition was: Behold, the Americans are with me, not you. In 1986, that opposition defeated Marcos in Cory Aquino's "Yellow Revolution."

Hugo Chávez is a tin-pot dictator who has debauched Venezuela's democracy. Normally in such circumstances, an American president would show reserve. The weirdly ebullient Mr. Obama did not, and that image was the photo seen 'round the world. Podcast

Listen to Daniel Henninger's Wonder Land column, now available in audio format.

In New York this week, I asked a former Eastern European dissident who spent time in prison under the Communists: "If you were sitting in a cell in Cuba, Iran or Syria and saw this photo of a smiling American president shaking hands with a smiling Hugo Chávez, what would you think?"

He said: "I would think that I was losing ground."

The hopeful way to view the Obama administration's openings to Chávez, the Castros, Iran and the others would be: This had better work. Because if it doesn't, a lot of people who've spent years working in opposition to these regimes -- in hiding or in prison in Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia, Burma, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan -- are going to get hammered. North Korea's opposition is invisible.

Other than physically controlling their populations, the biggest problem for autocrats -- most of them narcissistic monomaniacs -- is maintaining the legitimacy of their authority, which by definition is always on thin ice. To Mr. Obama and his handlers perhaps it was just a photo-op. For Mr. Chávez it was priceless. Merely being seen or photographed in the presence of civilized society -- at summits, negotiations, in state visits -- empowers the autocrat and discourages his opposition.

Within days of the Summit of the Americas, former Venezuelan presidential candidate Manuel Rosales formally applied for asylum in Peru, fearing a corruption trial at home.

When Barack Obama was a candidate for president, the main plank of his foreign policy, other than withdrawing from Iraq, was agreeing to "talk to our enemies," notably Iran and Syria. The intellectual rationale for this policy, as far as one can make out, is that because George W. Bush wouldn't commit the office of the presidency itself to direct negotiations with the leaders of these regimes, and because everything George W. Bush did was wrong, reversing that policy would bear fruit.

Iran just sentenced Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi to eight years in prison. Syria's leading pro-democracy dissident, Riad Seif, has spent the last year in Adra prison and is reportedly dying of prostate cancer. Syrian "president" Bashar Assad won't let him leave the country to get treatment.

In Cuba, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet is serving a 25-year prison sentence. In China, the whereabouts is unknown of Liu Xiaobo, co-author of a new, online pro-democracy petition. His wife has written to Mr. Obama for help. Tens of thousands of North Koreans are hiding in China.

The Obama people seem to believe that talking top guy to top guy is the yellow brick road to progress. Why do they think that? They say Ronald Reagan negotiated over nuclear arsenals at Reykjavik. But virtually all desirable regime change in our time -- Soviet Communism, South Africa, the Philippines -- has come mainly from below, from the West protecting and supporting people in opposition to autocrats.

The origin of the change-from-below movement was the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which ratified the legitimacy of self-determination. There was no stronger supporter of this liberal turn than AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland. Where is his like today in the Democratic Party or its unions? Where is the left-wing blogosphere when the pro-democracy prisoners of Cuba, Iran and Syria need them? It's ranting about Bush "war criminals."

It is early in the Obama foreign policy. They say the right thing on political rights. But there appears to be no coherent strategy beyond "talk to our enemies." So far, what do we see? Hugo Chávez is smiling. His fellow prison wardens around the world are smiling. The joke must be on someone else.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Apr-28, by Mary Anastasia O'Grady:

The Idiot's Bible

Just days after Hugo Chávez gave President Barack Obama a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America" in Trinidad last week, the English-language version of the book shot to the No. 2 slot on Amazon.com.

Hugo Chávez hands Barack Obama a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America."

Americans seemed to be curious about Mr. Chávez's reading tastes. But in Latin America, "Open Veins" is a well-known rant by Uruguayan Marxist Eduardo Galeano. And it also has another distinction that Mr. Chávez may be less inclined to publicize: It is widely regarded in free-market circles as "the idiot's bible."

The book was tagged with that moniker in the 1996 best seller, "The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot." Penned by three Latin American journalists -- Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa -- the "manual" is a witty assault on the populist, militarist, caudillo mentality that has dominated the region for hundreds of years.

Chapter three is dedicated to explaining the importance of Mr. Galeano's book for the idiot: "For the past quarter century the Latin American idiot has had the notable advantage of having at his disposal a kind of sacred text, a bible filled with all the nonsense that circulates in the cultural atmosphere that the Brazilians call the 'festive left.' Naturally we refer to Open Veins of Latin America."

Open any page of Mr. Galeano's book and you will learn that Latins are losers. Not on their own account, mind you. It's all because Europe and the U.S. (the world's winners) buy raw materials from them and don't pay a fair price. In this way the haves of the world exploit the have-nots. "The history of Latin America's underdevelopment is, as someone has said, an integral part of the history of world capitalism's development."

Mr. Galeano wasn't alone in promoting these ideas back in 1971 when the book came out. "Dependency theory," the economic dogma that drove regional policy for much of the 20th century, operated from the same premise. Its roots are in something called "structural economics," championed by Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch, the first secretary general of the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America.

Prebisch argued that Latin American poverty persisted because while rich countries could boost living standards through productivity gains, poor countries exporting only agricultural products and raw materials could not because of excess labor. Thus, they could not build the surplus capital they needed to move up the economic ladder.

These beliefs mixed well with fascism and Marxism. Politicians, whether from the extreme right or left, got behind Prebisch, and a regional policy emerged in favor of subsidization for local industries and protection from international competition. The state took a prominent role in this "import substitution industrialization," fueling corruption and hyperinflation and destroying any hope of rising living standards. By the late 1980s, with Latin America in crisis, Prebisch and his antitrade ideas were thoroughly discredited.

But Mr. Galeano remained an icon of the revolutionary left and a rich source of ideological hatemongering. Chilean novelist Isabel Allende wrote the foreword for the 25th anniversary edition, bemoaning the fact that her cousin Salvador's effort to convert Chile into another Cuba had been thwarted.

Equally amazing was Ms. Allende's praise of Mr. Galeano's "stupendous love of freedom." Of course, not for those engaged in voluntary exchange. Mr. Galeano condemns this guilty group: "The more freedom is extended to business, the more prisons have to be built for those who suffer from that business."

Confused? Novelist Mario Vargas Llosa explains in the foreword for "The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot": "History" for the idiot "is a successful conspiracy of the evil ones against the good, in which they always win and we always lose." In other words, exchange is a zero-sum game. This may sound like parody, but it is precisely Mr. Galeano's reasoning.

In "Forgotten Continent" (2007), Michael Reid, the Americas editor for the Economist, says Mr. Galeano's "history is that of the propagandist, a potent mix of selective truths, exaggeration and falsehood, caricature and conspiracy theory."

The Galeano book was not a present to Mr. Obama, though it was hyped as such. After all it was in Spanish, a language Mr. Obama does not read -- and Cuban and Venezuelan military intelligence surely would have advised Mr. Chávez of that fact. Its purpose was instead a way for the resentful Venezuelan to shove his anticapitalist, anti-American prejudices in Mr. Obama's face before rows of television cameras.

Yet, unwittingly, Mr. Chávez's gag gift served another purpose. If there has been any doubt about how he has run his oil-rich country into the ground during a decade of booming petroleum prices, the mystery is now solved. Mr. Galeano's book is Mr. Chávez's bible.

from the Telegraph of London, 2009-Sep-7, by Nick Pisa:

Hugo Chavez and Oliver Stone walk red carpet at Venice Film Festival

Hugo Chavez received a film star's welcome at the Venice Film Festival on Monday, when the Venezuelan president walked the red carpet with Oliver Stone for the premiere of the documentary "South of the Border".

Rome — Mr Chavez, who was accompanied by 50 bodyguards, played to the crowd, throwing a flower, touching his heart and, at one point, taking a photographer's camera to snap a picture himself.

The Hollywood director's latest film charts Stone's trip to meet the Venezuelan leader and his bid to "understand whether he was really the 'anti-American force' we've all heard about" in US and European media.

After a dramatic landing at the Venice Lido on board a carabinieri helicopter, Mr Chavez, who eschewed the typical boat arrival as he suffers from sea sickness, posed on the red carpet along with the director, who he described as a "hard worker".

Mr Chavez praised Stone's work for depicting what he said were improvements made across Latin America.

"Rebirth is happening in Latin America, and Stone went to look for it and he found it," Mr Chavez said. "With his cameras and his genius, he's captured a good part of that rebirth."

Before Mr Chavez arrived in Venice from Turkmenistan, Stone defended him the controversial Latin American leader a press conference to launch the documentary film.

"Chavez was elected by popular vote in no fewer than 12 different elections. And Venezuela has seen a clear economic improvement with him," Stone said.

He added that "South of the Border" was an attempt to combat western views that many Latin American countries were not democratic.

The documentary, he said, was meant "to combat the level of stupidity of the press".

"If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control," Stone said. "But in America, they don't get that story."

Mr Chavez was first elected in 1998, is a leading critic of US foreign policy and globalisation and has sought to achieve economic independence for his country while boosting cooperation with those around it.

"South of the Border" is showing out of competition at the Venice Film Festival, which ends Saturday with the awarding of the Golden Lion.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Apr-20, by Mary Anastasia O'Grady:

Americas Summit: Missed Opportunity

If President Barack Obama's goal at the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend was to be better liked by the region's dictators and left-wing populists than his predecessor George W. Bush, the White House can chalk up a win.

If, on the other hand, the commander in chief sought to advance American ideals, things didn't go well. As the mainstream press reported, Mr. Obama seemed well received. But the freest country in the region took a beating from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Bolivia's Evo Morales, and Nicaragua's Danny Ortega.

Ever since Bill Clinton organized the first Summit of the Americas in 1994 in Miami, this regional gathering has been in decline. It seemed to hit its nadir in 2005 in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when President Nestór Kirchner allowed Mr. Chávez and his revolutionary allies from around the region to hold a massive, American-flag burning hate-fest in a nearby stadium with the goal of humiliating Mr. Bush. This year things got even worse with the region's bullies hogging the limelight and Mr. Obama passing up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom.

Mr. Obama had to know that the meeting is used by the region's politicians to rally the base back home by showing that they can put Uncle Sam in his place. Realizing this, the American president might have arrived at the Port of Spain prepared to return their volley. They have, after all, tolerated and even encouraged for decades one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century. In recent years, that repression has spread from Cuba to Venezuela, and today millions of Latin Americans live under tyranny. As the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama had the duty to speak out for these voiceless souls. In this he failed.

The subject of Cuba was a softball that the American president could have hit out of the park. He knew well in advance that his counterparts would pressure him to end the U.S. embargo. He even prepared for that fact a few days ahead of the summit by unconditionally lifting U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, and offering to allow U.S. telecom companies to bring technology to the backward island.

Think that helped cast the U.S. in a better light in the region? Fat chance. Raúl Castro responded on Friday from Venezuela with a long diatribe against the Yankee oppressor and a cool offer to negotiate on "equal" terms. In case you don't speak Cuban, I'll translate: The Castro brothers want credit from U.S. banks because they have defaulted on the rest of the world, and no one will lend to them anymore. They also want foreign aid from the World Bank.

Anyone who thinks that Raúl is ruminating over free elections is dreaming. Nevertheless, the Cuba suggestion to put "everything" on the table became the "news" of the summit. And while it is true that Mr. Obama mentioned political prisoners in his list of items that U.S. wants to negotiate, he could have done much more. Indeed, he could have called Raúl's bluff by putting the spotlight on the prisoners of conscience, by naming names. He could have talked about men like Afro-Cuban pacifist Oscar Elias Biscet, who has written eloquently about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and today sits in jail for the crime of dissent.

The first black U.S. president could have named hundreds of others being held in inhumane conditions by the white dictator. He could have also asked Brazil's President Lula da Silva, Chile's President Michelle Bachelet and Mexico's Felipe Calderón where they stand on human rights for all Cubans. Imagine if Mr. Obama asked for a show of hands to find out who believes Cubans are less deserving of freedom than, say, the black majority in South Africa under apartheid or Chileans during the Pinochet dictatorship. Then again, that would be no way to win a popularity contest or to ingratiate yourself with American supporters who are lining up to do business in Cuba.

Instead the U.S. president simply floated down the summit river passively bouncing off whatever obstacles he encountered. The Chávez "gift" of the 1971 leftist revolutionary handbook "Open Veins of Latin America" followed by a suggestion of renewing ambassadorial relations was an insult to the American people. Granted, giving the Venezuelan attention would have been counterproductive. But Mr. Obama ought to have complained loudly about that country's aggression. It has supported Colombian terrorists, drug trafficking and Iran's nuclear ambitions. As former CIA director Michael Hayden told Fox News Sunday, "the behavior of President Chávez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela."

Too bad Mr. Obama didn't have a copy of the late 1990s bestseller "The Perfect Latin American Idiot" as a gift for Mr. Chávez. Another way Mr. Obama could have neutralized the left would have been to announce a White House push for ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That didn't happen either. He only promised to talk some more, a strategy that will offend no one and accomplish nothing. It is a strategy that sums up, to date, Mr. Obama's foreign policy for the region.

from BBC News, 2009-Sep-9:

Africa MPs cheer Lockerbie bomber

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has made his first public appearance since receiving a hero's welcome on his return to Libya.

Megrahi, looking frail in a wheelchair, received a standing ovation from a group of African MPs in the hospital where he is receiving care for cancer.

But after five minutes he began to cough and signalled he wanted to leave.

The Scottish authorities freed Megrahi last month on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill.

He is the only person to be convicted of the blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people.

His release and subsequent welcome in Libya caused a political storm in the UK.

Opposition groups have accused the British government of tying his release to a trade deal.

Carefully orchestrated

The BBC's Rana Jawad, in Tripoli, says a nurse wheeled Megrahi to a small stage in the lecture hall at the city's medical centre.

He appeared to be frail, wearing a surgeon's mask that covered most of his face and a colourful, sequined traditional skullcap, she says.

He remained silent in his wheelchair as he was greeted by about 40 African MPs who are in the country to mark the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the African Union.

After he started coughing, he was immediately wheeled off the stage.

Our reporter says it seemed a carefully orchestrated event intended to send a signal to the Scottish, British and US governments.

Speaker of the African Union (AU) parliament Idriss Ndele Moussa, who is from Chad, said he and his colleagues had come to "express solidarity".

"He is the victim of international injustice and a policy of double standards," Mr Moussa said.

A Libyan member of the AU parliament, Mohamed Jibril, compared the welcome Megrahi received with that of a group of Bulgarian nurses who were convicted of infecting babies with HIV in Libya, but were pardoned in Europe.

"The visit by the African parliament to Mr Megrahi is no different from the reception given to the Bulgarian nurses by the European Parliament," he said.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2009-Sep-1, by Bernard-Henri Lévy:

Gadhafi Shows His True Colors
Libya's dictator has contempt for democracy. Surprise, surprise.

On Thursday, Aug. 20, Abel Basset Ali Megrahi, the mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing, returned to a hero's welcome in Tripoli. It was an astonishing event.

The official line from Scotland is that Megrahi has terminal prostate cancer and thus was being released on "compassionate grounds." In theory, I support the humane principle of allowing people to die in their home countries. But the reality seems to be that Megrahi's release was, as Moammar Gadhafi's son proclaimed in the Scottish daily The Herald, negotiated in exchange for oil and gas exploration contracts for British companies.

The former spy—who is responsible for the deaths of 259 passengers on the Pan Am flight, as well as 11 villagers who were crushed by the wreckage—was repatriated in one of Gadhafi's private jets.

As if that weren't enough, Gadhafi arranged for a large audience to greet him on the tarmac. The crowd was delirious, singing patriotic songs. And this was in a country where outbursts of jubilation are rarely spontaneous.

It's true: There is a small lobby, including the journalists Pierre Péan and Edward Baer, that deploys a lot of energy trying to exonerate the Libyan regime of responsibility for this massacre. Its so-called counterinvestigations are pathetically weak, and the truth is that the Libyan regime has never denied its guilt. On the contrary, in 2003 it committed to contributing $10 million to compensate each one of the families of the 270 victims.

So Megrahi was repatriated to a country where a man is treated like a hero not because he is believed to be innocent, but because he is known to be guilty of murdering people whose only crime was happening to be citizens of democratic countries.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his ministers can proclaim their outrage at the welcome this terrorist received all they want. They have disgraced themselves. Their Scottish counterparts, we now know, had received assurance from Libyan authorities that "any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion," according to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

When Gadhafi goes on television and thanks his "friend" Gordon Brown, the Queen of England, and "her son Prince Andrew," it feels as if he were spitting on Winston Churchill and the heroes of the Battle of Britain.

Scotland and Britain are not alone. Switzerland can't seem to apologize enough since the colonel's other precious son, Hannibal, was arrested in Geneva last year for altercations with hotel staff. Yesterday in Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi laid the first stone of a highway meant to reaffirm the Italo-Libyan accord a few hours before the kick-off of the dictatorship's 40th anniversary festivities. And my country was at the vanguard of the movement to rehabilitate Gadhafi when President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomed him to France in 2007. I am waiting for my government to draw the same conclusion that this newspaper came to: This terrorist's release was "a second Lockerbie outrage."

As far as France goes, who was right? Those, like Mr. Sarkozy, who thought that Gadhafi had changed and that it was necessary to extend a hand to help reintegrate him into the community of nations? Or those like French Secretary of State for Human Rights Rama Yade, who regretted that our country was becoming a "doormat" on which any tyrant "could come to wipe his feet of the blood of his crimes"?

Now we have the answer. Gadhafi hasn't renounced his contempt for democracy. That contempt is the true root of terrorism today.

Mr. Lévy is the author, most recently, of "Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against The New Barbarism" (Random House, 2008). This op-ed was translated from the French by Sara Phenix.

Note on the following item: it's almost cartoonish the way this writer erects a straw man to ridicule the US. As Warner Todd Huston of NewsBusters.org suggests regarding this item, every presidential election campaign season sees a torrent of criticism of alleged and actual US foreign policy mistakes, and the critic always gets nearly half the vote. Huston also takes Hurst to task for lauding Gorbachev. In any case, I've included this item chiefly to show the anti-Americanism of Obama through the eyes of a fellow anti-American, not to expose the evident anti-Americanism of Hurst.

from the Associated Press, 2009-Apr-19, by Steven R. Hurst:

Analysis: Obama gores foreign policy ox

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has gone abroad and gored an ox—the deeply held belief that the United States does not make mistakes in dealings with either friends or foes.

And in the process, he's taking a huge gamble both at home and abroad, for a payoff that could be a long time coming, if ever.

By way of explanation, senior adviser David Axelrod describes the president's tactics this way:

"You plant, you cultivate, you harvest. Over time, the seeds that were planted here are going to be very, very valuable."

While historic analogies are never perfect, Obama's stark efforts to change the U.S. image abroad are reminiscent of the stunning realignments sought by former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev. During his short—by Soviet standards—tenure, he scrambled incessantly to shed the ideological entanglements that were leading the communist empire toward ruin.

But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev. After just three months in power, the new American leader has, among many other things:

—Admitted to Europeans that America deserves at least part of the blame for the world's financial crisis because it did not regulate high-flying and greedy Wall Street gamblers.

—Told the Russians he wants to reset relations that fell to Cold War-style levels under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

—Asked NATO for more help in the fight in Afghanistan, and, not getting much, did not castigate alliance partners.

—Lifted some restrictions on Cuban Americans' travel to their communist homeland and eased rules on sending wages back to families there.

—Shook hands with, more than once, and accepted a book from Hugo Chavez, the virulently anti-American leader of oil-rich Venezuela.

—Said America's appetite for illegal drugs and its lax control of the flow of guns and cash to Mexico were partly to blame for the drug-lord-inspired violence that is rattling the southern U.S. neighbor.

At a news conference ending the three-day Summit of the Americas on Sunday, Obama was asked to explain what a reporter called this emerging "Obama Doctrine."

He said that first, he remains intent on telling the world that the United States is a powerful and wealthy nation that realizes it is just one country among many. Obama said he believes that other countries have "good ideas" and interests that cannot be ignored.

Second, while the United States best represents itself by living up to its universal values and ideas, Obama said it must also respect the variety of cultures and perspectives that guide both American foes and friends.

"I firmly believe that if we're willing to break free from the arguments and ideologies of an earlier era and continue to act, as we have at this summit, with a sense of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest, then each of our nations can come out of this challenging period stronger and more prosperous, and we can advance opportunity, equality, and security across the Americas," the president said.

Critics, especially those deeply attached to the foreign policy course of the past 50-plus years, see a president whose lofty ideals expose the country to a dangerous probing of U.S. weakness, of an unseemly readiness to admit past mistakes, of a willingness to talk with unpleasant opponents.

"I think it was irresponsible for the president to be seen kind of laughing and joking with Hugo Chavez," said Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican. "This is a person along the lines with Fidel Castro and the types of dictatorship that he has down there in Venezuela and the anti-Americanism that he has been spreading around the world is not somebody the president of the United States should be seen as having, you know, kind of friendly relations with."

At his news conference Obama said he didn't think he did much damage to U.S. security or interests by shaking the hand of Chavez, whose country has a defense budget about one-six hundredth the size of the United States, and depends upon it's oil reserves for solvency.

But beyond specific attacks on his new foreign policy are the deeper philosophical challenges emerging from the still powerful, if diminished, conservative political structure in the United States. Such opponents can play havoc with Obama's attempts to change domestic policy and will work to weaken his 60-plus percent approval among Americans.

Obama brushes that aside:

"One of the benefits of my campaign and how I've been trying to operate as president is I don't worry about the politics—I try to figure out what's right in terms of American interests, and on this one I think I'm right."

So thought Gorbachev. But being right is not always politically healthy.

Steven R. Hurst reports from the White House for the AP and has covered foreign affairs for 30 years.

from the Washington Post, 2009-Apr-22, by Craig Whitlock:

European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment

BERLIN, April 21 -- European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers.

Many European officials and civil liberties groups said they were disappointed by President Obama's opposition to trials of CIA interrogators who subjected terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other harsh tactics. They said the release last week of secret U.S. Justice Department memos authorizing the techniques will make it easier for foreign prosecutors to open probes if U.S. officials do not.

Some European countries, under a legal principle known as universal jurisdiction, have adopted laws giving themselves the authority to investigate torture, genocide and other human rights crimes anywhere in the world, even if their citizens are not involved. While it is rare for prosecutors to win such cases, those targeted can face arrest if they travel abroad.

Martin Scheinin, the U.N. special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, said the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration clearly violated international law. He said the lawyers who wrote the Justice Department memos, as well as senior figures such as former vice president Richard B. Cheney, will probably face legal trouble overseas if they avoid prosecution in the United States.

"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Scheinin said in a telephone interview from Cairo. "This may be something that will be haunting CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives."

Manfred Nowak, another senior U.N. official who investigates torture claims, said the Obama administration is violating terms of the U.N. Convention Against Torture by effectively granting amnesty to CIA interrogators. He said the United States, as a signatory to the treaty, is legally obligated to investigate suspected cases of torture. He also said Washington must provide compensation to torture victims, including al-Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded.

"One cannot buy the argument anymore that this does not amount to torture," he said. "These memos are nothing but an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition on torture."

Nowak, an Austrian law professor based in Vienna, acknowledged that there is no mechanism in the anti-torture treaty to punish governments that ignore its provisions. From a political standpoint, he said, it is more important for the White House or Congress to authorize an independent commission to conduct a public examination of how terrorism suspects were treated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"I still have full trust in the Obama administration to do the right thing," he said in a telephone interview from Bangkok. "It is more important for the United States to overcome a dark chapter in its history."

On Tuesday, Obama for the first time raised the possibility of creating a bipartisan commission to examine the Bush administration's handling of terrorism suspects. He also said he would leave it up to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to determine whether to prosecute senior officials who approved waterboarding and other tactics.

Several CIA and Bush administration officials have already been targeted for prosecution in Europe, though the cases have generally not progressed very far.

In Spain, a human rights group is pushing prosecutors to investigative six senior Bush administration officials for allegedly sanctioning the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Last week, Spanish prosecutors recommended dropping the case after Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido called it a politicized attempt to turn Spanish courts "into a plaything." A Spanish judge will make the final decision.

In Germany, human rights groups have tried to bring charges against former U.S. defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Germany's federal prosecutor has twice rejected the case, but supporters have appealed in court.

Wolfgang Kaleck, a Berlin lawyer who helped file the complaint against Rumsfeld, said that such cases have failed largely because European courts have ruled that they should be handled in U.S. courts instead. That could change, he said.

"Everybody prefers that prosecutions take place in the U.S.," he said. "But if nothing happens there, then that's the end of the legal argument to dismiss these cases in Europe."

John B. Bellinger III, who was legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said European governments will face a worsening legal and political dilemma if human rights groups redouble their efforts to pursue criminal investigations of U.S. officials.

"They realize this will put them in a very difficult position," said Bellinger, now a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter in Washington. "They will be under pressure from civil liberties groups and some European parliamentarians not to oppose these cases. But if they allow them to go forward, they know it could strain their relationship with the Obama administration, which says it wants to look forward, not back."

Additionally, European governments are unlikely to favor the prosecution of U.S. officials under universal-jurisdiction statutes for practical reasons, he said. For instance, U.S. officials facing charges or indictment could no longer travel to Europe without facing the risk of arrest, a situation that could spiral out of control diplomatically.

"It just sets a bad precedent," he said. "Current and former government officials have to be able to travel. Once you allow one or two of these cases, it could really open the floodgates to actions against officials of many countries."

from the Wall Street Journal Europe, 2009-Mar-31, by Malte Lehming:

Just Another Bush
The financial crisis is ending the new president's German honeymoon.

Is the financial crisis for Angela Merkel what the Iraq war was for Gerhard Schröder -- namely, a reason to seriously strain Germany's relationship with the U.S.? One need not answer with an unconditional "yes" to be very concerned.

Naturally, at the G-20 meeting in London this week, Europeans will celebrate and praise the new American president. There will be beautiful photo opportunities and demonstrative unity. But the dispute behind the scenes has gotten worse. Barack Obama is demanding a much greater financial commitment from Germany and Europe to revive the economy; Mrs. Merkel and the EU are refusing, and instead urging the Americans to regulate their financial markets more rigidly.

There's no question, Mrs. Merkel has good substantive arguments on her side. Mr. Schröder had some as well when he opposed George W. Bush before and during the Iraq war. Nevertheless, Americans and the German opposition -- namely, Mrs. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union -- accused Mr. Schröder of dishonesty. After all, his antiwar views were also motivated by electoral strategy and were not entirely free of general anti-Americanism.

But come to think of it, isn't Mrs. Merkel, too, campaigning this year? Her defiant self-assuredness in dealing with Washington may be as popular in Germany as Mr. Schröder's antiwar stance was. The difference between the two chancellors is that Mrs. Merkel's way of formulating her position is not aggressive, but subversive. When she defends her financial policies, she likes to remark with a wink that we shouldn't forget where the crisis began. Everyone knows which country she means.

Mr. Obama speaks of a global crisis that demands global responses. For the Germans, this is indeed a global crisis -- but one that must be resolved primarily by the U.S., since it originated there. Therefore, German finance companies that became entangled in dodgy speculations are seen as weak victims who were seduced, while the clever American seducers who caused the real-estate bubble must now be punished.

Now the victims are claiming the right to say "no" to new stimulus packages. And they are demanding that the U.S. never again be permitted to seduce -- that it be constrained by "more transparency on the financial markets, which Germany called for long ago," as Mrs. Merkel says.

Once, there were enormous hopes. With Barack Obama's election, the trans-Atlantic rift that grew in the Bush years would finally be bridged. Now, in the financial crisis, this hope could prove an illusion. Many Germans believe they are being taken hostage by the U.S., and they want to vent their frustrations. They ask whether Mr. Obama's gigantic stimulus programs are similar to the gigantic war programs of Mr. Bush. The new president seems to be reacting just as drastically to this "world crisis" as the Republicans did to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, demanding the same unconditional allegiance from allies that Mr. Bush did. Are the neo-Keynesians as mistaken today as the neoconservatives were then? Isn't American gigantism the biggest problem?

In explaining the Americans' motivations, Germans are reaching conclusions as unfriendly and abstruse as those in the run-up to the Iraq war (greed for oil). On March 9, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a cover story on "The Mistake of the Century -- How the Failure of a Single Bank Triggered the World Crisis." It suggested that the U.S. government purposely allowed the investment bank Lehman Brothers to fail. Why? "Germany was apparently the main goal of the speculation" of Lehman Brothers, the magazine said, "because these kinds of securities are permitted in Germany, but not in France or the United States." And, "There is a great deal of evidence that banks targeted the funds of unwitting German retirees in trading Lehman securities." This interpretation of events is widespread in Germany. Even the head of the Protestant church council, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, supports it.

More and more, the diffuse anger about the crisis and its consequences is erupting in social unrest; one need only look to Greece, France, Ireland, Iceland or Eastern Europe. The longer the crisis lasts, the more loudly people will point to its originator, the U.S. Mr. Obama is turning into a lightning rod for European thunder. When he travels to the old Continent for the first time as U.S. president, he most likely won't see cheering crowds as huge as the one that greeted him last summer in front of Berlin's Victory Column.

Before the Iraq war, George Bush succeeded in splitting Europe into the "old" and the "new." In the financial crisis, the Continent is unified in its opposition toward his successor, Barack Obama.

Mr. Lehming is op-ed page editor of Der Tagesspiegel. Belinda Cooper translated this essay from the German.

from MarketWatch.com, 2009-Mar-31, by David Weidner:

Yankee go home
Commentary: Group of 20 summit will be stage for Wall Street bashing

NEW YORK -- We took a break Monday from beating on Wall Street to kick another class wimp: U.S. automakers.

Rick Wagoner got punk'd out of General Motors Corp. in favor of a glorified player to be named later by the Obama administration. These days, you know you've screwed up when Washington fires you and a nation applauds.

The panic in Detroit, however, was just foreshadowing of the smackdown that's coming Tuesday in London when President Obama joins angry heads of state for the Group of 20 summit. Obama is about to face a gang of 19 dubiously furious at what they see as the United States' lead role in the world's economic crisis.

For as much as we are passing idle time taking turns pounding our once-beloved institutions -- Washington, Wall Street and Detroit -- the world is ready to take one big frustrated swing. The global village finally agrees on something: It hates us.

Mr. President, get ready for a day of Wall Street bashing. The world's biggest celebrity will need every ounce of his renowned patience to sit through the assault.

To get a taste of what he faces Tuesday, Obama may want to read the transcript from the World Economic Forum's annual meeting. In February, world leaders such as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao devoted most of their time trashing the U.S. financial system.

These officials, who basically spent the last decade trying to remake their financial systems in the U.S. image, suddenly are pledging their allegiance to a "European style" of finance, though it's unclear which European style they are talking about.

Is it the one that used U.S. financial know-how to finance their companies? Or is it the one manifested in the financial disasters at UBS AG, Royal Bank of Scotland, Commerzbank AG (UK:CZB: news , chart , profile ) , Lloyds Banking Group and Fortis?

If the West is, as The New York Times' Paul Krugman suggests, a bunch of "Bernie Madoff economies," then the rest of the world is a bunch of Bernie Madoff economy imitators -- and not very good ones.

'At least America won't be in power'

The rage against Wall Street isn't restricted to heads of state. We're seeing more images on TV of demonstrations against the U.S. financial system. Organizers of a protest in London hoped 10,000 would participate Sunday ahead of the G-20, but more than three times that amount showed up.

Though themes of these rallies vary, there is an underlying current of anger that bankers, primarily U.S. bankers, have profited at the expense of the poor or other initiatives such as combating global warming.

The anger isn't limited to those who show up at protests. Americans overseas tell me of a vehement anti-Wall Street vibe in the media and on the streets.

In Ireland, a nation rocked by falling real estate prices and an economic slump, people are angry at "greed" in the U.S. The so-called "Celtic Tiger" boom has been slain with massive job losses and it's rekindled violence in Northern Ireland.

"I don't think we fully appreciate how bad things are in other parts of the world," said Thomas Finan, director of the center for international studies at St. Louis University.

Finan recently returned from rural western Ireland, where "tons of houses were built, nobody bought them, and so now there are whole villages that are virtually unoccupied. (It's) very strange and creepy."

If anything, Ireland is friendly to Wall Street compared with China. There, natives comfort themselves by telling each other "at least after this, America won't be in power," according to a former classmate of mine working in Dalian, a port city in the Liaoning province.

The Chinese sentiment is easy to understand when you consider that they understood U.S. markets to be the best in the world: transparent and regulated.

Now, like many in the world, they believe Wall Street has cost them money and ruined their retirement plans. Foreigners working in China are dealing with mandatory pay cuts. Neither natives nor expatriates distinguish the bankers from the system. It's all the same, my friend says.

Is it fair?

So, if the world is against you, does that mean the world is right? Does it matter?

The answer, as President Obama is likely to argue, is no. As a candidate he argued for change and as leader of the free world, he will argue the same in London. It's going to take a global effort to clean up the system and institute reforms. The lesson of the financial crisis is that we are all connected.

Whether the rest of the world can see through its anger at us to create global solutions will be a big factor in a global economic recovery.

The United States might want to join in the recovery, if we can find the time to stop picking on our own class wimps.

from the Washington Post, 2009-Jan-30, p.A19, web-posted 2009-Jan-29, by Charles Krauthammer:

Outreach, Yes. Apology, No.
America Isn't Islam's Enemy

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his chargé d'affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George W. Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since Sept. 11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the murder of 3,000 innocents. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." That's his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

Iran has already responded to the Obama overture. In perfect tune with Obama's defensive apologetics, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that better relations might be possible -- after America apologized for 60 years of crimes against Iran. Note the 60 years. The mullahs are as mystified by Obama's pre-1979 (or 1989) good old days as I am.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Nov-30, by Dorothy Rabinowitz:

Deepak Blames America
The media look within to explain the sick delusions of the Mumbai killers.

If the Mumbai terror assault seemed exceptional, and shocking in its targets, it was clear from the Thanksgiving Day reports that we weren't going to be deprived of the familiar, either. Namely, ruminations, hints, charges of American culpability that regularly accompany catastrophes of this kind.

Soon enough, there was Deepak Chopra, healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas, holding forth on CNN on the meaning of the attacks.

How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery, though the answer may have something to do with his emergence in the recent presidential campaign as a thinker of advanced political views. Also commending him, perhaps, is his well known capacity to cut through all sorts of complexities to make matters simple. No one can fail to grasp the wisdom of a man who has informed us that "If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules."

In his CNN interview, he was no less clear. What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that "our policies, our foreign policies" had alienated the Muslim population, that we had "gone after the wrong people" and inflamed moderates. And "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay."

All this was a bit too much, evidently, for CNN interviewer Jonathan Mann, who interrupted to note that there were other things going on -- matters like the ongoing bitter Pakistan-India struggle over Kashmir -- which had caused so much terror and so much violence. "That's not Washington's fault," he pointed out.

Given an argument, the guest, ever a conciliator, agreed: The Mumbai catastrophe was not Washington's fault, it was everybody's fault. Which didn't prevent Dr. Chopra from returning soon to his central theme -- the grave offense posed to Muslims by the United States' war on terror, a point accompanied by consistent emphatic reminders that Muslims are the world's fastest growing population -- 25% of the globe's inhabitants -- and that the U.S. had better heed that fact. In Dr. Chopra's moral universe, numbers are apparently central. It's tempting to imagine his view of offenses against a much smaller sliver of the world's inhabitants -- not so offensive, perhaps?

Two subsequent interviews with Larry King brought much of the same -- a litany of suggestions about the role the U.S. had played in fueling assaults by Muslim terrorists, reminders of the numbers of Muslims in the world and their grievances. A faithful adherent of the root-causes theory of crime -- mass murder, in the case at hand -- Dr. Chopra pointed out, quite unnecessarily, that most of the terrorism in the world came from Muslims. It was mandatory, then, to address their grievances -- "humiliation," "poverty," "lack of education." The U.S., he recommended, should undertake a Marshall Plan for Muslims.

Nowhere in this citation of the root causes of Muslim terrorism was there any mention of Islamic fundamentalism -- the religious fanaticism that has sent fevered mobs rioting, burning and killing over alleged slights to the Quran or the prophet. Not to mention the countless others enlisted to blow themselves and others up in the name of God.

Nor did we hear, in these media meditations, any particular expression of sorrow from the New Delhi-born Dr. Chopra for the anguish of Mumbai's victims: a striking lack, no doubt unintentional, but not surprising, either. For advocates of the root-causes theory of crime, the central story is, ever, the sorrows and grievances of the perpetrators. For those prone to the belief that most eruptions of evil in the world can be traced to American influence and power there is only one subject of consequence.

Accustomed as we are by now to this view of the U.S., it's impossible not to marvel at its varied guises -- its capacity to emerge even in journalism ostensibly concerning the absurd beliefs about the 9/11 attacks held by so many Muslims. It's conventional wisdom in the region -- according to a New York Times dispatch from Cairo, Egypt, last fall by Michael Slackman -- that the U.S. and Israel had to have been involved in the planning, if not the actual execution of the assaults. No news there. Neither was the information that there was virtually universal belief in the area that Jews, tipped off, didn't go to work at the World Trade Center that day. Or that the U.S. had organized the plot in order to attack Arab Muslims and gain access to their oil.

The noteworthy point here was the writer's conclusion that the U.S. itself was to blame for the power of these beliefs. "It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre," Mr. Slackman allowed. But that would miss the point that the persistence of these ideas represents the "first failure in the fight against terrorism." A U.S. failure? Nowhere in the extended list of root causes here was there any mention of the fanaticism and sheer mindless gullibility that is the prerequisite for the holding of such beliefs.

Its very ordinariness speaks volumes about this report. A piece written with evident serenity, the perversity of its conclusions notwithstanding, it's one emblem among many of the adversarial view of the nation that is today entrenched in the culture. So unworthy is the U.S. -- an attitude solidly established in our media culture long before the war on terror -- that only it can be held responsible for the deranged fantasies cherished in large quarters of the Arab world. So natural does it feel, now, to hold such views that their expression has become second nature.

Which is how it happens also that the U.S. is linked to the bloodletting in Mumbai, with scarcely anyone batting an eye, and Larry King -- awash perhaps, in happy molecules -- thanking guest Dr. Chopra for his extraordinary enlightenment.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

from City Journal online, 2008-Sep-12, by Bruce S. Thornton:

No We Can’t

For over a generation, the Democratic Party’s left wing has been determined to lose America’s wars.

Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America’s War on Terror Before and After 9-11, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson (Spence, 224 pp., $22.95)

From the days of ancient Athens, the citizens of democracies have been querulous warriors. Key democratic institutions such as free speech and citizen control of the military ensure that ordinary people take an active interest in the progress of war, freely (and often loudly) offering criticism and demanding results. Such criticism typically expressed impatience with military and political leaders for not doing everything they could to win wars as quickly as possible. Yet as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson argue in their bracing analysis of American defeatism, the antiwar movements from Vietnam to the present conflict in Iraq represent something very different: criticism aimed at expediting not victory, but defeat.

Once a leader of the New Left, Horowitz has become the bête noir of the American Left through his books, speeches, and online magazine Front Page, where Johnson is managing editor. In Party of Defeat, the authors relentlessly expose the cant, hypocrisy, and suicidal self-loathing of what these days passes for progressive thought, which has corrupted the Democratic Party through its radical activist base and compromised America’s security. The Democrats’ attack on President Bush in the midst of a war, the authors conclude, is “the most disgraceful episode in America’s political history.”

Party of Defeat opens with the Vietnam War-era hijacking of the Democratic Party by antiwar radicals, whose ultimate purpose wasn’t so much to end the war, but to discredit and weaken the political, social, and economic foundations of America. For the radical Left, then and now, “no longer regards itself as part of the nation,” Horowitz and Johnson write. “This Left sees itself instead as part of an abstract ‘humanity,’ transcending national borders and patriotic allegiances, whose interests coincide with a worldwide radical cause.” As such, it must work against America’s interests and success, disguising its activity as “dissent” or a more general antiwar sentiment.

George McGovern, who captured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 1972, embodied the leftist vision of capitalist America as a malignant aggressor responsible for global suffering and oppression. Though Richard Nixon’s landslide victory over McGovern that year ratified most Americans’ rejection of the radical worldview, the Watergate scandal empowered a Democrat-controlled Congress to cease support for South Vietnam and to eviscerate our intelligence agencies. Nixon’s political disgrace also made possible the election of Jimmy Carter, who largely shared the left’s view of a dysfunctional America. Carter, Horowitz and Johnson charge, “cut back America’s military defenses, hamstrung America’s intelligence agencies, and weakened the nation’s resolve.” And Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, whose overthrow by radical Islamists in 1979, followed by the kidnapping of American diplomatic personnel, marked the first jihadist challenge to America.

Carter’s ineffectual response to this attack invited more, particularly in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Clinton, a much shrewder politician than Carter, understood that appearing weak on national defense was political suicide after the success of Ronald Reagan, whose strengthening of America’s military helped bring down the Soviet Union. Yet for all of his cruise-missile bluster, Clinton still endorsed the fundamental hostility to the military and indifference to national defense that now seem part of the Democrats’ political DNA.

During his tenure, “the analytical and operations branches of the CIA were cut by 30 percent,” the authors point out. Under Clinton, further, “the agency drastically reduced its recruitment of new case officers . . . and closed bases, including the station in Hamburg, where Mohammed Atta’s cell planned 9-11.” The cuts also led to a decline of agents in key Muslim countries. And Clinton “raised the wall between the FBI and the CIA higher than before, which fatally obstructed the efforts to capture the 9-11 plotters,” Horowitz and Johnson report. “As commander-in-chief [Clinton] was generally AWOL on the battlefront with the global Islamic jihad.”

Equally disastrous was Clinton’s failure to understand the motives of the jihadists, treating their attacks as criminal offenses rather than as acts of war. The first World Trade Center bombing, the debacle in Mogadishu, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the bombings of the embassies in Africa—“Bill Clinton’s response to the four terrorist bombings and the humiliating ambush in Somalia could be summarized as nothing, nothing, failure, nothing, and capitulation.” Aversion to casualties and ingrained hostility to anything other than a symbolic use of military force kept Clinton from responding more forcefully. Nor, despite numerous opportunities, did he authorize the killing of Osama bin Laden, who had declared war on America, and who in numerous writings and interviews explicitly linked America’s vulnerability to its failure to respond to these attacks.

The Carter and Clinton presidencies show that even centrist Democrats must appease the vocal minority of the party’s left wing, since it provides a large number of party activists and delegates, particularly during primaries. Hence just months after the start of the Iraq War—and from the outset of the 2004 presidential primary campaigns—national Democrats turned against a war that they had voted for, and that President Clinton had laid the foundation for in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act. Perhaps the most conspicuous example of this shift was the enthusiastic presence of Democratic leaders like Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, and Tom Daschle at the premier of Michael Moore’s anti-American fantasy Fahrenheit 9-11 in 2004. Moore’s film exemplified the phenomenon that came to be called “Bush derangement syndrome,” but mainstream Democrats also played a role in distorting the historical record concerning the Iraq War.

Party of Defeat includes a compelling reprise of the reasons why America went to war against Saddam Hussein. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which declared Hussein in “material breach” of 16 previous UN resolutions enforcing the truce that ended the Gulf War, effectively legitimized military action against Iraq once Hussein ignored the 30-day deadline for complying with the resolution. Moreover, President Bush’s case for removing Hussein focused on WMD programs, not stockpiles. Though no WMD stockpiles turned up, the report of the Iraq Survey Group, made public in October 2003, indeed established the existence of WMD-related programs and equipment, laboratories and safe houses concealing equipment from UN monitoring, research on biological weapons, documents and equipment related to uranium enrichment, plans for long-range missiles, and evidence of attempts to acquire long-range missile technologies from North Korea. “It was Saddam’s refusal to observe the arms-control agreements designed to allow UN inspections and prevent him from building weapons of mass destruction that made the war necessary,” Horowitz and Johnson explain.

Yet these facts have been obscured by partisan attacks on the president’s decision to invade. Never mind that the invasion was ratified by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq that Congress passed in October 2002, and which listed several casus belli besides WMDs. Even before then, prominent Democrats like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were attacking the Bush Doctrine mandating preemptive action against terrorist threats. The first critical distortion that gave traction to the war’s opponents was the uproar over minor diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had been sent to Niger to investigate a British intelligence report finding that Hussein was attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium. In the summer of 2003, Wilson alleged in the New York Times and The New Republic that he had told the administration that there was no truth to the report before Bush repeated its findings in his 2003 State of the Union speech. As Horowitz and Johnson note, “The charge that Bush had lied about the Niger uranium deal provided a way for those who had previously supported the war to find common ground with the party’s radicals who had opposed it.”

That Wilson was a Democratic political activist and foreign-affairs adviser to John Kerry’s presidential campaign raised no red flags with a media that took his assertions on faith and relentlessly publicized them. By the time the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had investigated Wilson’s claims and debunked them a year later—indeed, Wilson’s actual report “lent more credibility,” as the Senate committee put it, to the existence of an Iraqi uranium deal—it was too late. The “Bush lied” mantra had won media validation and provided the antiwar activists with a potent weapon. Just how potent became clear with the meteoric rise of Vermont governor Howard Dean, whose early front-runner status in the 2004 presidential primaries forced Democratic contenders like Senators John Kerry and John Edwards—both of whom had voted in favor of removing Saddam—to tack left. Meanwhile, an increasingly overwrought Al Gore, while sitting out the presidential race, contradicted his long public record of advocating regime change in Iraq.

The press played a significant role in facilitating the cycle of sensational charges based on distorted evidence. Later investigations repudiated many of these allegations, but could not undo the damage done to public perceptions. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is a case in point. “What would normally be counted as a minor incident in any war,” Horowitz and Johnson maintain, “was elevated to a national and then a global scandal by editors determined to exploit it without regard for its potential impact on the national interest or the security of American troops in Iraq.” The New York Times, which often sets the agenda for the rest of the mainstream media, ran 60 days of stories about Abu Ghraib, filled with ridiculous comparisons with the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war and with Saddam’s horrific crimes: “It was exactly the kind of psychological-warfare campaign that would normally have been conducted by an enemy propaganda machine,” Horowitz and Johnson observe. So, too, with the lurid charges of abuse of the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, many of which were read on the Senate floor by Dick Durbin, who compared American officials there with Nazis and the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot. By the time 12 official investigations had debunked such claims, the media-stoked perception that Guantanamo was some sort of gulag of torture and abuse had achieved the status of fact, thus providing another propaganda weapon for our enemies.

On issue after issue—the alleged number of Iraqi children killed by sanctions, the inflated number of civilian casualties in the war, the looted Iraqi artifacts, the celebrity of Cindy Sheehan, the media exposure of clandestine intelligence-gathering programs, the attacks on General David Petraeus—Horowitz and Johnson document how the truth, and America’s security, were sacrificed to the ideology of radical activists, the partisan needs of the Democratic Party, and the liberal shibboleths of the mainstream media. Worse yet, America’s enemies took up these charges and incorporated them into their own propaganda (a frequent Al Qaeda tactic, as documented in Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader). For example, Osama bin Laden in a fatwa quoted epidemiologist and wannabe Democratic Congressman Les Roberts’s ridiculous toll of 650,000 civilian dead in Iraq—a figure 12 times the actual total by 2005. And the Iranian ambassador to the United States answered charges that his country was aiding terrorists in Iraq by alleging that “America had invaded Iraq on false pretenses” and was now making Iran the scapegoat.

Horowitz and Johnson draw a sobering conclusion: “The decision to attack the morality of America’s war effort has dealt a severe blow to the American cause. It has undermined American unity in the face of the enemy, profoundly damaged the clarity with which the war is understood, and diminished Americans’ ability to defend themselves.” In this important presidential election year, Party of Defeat is essential reading.

Bruce Thornton is the author of Greek Ways and Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide (Encounter Books).

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Dec-19:

The Real 'Torture' Disgrace
The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

The release of Carl Levin's report on the Bush Administration's alleged "torture" policies was a formality: The Senator's conclusions were politically predetermined long ago. Still, the credulity and acclaim that has greeted this agitprop is embarrassing, even by Washington standards.

According to the familiar "torture narrative" that Mr. Levin sanctifies, President Bush and senior officials sanctioned detainee abuse, first by refusing to accord al Qaeda members Geneva Convention rights, and second by conspiring to rewrite the legal definition of torture. The new practices were then imposed on military leaders and spread through the chain of command. Therefore, Mr. Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their deputies are morally -- and legally -- responsible for all prisoner abuse since 9/11, not least Abu Ghraib.

Nearly every element of this narrative is dishonest. As officials testified during Mr. Levin's hearings and according to documents in his possession, senior officials were responding to requests from the CIA and other commanders in the field. The flow was bottom up, not top down. Those commanders were seeking guidance on what kind of interrogation was permissible as they tried to elicit information from enemies who want to murder civilians. At the time, no less than Barack Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, was saying that terrorists didn't qualify for Geneva protections.

This was the context in which the Justice Department wrote the so-called "torture memos" of 2002 and 2003. You'd never know from the Levin jeremiad that these are legal -- not policy -- documents. They are attempts not to dictate interrogation guidelines but to explore the legal limits of what the CIA might be able to do.

It would have been irresponsible for those charged with antiterror policy to do anything less. In a 2007 interview former CIA director George Tenet described the urgency of that post-9/11 period: "I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again . . . Plot lines that I don't know -- I don't know what's going on inside the United States." Actionable intelligence is the most effective weapon in the war on terror, which can potentially save thousands of lives.

We know that the most aggressive tactic ever authorized was waterboarding, which was used in only three cases against hardened, high-ranking al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah after he was picked up in Pakistan in 2002. U.S. officials say the information he gave up foiled multiple terror plots and led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11. As Dick Cheney told ABC this week, "There was a time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al Qaeda came from one source" -- KSM.

Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object. In fact, Congress has always defined torture so vaguely as to ban only the most extreme acts and preserve legal loopholes. At least twice it has had opportunity to specifically ban waterboarding and be accountable after some future attack. Members declined.

As for "stress positions" allowed for a time by the Pentagon, such as hooding, sleep deprivation or exposure to heat and cold, they are psychological techniques designed to break a detainee, but light years away from actual torture. Perhaps the reason Mr. Levin released only an executive summary with its unsubstantiated charges of criminal behavior -- instead of the hundreds of pages of a full declassified version -- is that the evidence doesn't fit the story. If it did, Mr. Levin or his staff would surely have leaked the details.

Not one of the 12 nonpartisan investigations in recent years concluded that the Administration condoned or tolerated detainee abuse, while multiple courts martial have punished real offenders. None of the dozen or so Abu Ghraib trials and investigations have implicated higher ups; the most senior officer charged, a lieutenant colonel, was acquitted in 2006. Former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger's panel concluded that the abuses were sadistic behavior by the "night shift."

Now that Mr. Obama is on his way to the White House, even some Democrats are acknowledging the complicated security realities. Dianne Feinstein, a Bush critic who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, recently told the New York Times that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said (our emphasis). Ms. Feinstein later put out a statement that all interrogations should be conducted within the more specific limits of the U.S. Army Field Manual but said she will "consider" other views. But that is already the law for most of the government. What the Bush Administration has insisted on is an exception for the CIA to use other techniques (not waterboarding) in extreme cases.

As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.

As Mr. Levin put it in laying on his innuendo this wee. The second-guessing of Democrats is likely to lead to a risk-averse mindset at the CIA and elsewhere that compromises the ability of terror fighters to break the next KSM. The political winds always shift, but terrorists are as dangerous as ever.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Sep-25, by Bret Stephens:

Betrayal and the True Believer

The Lost Spy
By Andrew Meier
(Norton, 402 pages, $25.95)

Earlier this month, a 91-year-old New York man named Morton Sobell admitted, after more than a half-century of public and adamant denials, to having passed U.S. military secrets to the Soviet Union, a crime for which he spent nearly 20 years in Alcatraz. In doing so, Mr. Sobell also fingered Julius Rosenberg as another Soviet agent (though not his wife, Ethel, with whom Julius was executed in 1953), thereby putting paid to the myth that America's most notorious atomic spy had been framed by the Red-baiting right.

Andrew Meier, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, addresses neither Mr. Sobell's nor the Rosenbergs' case in "The Lost Spy." But he does bring back to life the world of Communist intrigue into which they were drawn by telling the story of one of their most fascinating, if least known, brethren: Isaiah "Cy" Oggins, a Columbia University graduate who faithfully served his Soviet masters in the U.S., Europe and the Far East until his ultimate murder, at Joseph Stalin's direction, in 1947. The product of more than seven years of labor, the book is a brilliantly crafted account of true belief and its many terrible betrayals.

Before Mr. Meier's investigations, Oggins was little more than an odd Cold War footnote. In 1992, then- Russian President Boris Yeltsin offered definitive proof that at least one American -- Oggins -- had been trapped in the Soviet gulag. Furthermore, according to Yeltsin, Oggins was an innocent man, wrongly convicted and later "liquidated" because he had seen too much of the real Soviet Union to be safely repatriated to the U.S.

That wasn't quite the truth. At heart, Oggins may well have been an innocent, and the charges laid against him by the Soviets were no more credible than those that destroyed so many other faithful Bolsheviks. But he was, equally, a traitor to the U.S., and his service to Stalin extended long past the point when it was possible to be ignorant of the true nature of Stalinism. For all the pathos of Oggins's tale, it mingles inescapably in the reader's mind with a sense of disgust.

In many respects, Oggins is a familiar character, particularly among the children of Jewish immigrants who rose from working-class origins to the intelligentsia without an intermediate generational step in the American middle class. A bookish, intellectually promising and seemingly harmless young man, he made his first acquaintance with radical politics as a teenager in his hometown of Willimantic, Conn., when members of the far-left-wing Industrial Workers of the World, or Wobblies, came to agitate on behalf of local textile workers. At Columbia, he became a devotee of the radical historian Charles Beard and dabbled -- but did not seriously participate -- in the antiwar movement of his day, which opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and drew inspiration from the Bolsheviks, lately come to power in Russia.

After college, Oggins met Nerma Berman, the woman who would eventually become his wife and accomplice. Berman, too, was a type: a shrill, self- centered militant educated at New York's Rand School, itself a factory for militancy. It was Berman who seems to have been decisive in moving Oggins along the road from academia to activism, burrowing ever deeper into the Communist underground.

By the mid-1920s, Oggins and Nerma were full-fledged agents of the Communist International, or Comintern. Posing as a well-to-do American couple in Europe, they ran a safehouse for clandestine Soviet operations in Berlin -- one of which involved counterfeiting millions of U.S. dollars -- and in Paris spied on the Romanovs, the exiled remnants of the Russian royal family. Several years later, during a solo stint in Japanese-occupied Manchuria, Oggins wound up helping to arrange the sale of Italian bombers to the Japanese -- an odd arrangement from an ideological point of view but consistent with a Soviet foreign policy that, within a few years, would make common cause with the Nazis.

Through all this, Oggins never seems to have blinked: not when Leon Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929; not when the Moscow show trials got under way in the mid-1930s; not even after the birth of a son might have given him a reason to back away. He was in Moscow on the day of his arrest by Soviet intelligence agents in February 1939. Party man to the end, he had traveled there on a forged Czech passport.

Oggins would spend years in an Arctic prison camp before being killed in the most ghoulish way imaginable. He was injected with a poison, the effects of which are described as "loss of voice and strength, muscular weakness, prostration, labored breathing, cyanosis and death with symptoms of suffocation while retaining complete consciousness." It was an inversion of what had happened to Oggins in the years leading up to his arrest: a man who had lost moral consciousness even as he retained physical strength.

Though Oggins's story is a chronicle of a death foretold, the narrative maintains a powerful sense of suspense as Mr. Meier unearths one clue after another in his search for whereabouts, connections and motives. Still -- and perhaps inevitably -- the book can only circle around the central mystery of what drove a generation of idealistic men and women into the annihilating embrace a singularly evil regime. Perhaps it was simple boredom, or a taste for adventure, or the quest for meaning. It takes nothing away from Mr. Meier's achievement as a writer, historian and journalist that the deepest answers must be sought in some different form of analysis.

from the Washington Post, 2008-Oct-30, p.A23, by Robert Kagan:

Still No. 1

Is Barack Obama the candidate of American decline? To hear some of his supporters among the foreign policy punditry, you'd think he was. Francis Fukuyama says he supports Obama because he believes Obama would be better at "managing" American decline than John McCain. Fareed Zakaria writes weekly encomiums to Obama's "realism," by which he means Obama's acquiescence to the "post-American world." Obama, it should be said, has done little to deserve the praise of these declinists. His view of America's future, at least as expressed in this campaign, has been appropriately optimistic, which is why he is doing well in the polls. If he sounded anything like Zakaria and Fukuyama say he does, he'd be out of business by now.

One hopes that whoever wins next week will quickly dismiss all this faddish declinism. It seems to come along every 10 years or so. In the late 1970s, the foreign policy establishment was seized with what Cyrus Vance called "the limits of our power." In the late 1980s, the scholar Paul Kennedy predicted the imminent collapse of American power due to "imperial overstretch." In the late 1990s, Samuel P. Huntington warned of American isolation as the "lonely superpower." Now we have the "post-American world."

Yet the evidence of American decline is weak. Yes, as Zakaria notes, the world's largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore and the largest casino in Macau. But by more serious measures of power, the United States is not in decline, not even relative to other powers. Its share of the global economy last year was about 21 percent, compared with about 23 percent in 1990, 22 percent in 1980 and 24 percent in 1960. Although the United States is suffering through a financial crisis, so is every other major economy. If the past is any guide, the adaptable American economy will be the first to come out of recession and may actually find its position in the global economy enhanced.

Meanwhile, American military power is unmatched. While the Chinese and Russian militaries are both growing, America's is growing, too, and continues to outpace them technologically. Russian and Chinese power is growing relative to their neighbors and their regions, which will pose strategic problems, but that is because American allies, especially in Europe, have systematically neglected their defenses.

America's image is certainly damaged, as measured by global polls, but the practical effects of this are far from clear. Is America's image today worse than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s, with the Vietnam War; the Watts riots; the My Lai massacre; the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy; and Watergate? Does anyone recall that millions of anti-American protesters took to the streets in Europe in those years?

Today, despite the polls, President Bush has managed to restore closer relations with allies in Europe and Asia, and the next president will be able to improve them even further. Realist theorists have consistently predicted for the past two decades that the world would "balance" against the United States. But nations such as India are drawing closer to America, and if any balancing is occurring, it is against China, Russia and Iran.

Sober analysts such as Richard Haass acknowledge that the United States remains "the single most powerful entity in the world." But he warns, "The United States cannot dominate, much less dictate, and expect that others will follow." That is true. But when was it not? Was there ever a time when the United States could dominate, dictate and always have its way?

Many declinists imagine a mythical past when the world danced to America's tune. Nostalgia swells for the wondrous American-dominated era after World War II, but between 1945 and 1965 the United States actually suffered one calamity after another. The "loss" of China to communism; the North Korean invasion of South Korea; the Soviet testing of a hydrogen bomb; the stirrings of postcolonial nationalism in Indochina -- each proved a strategic setback of the first order. And each was beyond America's power to control or even to manage successfully.

No event in the past decade, with the exception of Sept. 11, can match the scale of damage to America's position in the world. Many would say, "But what about Iraq?" Yet even in the Middle East, where America's image has suffered most as a result of that war, there has been no fundamental strategic realignment. Longtime American allies remain allies, and Iraq, which was once an adversary, is now an ally. Contrast this with the strategic setbacks the United States suffered during the Cold War. In the 1950s and 1960s, the pan-Arab nationalist movement swept out pro-American governments and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement, including a quasi-alliance between Moscow and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser, as well as with Syria. In 1979, the central pillar of American strategy toppled when the pro-American Shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. That produced a fundamental shift in the strategic balance from which the United States is still suffering. Nothing similar has occurred as a result of the Iraq war.

So perhaps a little perspective is in order. The danger of today's declinism is not that it is true but that the next president will act as if it is. The good news is that I doubt either nominee really will. And I'm confident the American people would take a dim view if he tried.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Dec-29, by Andrew Osborn:

As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Sep-18, by Thane Rosenbaum:

Victory Is an Orphan in Iraq

When it comes to Iraq, a majority of Americans simply won't take yes for an answer.

The surge is succeeding. Security in Iraq's three major cities has vastly improved. The Iraqi army is finally asserting control. American casualties are at their lowest since 2003. Civilian deaths, kidnappings and car bombings have plummeted. Al Qaeda is now virtually friendless in Iraq. Most important, the Shiite and Sunni mainstream are beginning to participate in their own liberation.

Yet instead of rejoicing and a ticker-tape parade, our political leaders and opinion makers speak of immediate timetables for the contraction and withdrawal of our troops, the counting of our losses and the atonement for our sins. Few speak of the war with any sense of pride or patriotism. Never before has a nation so distanced itself from a military triumph. There is an overarching taboo associated with any acknowledgment that it may have benefited Iraqis and Americans. Buried beneath the mosh pit of President Bush's declining approval ratings, Iraq remains a continuing source of shame.

Many say that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to our security. That by expending military resources in Iraq we squandered the chance to capture Osama bin Laden, and allowed the Taliban to rise from the dead in Afghanistan. That Iran pressed forward with its nuclear ambitions, knowing that we were so alienated in the region and had so stretched our military capacity that we couldn't stop them.

Surely it would have been best had the U.S. been able to mobilize an appropriate and forceful response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. But no one seriously believes bin Laden fell off the radar of our priorities simply because this part of the world is so rich in terror and instability.

Given the state of the world after 9/11, it was a judgment call as to where our interests would best be served, and where military force would do the most good. Saddam's Iraq had been one of terrorism's most reliable and dangerous state sponsors. Iraq was not merely an oil-rich sideshow, ultimately irrelevant to our justifiable war against terror.

It is true that the full case for going to war in Iraq was not adequately presented -- although humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam were certainly present, and we should not have depended alone on the presence of weapons of mass destruction. It is also true that we were pathetically ill-prepared for what we would find in Iraq, and how we would be perceived once we arrived. And the disgraceful practices at Abu Ghraib were undeniably unworthy of the sacrifices our soldiers otherwise made.

Yes, there are many truths about the war in Iraq. But to say America fought an ill-advised war that was both a lost cause and a total loss is surely not one of them.

Unfortunately, the American mainstream hasn't sufficiently found itself on this war yet. There has been no coalescence around a coherent set of facts. Public opinion may be free in America, but sometimes it is shaped by subtle intimidation. Given all the loud rhetoric of defeat and despair, most Americans haven't felt secure enough to look at the war as it is rather than what they have been told to believe.

There is nothing wrong with establishing timetables for our departure -- as long as we are equally prepared to accept the accolades of our hard-won struggle. Leaving Iraq, whenever that date may be, should be done not from a position of defeat and disgust, but rather with the pride and gratitude that our troops deserve for a job well done.

Mr. Rosenbaum, a novelist, essayist and law professor at Fordham University, is the author of "The Myth of Moral Justice" (Harper Perennial, 2005).

from the New York Times, 2008-Dec-25, by Mohammed Hussein:

Shoe-Hurler Raises Up Iraq's Reputation Abroad

BAGHDAD — When traveling outside Iraq, I would sometimes hide my nationality by refraining from speaking in an Iraqi dialect. When Arabs would find out where I was from, I would be lectured about how Iraqis are too willing to accept the presence of American troops in our country. But after an Iraqi television reporter threw his shoes at President Bush during a news conference, other Arabs seem to have raised their opinions of us.

Arabs interpret Muntader al-Zaidi's hurling of his shoes as an act of revenge for both the Iraqis and Palestinians, who many people here feel have also been wronged by the Americans.

“The Iraqi people are courageous people,” a taxi driver in Amman, Jordan, told me a few days ago. It was strange to hear this praise after hearing years of verbal abuse from Arabs in Jordan and Syria. When my uncle was shopping in the market in Amman recently he heard a voice yell: “Are you Iraqi?” In the past this would be followed by a speech about the war and the Americans. Instead the man yelled to my uncle: “You made us proud.”

As an Iraqi journalist, I've had a hard time understanding why Arab people are treating us with dignity now after this type of behavior. Throwing a shoe, especially at a guest, is a deep insult in our culture.

But many other Arabs don't feel this way. In Amman, people would stop me and ask to hear more about the shoe throwing. “We heard the good news from Iraq,” a neighbor said. My Iraqi friends living in Syria and Lebanon say they have also all been praised.

In the past, when I was in Syria people would treat Iraqis like burglars. In the market they would raise prices, ignoring that fact that we were escaping violence in our home country.

Some people are using the shoe hurling for their own interests. Government-controlled media in other Arab countries are playing the incident over and over to create feelings of national pride. Political parties in Iraq are describing him as a national hero. Investors are bidding on the flying footwear and it seems as if every shoemaker in the region has claimed to be the manufacturer of what is now known as the Bush Shoe. Even some of the newborn babies are being named Muntader as a symbol of bravery.

As an Iraqi, I am happy that our neighbors treat us with respect now. I just wish it was for something other than this. I wonder how our dignity could be so tenuous as to be linked to a pair of shoes.

from the Los Angeles Times, 2008-Dec-15, by Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed, with contributions from "Times special correspondents in Baghdad":

Bush ducks shoes thrown at him in Iraq

Reporting from Baghdad -- President Bush looked slightly bemused after he ducked to avoid a shoe hurled at him. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki looked mortified, and as the assailant's second shoe came flying Sunday, he did what any gracious host would do: reached out and tried to catch it before it hit his American guest.

Maliki missed, but so did the shoe, landing like the first one with a loud thud against the wall behind the two leaders, who held their ground as other journalists and security officials at a news conference wrestled the shoe-thrower to the ground. Later, Iraqi journalists identified him as Muntather Zaidi, a correspondent for Baghdadiya, a satellite TV channel that broadcasts from Cairo.

Colleagues said Zaidi has done extensive reporting from Baghdad's Sadr City district, the stronghold of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr, and was rescued by Sadr's Mahdi Army militia after being abducted by an unidentified group in November 2007.

Zaidi was one of several Iraqi journalists attending the Sunday evening news conference in Baghdad's heavily secured Green Zone. His outburst came without warning as Bush and Maliki prepared to answer questions.

The first shoe flew over the heads of other journalists and might have hit Bush square in the face had he not ducked to avoid it.

"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the man said, according to a pool translation.

Seconds later, the journalist hurled his other shoe with similar precision as another Iraqi journalist reached over in an attempt to stop him.

"This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he said, according to the translation.

Maliki flung his arm in front of Bush's face, his hand outstretched like a baseball player reaching for a line drive in an attempt to block the flying object as it sailed over Bush's head.

After being pinned to the ground, the shoe-thrower was dragged out by security guards. Officials from Baghdadiya refused to comment.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino reported suffering a minor eye injury during the melee.

Bush played down the incident.

"All I can report is it is a size 10," he said jokingly.

"So what if a guy threw his shoe at me," the president added, dismissing it as "one way to gain attention."

from the Telegraph of London, 2008-Dec-15, by Caroline Gammell:

Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at George Bush hailed a hero
The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W Bush was hailed a hero in the Middle East yesterday as thousands of people took to the streets to support him and demand his release.

Muntadar al-Zeidi, 28, was arrested after throwing his shoes at Mr Bush during a press conference with Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. Mr Bush ducked twice as the shoes narrowly missed his head and hit the wall behind him.

Mr Zeidi was wrestled to the ground before being dragged from the press conference and detained by Iraqi security forces. But the Shia television reporter's protest – during which he shouted at Mr Bush “This is a gift from the Iraqis.This is a farewell kiss, you dog” – was praised across the Middle East, including in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Jordan. A Libyan charity nominated him for a bravery award.

It was disclosed yesterday that Mr Zeidi “detested America”. He was once briefly detained by the US military and was also kidnapped by militants.

Khalil al-Dulaimi, Saddam Hussein's former lawyer, offered to represent Mr Zeidi and said about 200 lawyers had volunteered their services free of charge.

“Our defence of Zeidi will be based on the fact that the United States is occupying Iraq, and resistance is legitimate by all means, including shoes,” he said.

Mr Bush tried to laugh off the incident, saying: “That was a size 10 shoe he threw at me you may want to know.”

But an Iraqi government spokesman demanded an apology: “At the same time that we condemn this ignominious act, we call on the television channel of this reporter to deliver a public apology for this act which sullies the reputation of all Iraqi journalists and the whole media.”

The station, Al-Baghdadia, defiantly replayed the broadcast and made repeated pleas for Mr Zeidi's release “in accordance with the democratic era and the freedom of expression that Iraqis were promised by US authorities”.

Mr Zeidi's brother Udai said: “Thanks be to God, Muntadar's act fills Iraqi hearts with pride. I'm sure many Iraqis want to do what Muntadar did. Muntadar used to say all the orphans whose fathers were killed are because of Bush.”

In Sadr City – the Baghdad home of the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr – thousands gathered to burn American flags and call for the release of Mr Zeidi. In the holy city of Najaf, several protesters threw shoes at an American patrol, while others demonstrated in the southern city of Basra.

Colleagues said he “detested America” and blamed Mr Bush for the damage done to his country by the 2003 invasion.

Mr Zeidi was kidnapped by militants in November last year but released after three days.

Iraqi officials said Mr Zeidi faced up to seven years in prison if prosecuted for insulting a visiting head of state.

Yesterday, Mr Bush continued his tour of the Middle East with a visit to Afghanistan, where he warned of the difficulty of restoring stability to a country ravaged by seven years of war.

He addressed troops at Bagram air base before flying into Kabul for talks with President Hamid Karzai.

from the New York Times, 2008-Dec-16 (web-posted 2008-Dec-15), by Timothy Williams and Sharon Otterman:

Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Becomes a Folk Hero

BAGHDAD — An Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President Bush and called him a dog became a huge celebrity in the Arab world and beyond on Monday, with many supporters exalting him for what they called a courageous act in the face of American arrogance about the war.

Barely 24 hours after the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was tackled and arrested for his actions at a Baghdad news conference, the shoe-throwing incident was generating front-page headlines and continuing television news coverage. A thinly veiled glee could be discerned in much of the reporting, especially in the places where anti-American sentiment runs deepest.

In Sadr City, the sprawling Baghdad suburb that has seen some of the most intense fighting between insurgents and American soldiers since the 2003 invasion, thousands of people marched in his defense. In Syria, he was hailed as a hero. In Libya, he was given an award for courage.

Mr. Zaidi, a correspondent for an independent Iraqi television station, Al-Baghdadia, remained in Iraqi custody on Monday. While he has not been formally charged, Iraqi officials said he faced up to seven years in prison if convicted of committing an act of aggression against a visiting head of state.

Hitting someone with a shoe is a deep insult in the Arab world, signifying that the person being struck is as low as the dirt underneath the sole of a shoe. Compounding the insult were Mr. Zaidi's words as he hurled his footwear at President Bush: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” While calling someone a dog is never polite, among Arabs, who traditionally consider dogs unclean, the words were an even stronger slight.

The incident has been a source of embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who, in a statement on Monday, called the shoe throwing a “a shameful savage act” and demanded a public apology from Al-Baghdadia.

“The act damaged the reputation of Iraqi journalists and journalism in general,” the statement said.

As of Monday night, no apology from the station was forthcoming. Instead, the network posted an image of Mr. Zaidi, 29, in the corner of the screen for much of the day. Viewers were invited to phone in their opinions, and the vast majority said they approved of his actions.

Opponents of the continued American presence in Iraq turned Mr. Zaidi's detention Monday into a rallying cry. Support for the detained journalist crossed religious, ethnic and class lines in Iraq — vaulting him to near folk hero status.

“I swear by God that all Iraqis with their different nationalities are glad about this act,” said Yaareb Yousif Matti, a 45-year-old teacher from Mosul, a northern city that has is contested by Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens.

In Samarra, one of the centers of the Sunni insurgency against American forces, Mr. Zaidi received nearly unanimous approval from people interviewed Monday.

“Although that action was not expressed in a civilized manner, it showed the Iraqi's feelings, which oppose American occupation,” said Dr. Qutaiba Rajaa, a 58-year old physician.

In Sadr City, thousands of marchers on Monday called for an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. The demonstrators burned American flags and waved shoes attached to long poles in a show of support for Mr. Zaidi.

In Najaf, several hundred people gathered on a central square to protest President Bush's Sunday visit to Iraq, and demonstrators threw their shoes at a passing American military convoy.

But praise for Mr. Zaidi was not universal. His action ran counter to deeply held Iraqi traditions of hospitality toward guests, even if they are enemies. Those who have cooperated with or welcomed the American presence in Iraq were more apt to side with the government in their condemnation.

Ahmad Abu Risha, the leader of the Awakening Council in Anbar Province, a group of local tribal leaders that started a wave of popular opposition against Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, said that he Mr. Zaidi's actions were inappropriate “because the American president is the guest of all Iraqis. The Iraqi government has to choose good journalists to attend such conferences.”

“This is unsuitable action by an Iraqi journalist,” said Kamal Wahbi, a 49-year-old engineer in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya, where pro-American sentiment is strong. “His action served terrorism and radical national extremism. I think he could send the same message by asking Bush embarrassing questions.”

Witnesses said that Mr. Zaidi had been severely beaten by security officers on Sunday after being tackled at the press conference and dragged out. One of his brothers, Maythem al-Zaidi, said Monday that the family had not heard from Mr. Zaidi since his arrest, and that a security officer who picked up Mr. Zaidi's cellphone at midnight on Sunday had threatened the family.

It was unclear whether Mr. Zaidi had planned his actions beforehand, or whether — as his brother said — he had become infuriated by President's Bush's words of farewell to Iraqis and made a spontaneous decision to insult him.

Saif al-Deen, 25, an editor at the Baghdadia television network in Cairo, said Mr. Zaidi had been planning some sort of protest against President Bush for nearly a year.

“I remember at the end of 2007, he told me, `You will see how I will take revenge on the criminal Bush in my personal way about the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people,” Mr. Deen said. He said he tried to talk his friend out of doing anything at the time, but that “he insisted he would do it.”

Around the Arab world, the shoe throwing became the topic of the moment. In Syria, Mr. Zaidi's face was broadcast on the state television network, with Syrians calling in throughout the day to share their admiration for his gesture. Lawyers volunteered to represent him by the dozen.

In Lebanon, reactions varied by political affiliation, but curiosity about the episode was universal. An American visitor to a school in Beirut's southern suburb, where the Shiite militant group Hezbollah is popular, was besieged with questions from teachers and students alike, who wanted to know what Americans thought about the insult.

“It's the talk of the city,” said Ibrahim Mousawi, a Beirut-based journalist and political analyst affiliated with Hezbollah. “Everyone is proud of this man, and they're saying he did it in our name.”

In Libya, Mr. Zaidi was given a bravery award on Monday by a Libyan charity group run by the daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya's leader, Reuters reported.

The charity group, Wa Attassimou, also urged the Iraqi government to release Mr. Zaidi.

The group recognized Mr. Zaidi “because what he did represents a victory for human rights across the world,” it said in a statement.

Timothy Williams reported from Baghdad, and Sharon Otterman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Atheer Kakan, Suadad al-Salhy, Mudhafer al-Husaini, Alissa J. Rubin and Eric Owles from Baghdad, Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Mosul, Samarra and Najaf, and Robert F. Worth from Beirut, Lebanon.

from the Associated Press, 2008-Dec-17, by Robert H. Reid, with contributions by Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sinan Salaheddin:

Iraqi parliament in turmoil over shoe tosser

BAGHDAD — Chaos erupted in Iraq's parliament Wednesday over the jailing of a reporter who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, with lawmakers loyal to a radical anti-American cleric demanding his freedom. The parliament speaker responded by threatening to resign.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for an Iraqi-owned television station based in Cairo, Egypt, had been expected to appear Wednesday before an investigative judge at Iraq's main court as a first step in a complex legal process that could end in a criminal trial.

Instead, the judge visited him in his jail cell and the family was told to return to the court in eight days, according to the journalist's brother, Dhargham al-Zeidi.

"That means my brother was severely beaten and they fear that his appearance could trigger anger at the court," he said.

However, Iraqi officials and another brother have denied that the journalist suffered severe injuries after he was wrestled to the floor when he hurled one shoe and then the other from close range at Bush during a news conference Sunday in Baghdad. Bush deftly ducked out of the way both times.

Al-Zeidi could face two years imprisonment for insulting a foreign leader. When he threw the shoes, he shouted at Bush in Arabic, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

His act of defiance won the obscure television reporter hero status in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world, much of which holds Bush personally responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis since the invasion.

In Pakistan, demonstrators held a candlelight vigil outside the U.S. Consulate in Lahore on Wednesday, carrying photographs of al-Zeidi and hand-painted signs saying things like "Hush, Hush Bush. We Hate You." And on a road in Karachi, a man painted "10" inside a large outline of a foot, with an arrow pointing to "BUSH" — a reference to Bush's joke about the shoe's size.

At a small rally outside the Iraqi Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, the head of a civil servant union displayed a pair of shoes he said he intends to send to al-Zeidi as a show of support.

In Iraq, followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as well as other Shiite and Sunni groups have staged demonstrations for the last three days demanding al-Zeidi's release.

The Sadrists particularly hope to exploit public sympathy for the reporter to regain political momentum they lost after their failure to stop the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which parliament approved last month. The deal allows U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until 2012.

On Wednesday, al-Sadr's supporters in parliament interrupted a session in which lawmakers were to review a resolution calling for all non-U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of June.

Several Sadrist lawmakers interrupted, demanding that the session address al-Zeidi's case and allegations that he had been beaten in custody. A noisy argument broke out after other lawmakers shouted that the case was a matter for the courts, according to Wisam al-Zubaidi, an adviser to Khalid al-Attiyah, parliament's deputy speaker.

With legislators screaming at one another, speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, shouted: "There is no honor in leading this parliament and I announce my resignation."

Al-Mashhadani, who has not taken a public position on al-Zeidi, has a history of eccentric behavior and it was unclear whether the resignation was serious. Two years ago, the Shiite bloc ousted al-Mashhadani after a series of outbursts, but his fellow Sunnis forced his reinstatement.

An official in the speaker's office confirmed al-Mashhadani's announcement but said he was uncertain whether he meant what he said. The official said the speaker may have been made the remark because he was upset. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Even if the speaker follows through, his departure would not effect the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The prime minister was said to have been furious and personally humiliated by the shoe-throwing incident, considering it a breach of Arab rules of hospitality.

In Washington, deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Wednesday the decision about what to do with al-Zeidi is up to the Iraqis.

"Iraq is a democracy, these types of things happen in a democracy," Wood said. "That situation is going to have to work itself through the Iraqi judicial process. It's an Iraqi matter, so it should be left for the Iraqis to deal with."

Nevertheless, the outburst in parliament as well as street demonstrations reflect the passions stirred up by the incident across Iraq, where many people harbor conflicting views of the U.S. presence.

Iraqis are supposed to vote in a referendum next summer about whether to accept the U.S.-Iraq security deal, and the Sadrists hope to use the al-Zeidi case in their campaign against the agreement. The Sadrists want the Americans to leave immediately and without conditions.

Many Iraqis cheered the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein and remain apprehensive about whether Iraq's squabbling politicians can hold the country together after the Americans leave.

But most Iraqis are also fed up with more than five years of what they consider foreign military occupation and the violence — which has been reduced but has not ended.

Clearly, though, al-Zeidi's action, which has been aired repeatedly on Arab satellite television stations, struck a nationalist chord among many Iraqis, who long to take full control of their country. The images were cathartic for many in the Middle East, who have for years felt their own leaders kowtow to the American president.

Thousands have taken to the streets in the days since al-Zeidi's arrest, heralding his actions and calling for his release.

About 1,500 people demonstrated Wednesday in the Baghdad Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah to demand the reporter's release. Al-Zeidi was kidnapped in the same neighborhood last year and was freed unharmed a few days later.

"This is a natural reaction to the American acts of tyranny and occupation in Iraq," said demonstrator Khalil al-Obeidi.

Protesters carried banners denouncing al-Zeidi's arrest, news photos of his lunging forward toward Bush and a cartoon of al-Maliki as a soccer goal keeper trying to catch flying shoes.

from National Review Online, 2008-Oct-14, by Stanly Kurtz:

Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright's anti-Americanism

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

African Village
In the winter of 1996, the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago’s] South Shore (CIESS) announced that it had received a $200,000 grant from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That made CIESS an “external partner,” i.e. a community organization linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation. CIESS’s job was to use a combination of teacher-training, curriculum advice, and community involvement to improve academic performance in the schools it worked with. CIESS would continue to receive large Annenberg grants throughout the 1990s.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric “rites of passage movement,” a fringe education crusade of the 1990s. SSAVC schools featured “African-Centered” curricula built around “rites of passage” ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.

Rites of Passage
To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community,” Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed “to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.”

The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the “cultural nationalist” or “Pan-African” thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,” but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.” For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Jacob Carruthers
Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient “Kemet” (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe that the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization. Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.

Carruthers’s key writings are collected in his book, Intellectual Warfare. Reading it is a wild, anti-American ride. In his book, we learn that Carruthers and his like-minded colleagues have formed an organization called the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC), which takes as its mission the need to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” Carruthers includes “African-Americans” within a group he would define as simply “African.” When forced to describe a black person as “American,” Carruthers uses quotation marks, thus indicating that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “...some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

America as Rape
Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist....” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,” in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.” The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.

More of Carruthers’s education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans’ School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: “These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization.”

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey....” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright’s African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers’s work in Wright’s distinction between “right brained” Africans and “left brained” Europeans, in Wright’s fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright’s embittered attacks on America’s indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers’s own writings, blacks are often referred to as “Africans living in the diaspora” rather than as Americans.

Asa Hilliard
Chicago Annenberg Challenge records also indicate that SSAVC educators invited Asa Hilliard, a pioneer of African-centered curricula and a close colleague of Carruthers, to offer a keynote address at yet another Annenberg-funded teacher training session. Hilliard’s ties to Wright run still deeper than Carruthers’s. A close Wright mentor and friend, Hilliard died in 2007 while on a trip to Kemet (Egypt) with Wright and members of Wright’s congregation. Hillard was scheduled to deliver several lectures to the congregants, and to speak at a meeting of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization, which he co-founded with Carruthers and other “African-centered” scholars. On that last trip, Hilliard accepted an appointment to the board of Wright’s new elementary school, Kwame Nkrumah Academy. Speaking of the need for such a school, Wright had earlier said, “We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy.” (For more on Wright’s Afrocentric school, see “Jeremiah Wright’s ‘Trumpet.’”)

Wright delivered the eulogy at Hilliard’s memorial service, with prominent members of ASCAC in the audience. To commemorate Hilliard, a special, two-cover double issue of Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine was published, with a picture of Hilliard on one side, and a picture of Louis Farrakhan on the other (in celebration of a 2007 award Farrakhan received from Wright). In short, the ties between Wright and Hilliard could hardly have been closer. Clearly, then, Wright’s own educational philosophy was mirrored at the Annenberg-funded SSAVC, which sought out Hilliard’s and Carruthers’s counsel to construct its curriculum.

Perhaps inadvertently, Wright’s eulogy for Hilliard actually established the fringe nature of his favorite African-centered scholars. In his tribute, Wright stressed how intensely “white Egyptologists recoiled at the very notion of everything Asa taught.” As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers.

Ayers’s Pals
An important exception to the rule is Bill Ayers himself, who not only worked with Obama to fund groups like this at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but who is still “palling around” with the same folks. Discretely waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy. The book will be published by Third World Press, a press set up by Carruthers and other members of the ASCAC. Representatives of that press were prominently present for Wright’s eulogy at Asa Hilliard’s memorial service. Less than a decade ago, therefore, when it came to education issues, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright were pretty much on the same page.

Obama’s Knowledge
Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See “No Liberation.”)

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to “rites of passage” and “Ptahhotep,” dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed “Collaborative” to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as “awful.” (See “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years,” p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

from the East Bay Express, 2008-Oct-1, by Chris Thompson:

Cynthia McKinney Drops a Load

Roughly three thousand people attended the Critical Resistance conference at Laney College this weekend, brainstorming how to challenge the "prison industrial complex," end prisoner abuse, and reform the justice system. With 170 workshops and even more speakers, it's perhaps not the fault of the organizers that Cynthia McKinney, the former congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate, opened her big mouth and said something colossally stupid.

What could she have said? We're so glad you asked. At one of the conference panels, McKinney claimed that during Hurricane Katrina, the Pentagon rounded up five thousand prisoners, shot each one in the head, and dumped the bodies in the Louisiana swamp. Here's the video, courtesy of YouTube. For those who like their batshit craziness in text form, we've reproduced her remarks below.

"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I had a woman, I've never really said this in public, out loud, in front of a lot of cameras, and there's a lot of cameras in this room now. But I had a mother call me, because her son had a very gruesome task.

"Her son's charge by the Department of Defense was to process five thousand bodies that had received a single bullet wound to the head. And these were mostly males. And her son was afraid to talk, because he had signed a silence agreement. So he only complained to his mother. But the data about these individuals was entered into a Pentagon computer. And then, reportedly, the bodies were dumped in the swamp in Louisiana. This is the result of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. And I have verification from insiders who wish to remain anonymous, and the Red Cross. This is true.

"I suspect that these were prisoners. So, you know, this investigation of the whole prison industrial complex is extremely important. And it should end with just the nature of prisons in our country, but these five thousand souls also need some justice too."

from the Los Angeles Times, 2008-Sep-3, by Megan K. Stack:

Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S.

Aleksander Dugin, a popular theorist in hard-line circles, advocates an alliance between the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. He says Georgia crisis could be start of a real conflict with U.S.

MOSCOW — Writer, political activist and father figure for contemporary Russian nationalism, Aleksandr Dugin is the founder of Russia's International Eurasian Movement and a popular theorist among Russia's hard-line elite. He envisions a strategic bloc comprising the former Soviet Union and the Middle East to rival the U.S.-dominated Atlantic alliance. The Times interviewed Dugin this week at his Moscow office, a room draped with flags bearing the slogan "Pax Russica." The following are excerpts.

What is your assessment of Russia's place in the world now, and how should Russia be behaving with respect to the West?

First of all, I advocate strongly a multipolar construction of the world. I think that the pretension of the United States to be the unique pole of the world . . . is completely wrong, immoral and unacceptable by the other great centers of power.

We support the creation of great space, a few great spaces, instead of only one point of decision, the United States' decision. We think Russia should be in the vanguard of this process.

We consider -- not only myself, not only I, but our political chiefs -- we consider that in Georgia, [President Mikheil] Saakashvili has committed not only a moral crime, but also he tested what is behind the Russian words, behind the Russian protests against American domination. They wanted to test up to which point is this only words, and what Russia could oppose directly, in concrete acts.

Many in the West believe that Moscow deliberately provoked a confrontation over Georgia's breakaway republics. Who do you believe is responsible for the eruption of armed conflict?

It was too risky for us to begin it. And I think, also, that as long as I have known [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V.] Putin and [President Dmitry] Medvedev, they would like to avoid at any price direct confrontation with the United States.

Their idea was that they should gain the time to prepare Russia to attack or to withstand the possible attack of the United States, and they needed 10 years. The reaction of Putin -- of Putin and Medvedev -- was such as it was only because they considered this an offensive, impossible and unacceptable provocation from the Georgians. And that was a reaction, not a planned strategic offensive. . . . [Putin and Medvedev] were not ready to start by themselves, by their will, such a difficult situation and a difficult war that doesn't seem to end. We political analysts we see that we could start such a war, but we could not end it.

It is very far from the end. It is only the beginning of a real, and maybe very serious, and very dangerous for all of the sides, confrontation between us and Americans.

What was the strategic purpose in recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Russia is, so far, completely alone in the recognition.

First of all, by this step Russia confirmed its will to go until the end in this conflict. . . . It was a kind of demonstration of our serious and profound will to continue.

Second, we needed, and now we have gotten, juridical explication of what our armed forces were doing on the Georgian territory. Now it is more or less clear. . . .

Regarding recognition, I think that if Russia will stay in this confrontation, if Russia will continue this demonstration of the firm decision and power, the other countries will, little by little, step by step, join the attitude toward South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

It is not the rule that from now on we will recognize all the separatist regions. Absolutely no. We will recognize those separatists' regions that would be geopolitically on our side -- either on our side or on our friends' -- and opposed to the United States.

The United States showed us this double morality. They recognized pro-American Kosovo and don't recognize anti-American, pro-Russian South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They don't recognize the integrity of Serbia, but they recognize the integrity of Georgia.

How does Russia view the development of friendly relations between the United States and former Soviet republics such as Ukraine and Georgia?

As a declaration of war. As a declaration of psychological, geopolitical, economic and open war.

Putin was pro-Western at the beginning. He was pro-American. That was the reason of our criticism of his conduct. For example, after Sept. 11 we were against his help to United States and his steps toward United States.

But little by little, he was confronted with the complete neglect of all Russian interests. With these neoconservatives, with Richard Perle or Dick Cheney, we always were helping. "We will sign here, it is so."

Step by step, with the economy and the trade of energy resources, we finally found the force and the will to respond against this war. Because this war was not desired by us. It was a challenge. It was imposed on us by the United States.

We consider that all of the post-Soviet space -- except the Baltic states -- we are dealing with Eurasian civilization. Not with European, not with the West. And to try to get these spaces out of our control, or out of our dialogue, or out of our special relations with them, based on history -- it was a kind of attack, a declaration of war. It is not, as Americans like to put it, a competition. . . . It was perceived to be not a competition but an act of aggression, as Napoleon or Hitler, and nothing else.

When Russia faced a separatist movement in Chechnya, it reacted with a large-scale military attack and an air assault that turned [the Chechen capital of] Grozny to rubble. Yet Moscow has been quick to criticize [the Georgian capital of] Tbilisi for launching a military operation in its breakaway republic. Isn't there a double standard at work here?

Yes. Yes. . . . It was reaction to a double standard by a double standard. I agree.

If it's going to be a reaction to a double standard with another double standard, where does the cycle end?

The United States behaves as a unique pole that could define what is good and what is bad. . . . It will never end if something would not say, "stop it." . . . So we should demonstrate, stop it or you will repent. Maybe we also will repent, but you will repent. Stop it.

You have been banned from visiting Ukraine. Do you believe that Ukraine will join NATO, and if so, how will Russia react?

I think that most of the population of Ukraine doesn't want to come into NATO. The majority of the population, after the Georgian case more than before, wants to have a good relationship with Russia. Entrance to NATO will signify complete abolishment of any kind of relationship, and real, hard confrontation.

Half the Ukrainian population consider themselves to be Russian -- politically, geopolitically, culturally, ethnically and so on.

We could not conserve Ukraine without either a split or a compromise between two parts.

President [Viktor] Yushchenko hollered to put me out of Ukraine and to prohibit me from entering in this state. I think it is his right. It's a sovereign state. . . . But I think by doing so he diminished his respect for different kinds of Ukrainian people. Because, you know, my ideas are very popular in eastern Ukraine and Crimea and there are many, many hundreds of thousands of people who are supporters of the Eurasian movement there.

If Ukraine were to move into NATO, what do you think the Russian reaction would be?

I think that Russian reaction would be to support an uprising in eastern parts and Crimea and I could not exclude the entrance of armed force there, as in the Ossetian scenario.

But the difference is that half of the Ukrainian population is Russian, is directly Russian, and this half of the population regards itself as being oppressed by the values, by the language, by the geopolitical issues, completely against their will. So I don't think that, in this case, direct intervention of Russian armed force will be needed. I think on the eve of the entrance into NATO there will be public riots and the split of Ukraine into two parts.

What do you think would happen if Ukraine were to push Russia's Black Sea Fleet out of [the Ukrainian port of] Sevastopol?

I think it could be armed conflict there, because now we feel ourselves at ease, more or less.

We are ready to continue in Georgia. But at the same time, we haven't finished in Georgia. It's far from the end, the situation there. We need Saakashvili's head. We consider him to be an aggressor and author of war crimes.

Morally, I think our army and our political leaders are completely prepared to play hard, to play tough with the Ukrainian leader because we consider him to be an accomplice of Saakashvili.

You have spoken of Iran as an alternative to American power. Are you still thinking of Tehran in this light?

I think that Iran should and could be an ally of Russia. . . . Working with Iran, exchanging weapons and the possibility of resources and the base to transport natural resources from Eurasia and Iran, to combine our efforts in strategy, military, economy and energy -- we could create a real force to influence the whole Middle East. . . .

With Iranians we have common interests . . . because I consider that to stop American unipolarity is the most important thing, the absolute thing. . . . These parties, these pro-Westerners here in the Russian government, they insisted that Iran, being fundamentalist, could at some time aggress us. But . . . that was a kind of propaganda against Iranians made by pro-American, pro-Western forces in Moscow.

Your views on Vladimir Putin have fluctuated.

I appreciated very much his concrete steps to reinforce political order in Russia, his steps to get away the oligarchs, to diminish influence of Westerners and to save Russian territorial unity in the Chechnya situation.

But also I saw that he was encircled by pro-Western, pro-liberal politicians and advisors and experts . . . and that was main reason for my criticism toward him.

But I think that now, after [Russia's military intervention in Georgia on] Aug. 8, Putin and Medvedev have passed the irreversible point. They have shown that the will and the decision to put the words into practice are in fact irreversible. So my support to Putin and Medvedev is now absolute.

I was deceived by these circles. But at the same time, maybe the West also was deceived by them.

And by Medvedev, also! Because I considered Medvedev to be the revenge of the liberals, and I protested. I think Washington and Brussels also saw the same and we were all deceived. Medvedev proved to be a real hard-core Russian patriot and statesman. So I admire such deception -- even if I was also the victim.

Is Moscow overplaying its hand? Many analysts question whether Russia has the military strength and economic stability to risk isolation.

Russia will be not isolated -- not from Europe nor from Asia. From the United States, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything for us.

from the Christian Science Monitor, 2008-Sep-19, by Fred Weir:

Moscow's moves in Georgia track a script by right-wing prophet
Is Alexander Dugin really the new sage of the Kremlin?

Moscow - In the 1990s, few listened to Alexander Dugin.

But this shaggy-bearded ultranationalist has come a long way from those days as a lonely pamphleteer. Then, amid the ruins of the Soviet Union, he forecast that Russia's inevitable return to great power status would be via Georgia.

Once derided by Russia's pro-Western elites, Mr. Dugin now looks like a geopolitical prophet. And he apparently has the Kremlin's ear.

His books championed the view that Russia's efforts to integrate with the global community were doomed to be swept away by fresh waves of conflict between Moscow and Washington over control of Georgia, Ukraine, and the ex-Soviet states of Central Asia.

This summer's lightning war with Georgia and the emerging political crisis in next door Ukraine are happening right on Dugin's schedule. President Dmitry Medvedev's recent foreign-policy manifesto, outlining Russia's claim to its own sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, might have been penned by Dugin.

For the near future, Dugin prophesies more regional conflicts, including possible civil war in Ukraine, and an intensifying US-Russian confrontation that could even erupt in war. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected to add fuel to that view in a tough speech Thursday that, according to excerpts, criticizes Russia's "aggressive" actions that are leading to isolation rather than a renewed prominence on the world stage.

But Dugin says Moscow will create a new Russian empire over much of former Soviet territory. "There is a struggle by the US and its allies to encircle Russia, place NATO bases all around us, and force us to submit to the logic of a unipolar world," says Dugin, the leather-jacketed professor of sociology during an interview at Moscow State University. "The Americans are openly following the main law of geopolitics: whoever controls Eurasia, controls the world. It's a war against us, open war.... I was a voice in the wilderness about this a few years ago, but now it's the view of our political leaders and the majority of the population."

These days Dugin seems to be everywhere, with regular newspaper columns, frequent appearances on TV public affairs shows, and his own radio program on the state-run FM-107 station in Moscow.

He counts many top officials, policy-makers, bankers, and businessmen as belonging to his 30,000-member International Eurasian Movement, and claims his ideas have been adopted on a practical level by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Mr. Medvedev because they offer a logical explanation for why Russia failed to find open doors or concern for its interests when it tried to join the West after the Soviet collapse.

"Putin started out as a pro-Western liberal, but step by step he moved closer to Eurasian ideas," he says. "I know people who are very close to Putin, and it's clear to me that his views have evolved as he came to understand that Western pressure against us is rooted in age-old hatred of Russia. Medvedev and Putin now are turning to the Eurasianists" for answers, he adds.

Eurasianists say their sphere of influence includes the Middle East. Eurasia, Dugin says, is the cradle of human culture and civilization. Russia is, and always has been, the crucial bridge between East and West, between Asia and Europe.

Critics of Dugin argue that he is a self-promoter who's seized upon a superficial coincidence between his deeply anti-Western philosophy and a recent spate of friction between Russia and the West.

"It's a vast exaggeration to suggest that Dugin is the ideologue behind today's Kremlin leaders," says Masha Lipman, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "Admittedly, he's been reasonably prominent lately and, apparently, there are people with money and clout among his supporters. But Dugin is vehemently anti-Western, while Putin and Medvedev never forget to refer to the Western world as Russia's partners. None of Russia's leaders wants a new cold war."

In a nutshell, Dugin's philosophy holds that Russia is a "special geopolitical formation" that is fundamentally different from the West and therefore fated to fight for its own separate space. "Russian values hold that justice is more important than freedom, that the collective is more important than the individual," he says. "Russia is not a country, it's a civilization."

The West, particularly the US, believes its system is suitable for everyone, leading to a drive for hegemony, he argues. "If Americans identify their values as universal ones, they become our enemies," he says. "Americans think their victory over us in the early 1990s was irreversible and final. They will not accept that they were wrong without some dramatic events, such as wars."

Russia must build alliances with like-thinking nations, such as China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and others who oppose US hegemony, he says. "Russia badly needs allies. The US won't let the multipolar world be born without struggle; there will be dramatic collisions."

He says the Russian military's longer reach these days, including the November Caribbean war games between a Russian naval task force and Venezuelan warships, is something he has long advocated.

"If the US insists on encircling Russia, why shouldn't we put our bases in Latin America?" he says. "What we want is a Monroe Doctrine for Eurasia. If the US recognizes our sphere of influence, then we could recognize theirs."

The coming battle will be in Ukraine, he says, where pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko looks increasingly beleaguered in his efforts to lead his country into NATO. Dugin says that if Ukraine pledges neutrality and normalizes its relations with Moscow, the issue can be settled peacefully. Otherwise, "there could be civil war, mass disturbances, and Ukraine could break up," he says. In time, "Russia will create a supernational state" to absorb pro-Moscow territories such as Belarus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, eastern Ukraine and possibly large tracts of ex-Soviet Central Asia, Dugin says.

This goes beyond anything Russia's pragmatic leaders, Putin and Medvedev, are contemplating, insist the critics. "People in the Kremlin are scared of Dugin; they think he's dangerous," says Boris Kagarlitsky, director of the Institute for Globalization and Social Movements in Moscow. "The strategy offered by Dugin is a formula for disaster. Russia needs to do everything it can to avoid isolation, and that means not behaving like a great power.... The Eurasianist way is to promote confrontation, ratchet up the jingoist propaganda, and take over power in the country. If that happens, Russia is finished."

from the Weekly Standard, 2007-Sep-11, by Joseph Loconte:

Why They Hate Us
It's because of our freedom.

LAST WEEK WE LEARNED of another "massive" terrorist plot against American targets, this time thwarted by German authorities, Osama bin Laden has just released another cryptic video threat against the United States, and, six years since the events of 9/11, still we ask: why do they hate us?

Critics of U.S. foreign policy can cite many reasons for Islamist rage. But they overlook a more fundamental problem: To al Qaeda and its sympathizers, nothing is more deserving of contempt than the idea of faith as a free and rational choice--a concept more integral to American identity than any other Western democracy.

When Osama bin Laden excoriates the United States as "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind," he has more than America's foreign policy in mind. To violent theocrats, it is not merely the content of contested doctrines that is offensive--it is their very existence. The United States, historically a nation of religious dissenters, is especially odious for this very reason.

Indeed, to the theocrats America's religious diversity is not just staggering but maddening: a Tower of Babel that has turned its spiritual infidelity into an art form. Even Mohammad Khatami, the former Iranian president hailed as a moderate, complains bitterly that Americans "try to disguise their crimes" with seductive rhetoric--the language of freedom, human rights, and pluralism.

Thus, Islamic extremists decry the spiritual corruption of the American "Crusaders" and vow a holy war reminiscent of Saladin's siege of Jerusalem, circa 1187. It does not occur to them that no Western nation has more emphatically rejected Medieval Christendom, with its faith-based repression and hypocrisy, than the United States. By keeping government out of the sanctuary--and priestcraft out of government--the U.S. Constitution has helped protect the integrity of all faith traditions.
America's Founders warned repeatedly of the "superstition, bigotry and persecution" generated by state-sanctioned religion. But they were not secularists, nor were they cynical about religious belief. Rather, they viewed "soul liberty" as a natural right--and a spiritual obligation. "It is unalienable also," argued James Madison, "because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator." Their great accomplishment was convincing establishment elites that religious pluralism could nurture political and economic prosperity, just as intolerance guaranteed decline.

Compare these religious ideals to those held by numerous Muslim states--including Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan--with deep wells of anti-Americanism. All sustain a political culture that regards non-Muslims with dark suspicion. All have enshrined some version of Shari'a law, which criminalizes or severely restricts speech, worship, and free association of religious minorities. All have spawned terrorist activity against the United States and her allies. And all struggle with massive economic disparities and civic unrest.

Some Islamic leaders are slowly awakening to the problem. A few years ago a group of Muslim intellectuals and scholars, in a remarkable series of U.N.-sponsored reports, explored the causes of economic backwardness and political turmoil in the Arab world. They identified "an acute deficit of freedom" as the core problem. They even argued that Islamic governments should "protect the right of people and groups not only to worship as they wish, in private; but also to promote their values publicly in civil society."
But even these voices of moderation failed to endorse a robust doctrine of religious freedom. They have yet to grasp the quiet genius of the American experiment: the transformative and creative power of faith freely chosen. If authentic belief engages the mind as well as the heart, then the best human faculties--empathy, humility, reason, and conscience--must be summoned in its pursuit.

We must not forget, however, that the road to religious liberty in the West was long and arduous. When, in the 1680s, John Locke published his bracing defense of religious freedom, A Letter Concerning Toleration, the political and religious establishment went ballistic. For Locke, neither church nor state could compel belief because faith demanded the "inward and full persuasion of the mind." But Anglican ministers, like their Catholic counterparts, viewed freedom of conscience as a subversive heresy, a license for libertinism. They hounded Locke--and thousands of dissenters like him--as a "locust from the pit of hell."

Why do they hate us? For some of the same reasons an earlier generation of Pharisees despised Locke. Their religion has become a cloak for their lust to dominate. "No man can be a Christian without charity," Locke insisted, "and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love." James Madison, a great student of Locke, warned that state-run religion "shackles and debilitates the mind" and "unfits it for every noble enterprise."

It seems that the freedom deficit in the Islamic world not only has inflamed the Muslim mind. It has rendered many minds devoid of charity, and made them unfit for the faith to recognize what is noble, decent and humane--the only kind of faith worth having.

Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a monthly commentator on religion for National Public Radio. He is the editor of The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm.

from the Christian Science Monitor, 2008-Sep-25, by Jane Lampman:

Ahmadinejad to dinner? Furor ensues over religious groups' event.

The Iranian leader's appearance at an interfaith iftar meal, expected Thursday, divides the faith community.

To talk or not to talk. That's the debate roiling diplomats regarding US relations with Iran. Now that debate has spilled, with all its fervor, into the arena of interfaith dialogue.

Religious organizations dedicated to global bridge-building and peacemaking are under fire for cosponsoring an interfaith iftar dinner Thursday evening that includes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The Iranian leader is in New York to speak at the United Nations.

The religious groups see the event as part of a multifaith collaboration on issues of shared concern.

"There's been background work spanning years with the previous reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, which goes on regardless of the vicissitudes of political leadership," says William Vendley, secretary-general of Religions for Peace USA, part of a 30-year-old global body.

Other organizations see the dinner, coming as Iran seems to be thumbing its nose at faiths other than Islam, as giving legitimacy and stature to someone who should be viewed as an international pariah.

Conservative and Jewish groups outraged about the iftar point to Mr. Ahmadinejad's nuclear stonewalling, threats against Israel, and questioning of the Holocaust. Last week, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent body advising the president and Congress, raised a religious freedom issue.

Iran is in the process of legally enshrining the death penalty for apostasy in its penal code, USCIRF said in a statement calling on governments to speak out. If the code is finalized, some members of many religious minorities could be subject to death sentences.

"The oppression of religions in Iran has been extensive, but the situation is more ominous now than in the past," says Felice Gaer, a human rights expert and USCIRF chair, in an interview.

The dinner is billed as an international dialogue on the subject: "Has not one God created us? The significance of religious contributions to peace."

It will be the fourth meeting of Iranian religious and political figures with representatives of the Mennonite Central Committee, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the World Council of Churches, and Religions for Peace.

The Mennonites and Quakers, among the so-called peace churches, see the interaction as particularly important given the lack of relations at the political level.

"There are many points where we disagree with Iranian policy," says Mark Graham, AFSC spokesman. "We believe dialogue is the way to understanding and moving past tensions rather than threats and standoffish behavior."

Along with the iftar meal at the Grand Hyatt New York, which breaks the daily fast of Ramadan, the evening will involve presentations by five leaders of various faiths and Ahmadinejad. Organizers say some difficult questions from participants are likely.

"What we will never cease doing is being absolutely forthright and direct; one goes into discourse intentionally looking for appropriate opportunities to clarify concerns that are deeply felt," Dr. Vendley says. At the same time, the gathering is "not pitched to deal with the catalog of extraordinarily controversial issues that are in the forefront of people's minds."

Critics say the dinner should not be held at all and that the religious groups are allowing themselves to be used. Conservative and Jewish groups have organized an interfaith protest rally outside the hotel. Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is expected to join the rally.

USCIRF sent a letter to the religious sponsors calling the dinner "counterproductive" and asking them to cancel it or drop their sponsorship. "I participated in a meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad when the Council on Foreign Relations met with him," Ms. Gaer says. "He really manipulates the veneer of being for peace, religion, and human rights in a way that is disgraceful.

"I am a great supporter and advocate of engagement," she adds. "But you have to have somebody to engage with, and there has to be some sincerity. He laughs when you mention any problem situation and responds to questions with a question.... It's a hypocritical exercise."

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Jun-23, p.A17, by Fouad Ajami:

Anti-Americanism Is Mostly Hype

So America is unloved in Istanbul and Cairo and Karachi: It is an annual ritual, the June release of the Pew global attitudes survey and the laments over the erosion of America's standing in foreign lands.

We were once loved in Anatolia, but now a mere 12% of Turks have a "favorable view" of the U.S. Only 22% of Egyptians think well of us. Pakistan is crucial to the war on terror, but we can only count on the goodwill of 19% of Pakistanis.

American liberalism is heavily invested in this narrative of U.S. isolation. The Shiites have their annual ritual of 10 days of self-flagellation and penance, but this liberal narrative is ceaseless: The world once loved us, and all Parisians were Americans after 9/11, but thanks to President Bush we have squandered that sympathy.

It is an old trick, the use of foreign narrators and witnesses to speak of one's home. Montesquieu gave the genre its timeless rendition in his Persian Letters, published in 1721. No one was fooled, these were Parisian letters, and the Persian travelers, Rica and Usbek, mere stand-ins for an author taking stock of his homeland after the death of Louis XIV and the coming of an age of enlightenment and skepticism.

"This King is a great magician. He exerts authority even over the minds of his subjects; he makes them think what he wants," Rica writes from Paris. "You must not be amazed at what I tell you about this prince: there is another magician, stronger than he. This magician is called the Pope. He will make the King believe that three are only one, or else that the bread one eats is not bread, or that the wine one drinks is not wine, and a thousand other things of the same kind." Handy witnesses, these Persians.

The Pew survey tells us that some foreign precincts show a landslide victory for Barack Obama. France leads the pack; fully 84% of those following the American campaign are confident Mr. Obama will do the right thing in foreign policy, compared with 33% who say that about John McCain. There are similar results in Germany, and a closer margin in Britain. The populations of Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan have scant if any confidence in either candidate.

The deference of American liberal opinion to the coffeehouses of Istanbul and Amman and Karachi is nothing less than astounding. You would not know from these surveys, of course, that anti-Americanism runs deep in the French intellectual scene, and that French thought about the great power across the Atlantic has long been a jumble of envy and condescension. In the fabled years of the Clinton presidency, long before Guantanamo, the torture narrative and the war in Iraq, American pension funds were, in the French telling, raiding their assets, bringing to their homeland dreaded Anglo-Saxon economics, and the merciless winds of mondialisation (globalization).

I grew up in the Arab world in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and anti-Americanism was the standard political language – even for those pining for American visas and green cards. Precious few took this seriously. The attraction to the glamorous, distant society was too strong in the Beirut of my boyhood.

It is no different today in Egypt or Pakistan. And what people tell pollsters who turn up in their midst with their clipboards? In Hosni Mubarak's tyranny, anti-Americanism is the permissible safety valve for Egyptians unable to speak of their despot. We stand between Pharaoh and his frustrated people, and the Egyptians railing against America are giving voice to the disappointment that runs through their life and culture. Scapegoating and anti-Americanism are a substitute for a sober assessment of what ails that old, burdened country.

Nor should we listen too closely to the anti-American hysteria that now grips Turkey. That country was once a serious, earnest land. It knew its place in the world as a bridge between Europe and Islam. But of late it has become the "torn country" that the celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington said it was, its very identity fought over between the old Kemalist elites and the new Islamists.

No Turkish malady is caused by America, and no cure can come courtesy of the Americans. The Turks giving vent to anti-Americanism are doing a parody of Europe: They were led to believe that the Europe spurning them, and turning down their membership in its club, is given to anti-Americanism, so they took to the same fad. Turkish anti-Americanism is no doubt fueled by the resentment within Turkey of the American war in Iraq that gave protection and liberty to the Kurds. No apology is owed the Turks; indeed, it is they who must reconsider their intolerance of minorities. If the Turks were comfortable with the abnormality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it is they who have a problem.

And if there is enthusiasm for Barack Obama on foreign shores, his rise to fame and power must be a tribute to the land that has made this possible. Where else would a boy of marginality and relative poverty find his way to the peak of political life? Certainly not in his father's Kenya, where the tribal origins of the Obamas would have determined young Barack's life-chances. In an Arab world hemmed in by pedigree, where rulers bequeath power to their sons and the lot of the sons is invariably that of the fathers, the tale of Obama is fantasy.

There are lines, and barriers, of race which bedevil Arab lands, and they will be there awaiting a President Obama should he prevail in November. Consider a recent speech by Libya's erratic ruler, Moammar Gadhafi, to his countrymen.

He said he feared that Mr. Obama, as a "black man," might succumb to an "inferiority complex" if he were to come to power. "This is a great menace because Obama might turn out to be more white than the whites, exaggerating his persecution and disdain of blacks. The statements of our Kenyan brother with an American nationality about Jerusalem, and his support for Israelis, and his slighting of the Palestinian people is either a measure of his ignorance of international politics or a lie perpetrated on the Jews in the course of an election campaign."

There is no need to roam distant lands in search of indictments of America's ways. Tales of our demise appear every day in our media. Yes, it is not perfect, this republic of ours. But the possibilities for emancipation and self-improvement it affords are unmatched in other lands.

Meanwhile, a maligned American president now returns from a Europe at peace with American leadership. In France, Germany and Italy, center-right governments are eager to proclaim their identification with American power. Jacques Chirac is gone. Now there is Nicolas Sarkozy, who offered a poetic tribute last November to the American soldiers who fell on French soil, before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. "The children of my generation," he said, "understood that those 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."

The great battle over the Iraq war has subsided, and Europeans who ponder the burning grounds of the Islamic world know the distinction between fashionable anti-Americanism and the international order underpinned by American power. George W. Bush may have been indifferent to political protocol, but he held the line when it truly mattered, and the Europeans have come to understand that appeasement of dictators and brigands begets its own troubles.

It is one thing to rail against the Pax Americana. But after the pollsters are gone, the truth of our contemporary order of states endures. We live in a world held by American power – and benevolence. Nothing prettier, or more just, looms over the horizon.

Mr. Ajami, a Bradley Prize recipient, teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2006).

from the Washington Post, 2008-Jul-11, by Perry Bacon Jr.:

"It's Embarrassing" to Speak Only English, Says Obama

DAYTON, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama wishes he spoke Spanish -- or some other language.

"I said something the other day down in Georgia, and the Republicans jumped on this. I said, you know, absolutely immigrants need to learn English, but we also need to learn foreign languages," he said here Friday. "...I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!"

While campaigning in Georgia earlier in the week, the Illinois senator had called for Americans to learn more foreign languages.

"It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German," he had said. "And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.'"

Conservatives ridiculed Obama for the remark, but the senator seemed eager to defend it here, as the question he was asked was about the No Child Left Behind education law.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Jul-3, p.A11, by Thomas F. Madden:

America's Days Aren't Numbered

I have a simple request. As we celebrate the birth of the American Republic, can we all stop predicting its death? It's getting depressing.

The last time I strolled through the local Barnes & Noble, there were so many books announcing the end of American power, wealth, influence, or just America itself, that I began to wonder whether my dollars would be worth anything by the time I hit the checkout counter.

First there was Patrick Buchanan ("Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart"), who told me "we are on a path to national suicide." Then Chalmers Johnson ("Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic") stopped me near the coffee shop to say that the "extinction that befell our former fellow 'superpower,' the Soviet Union . . . is probably by now unavoidable." And don't even get me started on Naomi Wolf ("The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot").

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I dare you – I double-dare you! – to find a recent book on America's future that does not predict a coming collapse. The causes are legion: a power-hungry president, domestic spying, military overreach, a faltering economy, an energy crisis, too much diversity, too little diversity, wars that are both pre-emptive and endless.

Even the optimists, like Fareed Zakaria ("The Post-American World"), tell us that the rest of the planet is rising and America had better get out of the way.

As a historian, I find this trend fascinating. After all, since humans climbed out of the trees and began surveying the lion-infested Savannah, none have ever lived in a period more prosperous, secure and stable than Americans do today. The U.S. is not only the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth now, but in all of history. There's never been a better time and place to be alive than America in the 21st century.

So why all the decline theorists?

Here's my theory: Prosperity and security are boring. Nobody wants to read about them. The same phenomenon occurred in ancient Rome, the last state to acquire such a firm hegemony. By the second century B.C., Roman citizens were affluent and their empire no longer had any serious rivals. With the dangers past and the money rolling in, they developed a taste for jeremiads. If you had a stylus, ink and scroll you could hardly go broke telling the Romans their empire, culture and way of life were yesterday's news.

Polybius blamed pandering politicians, who, he predicted, would transform the noble Republic into mob rule. Sallust claimed that Rome's vicious political parties had "torn the Republic asunder." Livy wrote his entire "History of Rome" just so that his fellow citizens could "follow the decay of the national character . . . until it reaches these days in which we can bear neither our diseases nor their remedies."

The Romans may have been unquestioned masters of their world, but they sure didn't like reading about it. And when the empire actually did start its decline in the third century A.D., criticisms and predictions of collapse became noticeably thinner on the ground.

The military dictators who seized power in Rome and led the empire on its downward spiral did not much like reading about their own shortcomings, and they had ways of making sure that they didn't have to. These were the days of the panegyric – an obsequious form of literature that praised the emperor and empire to the skies. When you start seeing those, it's time to worry.

Of course America could be falling, but I have my doubts. For one thing, the book market is too strong. So, on this Fourth of July, I am going to watch the fireworks and be grateful for the place and time in which I live. When Polybius, Sallust and Livy wrote their books the Roman state still had more than a millennium of life in it. Perhaps ours does too.

Mr. Madden, a professor of history at Saint Louis University, is the author, most recently, of "Empires of Trust: How Rome Built – And America Is Building – A New World," out this month by Dutton.

from Tribune Media Services via the Tallahassee Democrat, 2008-Jun-6, by Victor Davis Hanson:

Re-examining the guilty party in WWII

Questioning the past is a good thing, but rewriting it contrary to facts is quite another. In the latest round of revisionism about the Second World War, the awful British and naive Americans, not the poor Germans, have ended up as the real culprits.

Take the new book by conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War': How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World." Buchanan argues that, had the imperialist Winston Churchill not pushed poor Hitler into a corner, he would have never invaded Poland in 1939, which triggered an unnecessary Allied response.

Taking that faulty argument to its logical end, I suppose today a united West might live in peace with a reformed (and victorious) Nazi Third Reich!

On the left, the novelist Nicholson Baker in a book of nonfiction, "Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization," builds the case that the Allied bombing of German cities was tantamount to a war crime.

Apparently there was no need to, in blanket fashion, attack German urban centers and the industry, transportation and communications concentrated inside them. From Baker's comfortable vantage point, either the war was amoral or unnecessary — or there must have been more humane ways to stop the flow of fuel, crews and equipment for the Waffen SS divisions that invaded Europe and Russia.

In the luxury of some 60 years of postwar peace and affluence, Buchanan and Baker and other revisionists engage in a common sort of Western second-guessing. The result is that they always demand liberal democracies be not just better and smarter than their adversaries, but almost superhuman in their perfection.

Buchanan and others, for example, fault the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I as too harsh on a defeated Germany and thus an understandable pretext for the rise of the Nazis, who played on German anger and fear.

Those accords may have been flawed, but they were far better than what Germany itself had offered France in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War, or Russia after its collapse in 1917 — or what it had planned for Britain and France had it won the First World War. What ultimately led to World War II was neither Allied meanness to Germany between the two wars nor an unwillingness to understand the Nazis' pain and anguish.

The mistake instead was not occupying all of imperial Germany after the first war in 1918-19. That way, the Allies would have demonstrated to the German people that their army was never "stabbed in the back" at home, as the Nazis later alleged, but instead defeated by an Allied army that was willing to stay on to foster German constitutional government and its reintegration within Europe. The Allies later did occupy Germany after World War II — and 60 years without war have followed.

Had Nicholson Baker been alive in 1942, I doubt he would have had better ideas of how to stop the Nazi and Japanese juggernauts that had ruined Eastern Europe, Russia and large parts of China and southeast Asia other than using the same clumsy tools our grandfathers were forced to employ to end fascist aggression.

Our soldiers were worried that they had few options available to stop Nazi Germany and imperial Japan — other than their own innate courage. The dead in our cemeteries over here in Europe never bragged that they were eagerly fighting the "good" war, but rather only reluctantly finishing a necessary one that someone else had started.

They and those who sent them into the carnage of World War II knew Americans could do good without having to be perfect. In contrast, the present critics of the Allied cause enjoy the freedom and affluence that our forefathers gave us by fighting World War II while ignoring — or faulting — the intelligence and resolve that won it.

Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once scoffed at the peacetime wisdom of postwar critics that came across as mass-produced, feel-good "bottled piety." Others might call it ingratitude.

from the Ottawa Citizen, 2008-May-27, by Andrew Cohen

Still a necessary war

WEIMAR, Germany - If there were a seat of the German Enlightenment, a byword for the highest expression of artistic and intellectual achievement, it is this romantic city in the heart of Thuringia.

But when it came to creating Buchenwald, one of the worst of the concentration camps, the Nazis saw no irony in placing it in the folds of these soft wooded hills, where it looks down on Weimar. It is an absurdity worthy of Camus, these poles of humanity mocking each other through the forest.

The journey between the two along "Blood Road" takes minutes and covers centuries. Above the perfumed salons of Goethe and Schiller are the rancid cells of Ernst Thälmann and Rudolf Breitscheid and a legion of democrats, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews. Some 54,000 died here between 1937 and 1945.

That juxtaposition resounds in your head like a low, guttural wail when you read Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. It is the dreadful new book by Nicholson Baker, the American novelist, who says that the Second World War wasn't "the good war" of South Pacific. To him, the rapacious, capitalist belligerents of the Anglo-American world were as responsible as the Nazis for history's greatest conflagration.

It would be nice to dismiss Mr. Baker as a crackpot. The trouble is he is an avant-garde, unorthodox thinker whose best-selling book has drawn respectful reviews in respectable places. Ridiculous as Human Smoke may be, it is seen as a credible critique.

Mr. Baker argues that the pacifists who opposed the war were right, because entering it "helped" no one. Franklin Roosevelt was an aristocrat and anti-Semite who provoked the Japanese, he says. Winston Churchill was a vengeful, inebriated imperialist in love with war and, like FDR, in thrall to the arms makers.

The Allies did bad things: we turned away Jewish refugees, interned ethnic Germans and Japanese, suppressed anti-war sentiment, bombed Dresden and Hamburg but spared Auschwitz, developed chemical weapons, dropped the atomic bomb.

It's quite an indictment, made in pithy vignettes torn from newspapers, journals and memoirs that Mr. Baker presents with an air of objectivity. After awhile, you begin to believe it.

Many have. The Los Angeles Times says that Human Smoke shows the war "was one of the biggest, most carefully plotted lies in modern history." The Sunday New York Times calls it "a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate on pacifism." A writer for the Times went to Maine to interview Mr. Baker and helped him return hundreds of library books, as if reading alone gave him legitimacy.

Oh, how wrong we were. We thought Churchill a Cicero and Caesar who rallied Britain and saved it. We thought Franklin Roosevelt a wily liberal who led isolationist America to war and won it. We thought Hitler a racist and a monster who started it. We thought this a necessary war. Oh, our naïveté.

It took a novelist to set things straight. Which is our first problem. We take him seriously. We know so little history in our lazy, wooly-mindedness (elsewhere, Mr. Baker rhapsodizes over the wonders of Wikipedia) that we fall for this kind of tripe. This is what happens when the age of ignorance meets the age of the amateur.

Poor Mr. Baker. He repeats old saws, bromides, half-truths and falsehoods debunked long ago by real historians. He puts Joseph Goebbels and Eleanor Roosevelt on the same moral scale. He plays historian without Clio's tools of nuance, interpretation and ambiguity.

So, what we were supposed to do in the Second World War was turn away. Stay out. Stay home. Talk to Uncle Adolf.

It seems hopeless to argue the folly of "moral equivalence" or to concede that the Allies were sometimes immoral. Of course we were, as was Lincoln when he told General Sherman that the only way to break the Confederacy was to lay waste to it.

Against Hitler, there could be no accommodation. When the world's moral moorings came loose, the only way to end the war was to win it. Any way we could. And then to be generous in victory. Which we were.

Spare us this poseur. Had Hitler won, all Europe (not half) would have entered Churchill's "new dark age" of genocide, slavery and totalitarianism. It would have been a world of such unspeakable horror that Mr. Baker and his fraternity of useful idiots (like author Patrick Buchanan) would not have lasted five minutes.

A word of advice to Mr. Baker: visit the cemeteries and battlefields of Europe and consider what happened here. Then fall upon your knees and thank God for Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and the millions of conscientious souls who saved our awful, imperfect world.

And then, if you're still in doubt, Mr. Baker, come to Buchenwald.

Andrew Cohen is Visiting Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Jul-5, p.A10:

Iraq's Oil Surge

Here's a thought experiment: Assume that Iraq's democratic government declared it was nationalizing its oil industry, a la Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, while excluding American companies from the country. How do you think U.S. politicians would react? With angry cries of "ingratitude" and "this is what Americans died for"?

Of course they would, led no doubt by that critic for all reasons, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. So it is passing strange that Mr. Schumer and other Senators are now assailing Iraq precisely because it is opening up to foreign oil companies, especially to U.S. majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. For some American pols, everything that happens in Iraq is bad news, especially when it's good news for the U.S.

Iraq announced this week that it is inviting global competition to develop its major oil reserves, with 35 oil companies invited to bid. By tapping outside capital and expertise, Iraq hopes to increase production by 60%, providing a much-needed boost to its own coffers and the world's tight oil supply.

This is welcome news. With elections looming later this year and next, the temptation for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government must have been to play the nationalist card – the way that Mr. Schumer did against Dubai Ports World's proposed U.S. investment in 2006 (see, for instance, "Ports of Gall"). Many Iraqis remain suspicious of outside oil companies – the legacy of a colonial past in which Iraq felt exploited for its oil.

Instead, Iraq chose competitive bidding that will bring in the best expertise to exploit its national resource. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani is predicting that, with outside help, Iraq could become the second or third largest oil-producing country in the world. Today it produces about 2.5 million barrels a day, compared to 11 million for the world-leading Saudis. Foreign companies will be required to have an Iraqi partner, and to hire Iraqis, while most oil revenues will still flow to the Iraqi people.

What seems to irk Mr. Schumer – and running mates John Kerry and Missouri's Claire McCaskill – is Iraq's decision to sign shorter-term, no-bid service contracts with Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total and Chevron. Most of these firms had extensive experience in Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein's nationalization, and were chosen because their knowledge will help Iraq boost near-term production. The contracts will run no more than two years, and all five firms have spent the past three years providing training, analysis and advice to Iraq – free of charge.

The Democrats nonetheless stomped their feet in a letter last week to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They demanded that she intervene to stop the Iraqis "from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a [national oil law] is in effect in Iraq." Their complaint is that a hydrocarbon law is one of the Bush Administration's "benchmarks for reconciliation" in Iraq, and that these oil contracts would only "further deepen political tension in Iraq and put our service members in even greater danger." They also griped that the five firms would get an "insider's advantage" to later oil bidding.

Also piling on is House baron Henry Waxman, who is upset with a separate contract that the Kurdistan Regional Government has signed with Texas's Hunt Oil. Mr. Waxman thinks the Bush Administration didn't do enough to stop the deal. Then again, this is old news, as the contract was signed last year. And while the Baghdad central government wasn't pleased the Kurds had moved on a contract without national approval, the deal hasn't impeded Iraq's broader progress.

We doubt French politicians are objecting to Total's contract, but American Democrats are so blinkered about Iraq that they now object even to U.S. companies getting business on the merits. The hydrocarbon law would help to clarify revenue-sharing between Baghdad and Iraq's outlying provinces. But even without that law, oil revenues are already flowing throughout the country, including to Sunni-majority areas.

The faster and more efficiently the oil deposits are developed, the more revenue there will be to distribute. And the faster Iraq will be able to rebuild on its own – which is what Democrats say they want. Meanwhile, by inviting foreign partners, Iraq is avoiding the trap of nationalization that has harmed so many countries. It concentrates political power, undermining democracy. National oil companies also tend to underinvest in technology, letting harder-to-exploit oil become a wasting asset.

What the U.S. should promote in Iraq is some kind of oil trust, or stock or revenue dispersal, that would give individual Iraqis a share of their oil wealth. This would be both a tool to build national unity and to prevent any one political group from dominating Iraq's main revenue source. If Mr. Schumer wants to help on that score, he might do some good.

from the Investigative Project via MarketWatch.com, 2008-Aug-5:

IPT: Ex-Presidential Candidate Advocates Stalking Prosecutor

WASHINGTON, Aug 05, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Mike Gravel, the recent Democratic presidential candidate and two-term Alaska senator urged an audience to stalk and harass a federal prosecutor during a speech in support of Sami Al-Arian, exclusive audio tape obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) shows.

The audio and a complete story by the IPT can be found at http://www.investigativeproject.org.

Gravel spoke at a forum with Al-Arian's wife and two eldest children in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Aug. 1. Al-Arian, who pled guilty to conspiring to provide goods and services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in 2006, faces trial for two counts of criminal contempt Aug. 13. Despite repeated court orders, he has refused to testify before a federal grand jury investigating possible terror financing by a Northern Virginia think tank called the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

During the forum, Gravel asked for the name Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg and told the audience at Busboys and Poets to "Find out where he lives. Find out where his office is. If you've got some chutzpah -- which is a word that you don't hear often -- if you've really got it, find out where he lives, find out where his kids go to school, find out where his office is; picket him all the time. Call him a racist in signs if you see him. Call him an injustice. Call him whatever you want to call him, but in his face all the time. They can't take the heat; deliver it to them. We have to stop laying down to these injustices."

According to the IPT report, Kromberg has been the subject of an intensifying campaign by radical Islamist groups and defense counsel to discredit him and prevent him from carrying out his counter-terror investigations.

The IIIT investigation he leads now is one of the largest ongoing counterterrorism investigations in the U.S. Declassified FBI files obtained by the IPT show IIIT leaders were directly affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Federal law prohibits the use of violence or intimidation in an attempt to prevent a federal official from discharging his or her duties. But law enforcement sources have much more practical concerns about Gravel's remarks.

"I get extremely concerned for an agent or a prosecutor when someone says, 'Find out where he lives. Find out where his family goes to school.' At that point you've crossed the line."

With dozens of people in the audience, it's impossible to know if any are so emotionally charged by the issue that they might act. "There's no telling what they might do with that kind of encouragement," Lormel said.

"Stuff like that can turn violent in a nanosecond," said Bob Blitzer, a former head of domestic terrorism and counterterrorism for the FBI. "People get heated up. It is certainly a veiled threat."

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. It is recognized as the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups.

SOURCE Investigative Project on Terrorism

http://www.investigativeproject.org

from CNN.com, 2008-Jul-17, by Glenn Beck:

Commentary: T-shirt depicts 'pathetic and brutal legacy'

NEW YORK -- What T-shirt should you wear when you need to blend in with terrorists? Incredibly, we have an answer to that question.

Robin Meade conducted an exclusive interview that aired this past weekend on Headline News with Thomas Howes, Keith Stansell and Marc Gonsalves, three of the 15 now-former captives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. It is a leftist terror group that has specialized in kidnapping during its war with the Colombian state and capitalism in general.

After their plane crashed, the captives spent five torturous years hoping to see their families again, at times being locked in boxes at night around rats, pigs and bats. Sometimes they had weights chained around their neck and were led around at gunpoint with a dog leash.

Upon finally escaping, Keith Stansell emotionally described the moment he laid eyes on his 5-year-old twins for the first time.

It took a rescue by the Colombian Army to reunite them with freedom and probably save their lives. The army posed as terrorists, persuading FARC to turn the prisoners over to them, saving 15 innocent victims of the brutal terrorism that has ripped Colombia apart for years.

But how did this happen? How did FARC get fooled?

Colombian Army members infiltrated the highest levels of the organization, telling FARC they were going to take the hostages to meet an "international mission." They landed in a helicopter and spent 22 minutes on the ground collecting the captives and speaking in code to one another before taking off and letting the victims (who included a former Colombian presidential candidate) know that they were safe.

So, what is the uniform of choice when fooling terrorists in Colombia?

Sure, there's plenty of talk of one intelligence team member, nervous about the mission, who wore a Red Cross symbol against orders. But other accounts confirm the use of something you can probably pick up at any mall: a Che Guevara T-shirt.

That's right, the same T-shirts you see Hollywood celebrities, starving pseudo-artists and confused hipster teens wearing around local coffee shops. To all those who decide that you want to be coffee house communist-chic, remember this: When you are wearing a Che T-shirt, you're wearing the same shirt that makes terrorists believe you're just one of the gang. I hope that latte is tasty.

How Che became such a revered superhero of the hard-core left is laughable. First of all, he wasn't even a good revolutionary. He failed in his attempt at world revolution almost as badly as communism has failed in the places it was actually tried.

"This is a history of a failure" is how he himself described his efforts in the Congo. He was killed in Bolivia, trying to fire up another failure of a war. Earlier, he even managed to drop his gun and shoot himself in the face.

But more important than his incompetence is the fact that the man was a mass killer. Hundreds were reportedly executed on his watch, and that doesn't include the deaths incurred in the wars he was constantly trying to start. He described his maniacal lust for war in his writings, saying he savored "the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy's death." How this guy is a hero to the anti-war crowd is truly perplexing.

I should also point out what seemingly gets eliminated from the Hollywood movies attempting to glorify him: his bouts with racism. When describing the differences in the strife between "Europeans" and "the black," the supposedly progressive-minded Che wrote, "their different attitudes of life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead."

Ohhhhh, so the "European" is a hard worker while "the black" is a fanciful drunk. Now I understand the difference.

I wonder if that quote would inspire the volunteer office of Barack Obama's Houston supporters to remove their Che flag. After it was spotted on the wall in a local news video, Obama's campaign, far from a haven for right-wing nut jobs, went out of its way to make sure everyone knew that it had nothing to do with the flag and didn't approve of its use. If Che were such a hero, why would that be necessary?

Revisionist history's fusion with fashion sense isn't exactly new, but its popularity seems to be growing. When actress Cameron Diaz showed up in Peru, she thought she had a trendy bag that might garner some jealous stares. People were staring, sure, but for all the wrong reasons.

The bag, purchased in China, featured a red star and the words "Serve the people" on it. The problem? That was Mao Zedong's most famous political slogan, and it stirred up memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency, which, according to the BBC, was responsible for 70,000 deaths in Peru during the '80s and '90s. Diaz apologized later for "inadvertently" offending anyone.

It's been five years since the story of convicted abortion clinic bomber and Olympic park bomber Eric Rudolph led the news. As he was evading police capture for months, stories of townspeople donning "Run Rudolph Run" bumper stickers were correctly greeted with horrified disdain.

With the exception of the fact that Che killed a lot more people, what's the difference? You shouldn't be wearing an "I heart abortion clinic bombers" T-shirt, and if you have any respect for humanity, you shouldn't be wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, either.

Perhaps I should cash in on a Che T-shirt featuring his clichéd image too. Except this time, instead of glorifying him, it could specifically be designed to point out his pathetic and brutal legacy.

Honestly, though, I'm afraid I'd be sued. The communist revolutionary who dedicated his life to fight capitalism has now become nothing more than a piece of merchandise. Lesson learned: In the end, capitalism always wins.

When your only option is a Che shirt, maybe it's just better to go topless.

from the New Zealand Press Association, 2008-Jul-25:

NZ students recall Rice's arrest bounty

Auckland University Students' Association (AUSA) has retracted its $NZ5000 ($A3,881) reward for any student who makes a citizen's arrest of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

AUSA president David Do said it was withdrawing the reward in the interests of safety, but the association would still support any student who sought to arrest Dr Rice.

"None of the multiple justifications for her arrest have changed," he said.

"It is unfortunate the police have threatened students for essentially a form of peaceful protest and civil disobedience."

Dr Rice is visiting Auckland this weekend for talks with the New Zealand government.

Earlier on Friday Auckland police district commander Superintendent Brett England said anyone trying to carry out the arrest faced "very serious consequences".

"We are obliged to ensure the safety and security of the visiting guest and we will not shirk from that task," England said.

"Operational planning for this visit has been in the making for several months and there are highly effective security measures in place.

"I would strongly advise the association representatives who've put this challenge out, to withdraw it immediately so as to avoid being caught up in something much bigger than they may have anticipated."

AUSA had said the arrest would be for Dr Rice's role in "overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation" of Iraq, and crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1958, and the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.

Peace campaigners are planning to demonstrate on Saturday while Dr Rice is in Auckland.

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2007-Sep-11, by Norman Podhoretz:

'America the Ugly'
Six years after 9/11, it's notable how little the politics of the left have changed.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on us that took place on this very day six years ago, several younger commentators proclaimed the birth of an entirely new era in American history. What Dec. 7, 1941, had done to the old isolationism, they announced, Sept. 11, 2001, had done to the Vietnam syndrome. It was politically dead, and the cultural fallout of that war--all the damaging changes wrought by the 1960s and '70s--would now follow it into the grave.

I could easily understand why they thought so. After all, never in their lives had they witnessed so powerful an explosion of patriotic sentiment--and not only in the expected precincts of the right. In fact, on the left, where not so long ago the American flag had been thought fit only for burning, the sight of it--and it was now on display everywhere--had been driving a few prominent personalities to wrench their unaccustomed arms into something vaguely resembling a salute. One of these personalities, Todd Gitlin, a leading figure in the New Left of the '60s and now a professor at Columbia, even went so far as to question the inveterately "negative faith in America the ugly" that he and his comrades had tenaciously held onto for the past 40 years and more.

Having broken ranks with the left in the late '60s precisely because I was repelled by the "negative faith in America the ugly" that had come to pervade it, I naturally welcomed this new patriotic mood with open arms. It seemed to me a sign of greater intellectual sanity and moral health, and I fervently hoped that it would last.

But I could not fully share the heady confidence of my younger political friends that the change was permanent, and that nothing in American politics and American culture would ever be the same again. As a veteran of the political and cultural wars of the '60s, I knew from my own scars that no matter how small and insignificant a group the anti-Americans of the left might for the moment look to the naked eye, they had it in them to rise and grow again.

In this connection, I was haunted by one memory in particular. It was of an evening in the year 1960, when I went to address a meeting of left-wing radicals on a subject that had then barely begun to show the whites of its eyes: the possibility of American military involvement in a faraway place called Vietnam and the need to begin mobilizing opposition to it. Accompanying me that evening was the late Marion Magid, a member of my staff at Commentary, of which I had recently become the editor. As we entered the drafty old hall on Union Square in Manhattan, Marion surveyed the 50 or so people in the audience and whispered to me: "Do you realize that every young person in this room is a tragedy to some family or other?"

The memory of this quip brought back to life some sense of how unpromising the future had then appeared to be for that bedraggled-looking assemblage. No one would have dreamed that these young people, and the generation about to descend from them politically and culturally, would within the blink of a historical eye come to be hailed by many members of the very "Establishment" they were trying to topple as (in the representative words of Prof. Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School) "the best informed, the most intelligent, and the most idealistic this country has ever known."

More incredible yet, in a mere decade the ideas and attitudes of the new movement, cleaned up but essentially unchanged, would turn one of our two major parties upside down and inside out. By 1972, only 11 years after President John F. Kennedy had promised that we would "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty," George McGovern, nominated for president by Kennedy's own party, was campaigning on the antiwar slogan, "Come home, America." It was a slogan that to an uncanny degree reflected the ethos of the embryonic movement I had addressed in Union Square only about a decade before.

In sharp contrast to my younger friends, I could not help fearing that something like this might happen again. On the one hand, those who thought that we had brought 9/11 down on ourselves and had it coming were in a very tiny minority--even tinier than the antiwar movement of the early '60s. On the other hand, they were much stronger at a comparably early stage of the game than their counterparts of the '60s (who in some cases were their own younger selves). The reason was that, as the Vietnam War ground inconclusively on, the institutions that shape our culture were one by one and bit by bit converting to the "faith in America the ugly." By now, indeed, in the world of the arts, in the universities, in the major media of news and entertainment, and even in some of the mainstream churches, that faith had become the regnant orthodoxy.

But it would be a great mistake to suppose that the influence of these sectors of the culture was limited to their inhabitants. John Maynard Keynes once said that "practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." Keynes was referring specifically to businessmen. But bureaucrats and administrators are subject to the same rule, though they tend to be the slaves not of economists, but of historians and sociologists and philosophers and novelists who may be very much alive even when their ideas have, or should have, become defunct.

Nor is it necessary for the "practical men" to have studied the works in question, or even ever to have heard of their authors. All they need do is read the New York Times, or switch on their television sets, or go to the movies--and, drip by drip, a more easily assimilable form of the original material is absorbed into their heads and into their nervous systems.

The few people I knew who shared my apprehensions believed that if things went well on the military front of what we were calling World War IV (the Cold War having in our scheme of things been World War III), all would be well on the home front too. And that was how it appeared from the effect wrought by the Afghanistan campaign, the first front to be opened in World War IV. For a short spell, the spectacular success of that campaign dampened the nascent antiwar activity on at least a number of campuses. But I felt certain that, as other fronts were opened--with Iraq most likely being the next--opposition not only would grow but would become more and more extreme.

I turned out to be right about this, and yet even I never imagined that the new antiwar movement would so rapidly arrive at the stage of virulence it had taken years for its ancestors of the Vietnam era to reach. Nor did I anticipate how closely the antiwar playbook of that era would be followed and how successfully it would be applied to Iraq, even though the two wars had nothing whatever in common.

To be sure, this time, mainly because there was no draft, there would be no student protesters and no massive street demonstrations. Instead, virtual demonstrations would be mounted in cyberspace by the so-called netroots and these, more suited to the nature of the new technological age, would prove an all-too-effective substitute. And so on the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the main issues agitating this country are how quickly we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and whether to fix a timetable and a deadline for abandoning the field.

Here too the antiwar playbook of the Vietnam era is being very closely followed. In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected by landslide to a second term as president, but in campaigning against George McGovern's call for us to withdraw from Vietnam, Nixon did not sound an opposing call to fight on to victory. On the contrary: He too promised to get us out of Vietnam. The difference was that he also promised to accomplish this with our honor intact.

Today, like the McGovernites with respect to Vietnam in 1972, the overwhelming majority of the Democrats in Congress, and all the Democrats hoping to become their party's candidate for president, want America out of Iraq, and the sooner and the more completely the better. And like Nixon in 1972, many Republican members of Congress, along with a few of the Republicans running in the presidential primaries, also want out, but with our honor intact.

Well, Nixon did get us out of Vietnam. By 1975, when the North Vietnamese communists conquered the South, not a single American soldier was left in the country. But never in American history had our honor been so besmirched as it was by the manner of our withdrawal. Having left with the promise that we would continue to help save the South Vietnamese from communism by supplying them with arms, Congress nevertheless refused to send them so much as a bullet when the communists of the North were already storming the gates. As President Bush recently reminded us, to the sputtering rage of those who did not wish to be reminded, the price "was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields.' "

It is impossible at this point to predict how and when the battle of Iraq will end. But from the vitriolic debates it has unleashed we can already say for certain that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did not do to the Vietnam syndrome what Pearl Harbor did to the old isolationism. The Vietnam syndrome is back and it means to have its way. But is it strong enough in its present incarnation to do what it did to the honor of this country in 1975? Well acquainted though I am with its malignant power, I still believe that it will ultimately be overcome by the forces opposed to it in the war at home. Even so, I cannot deny that this question still hangs ominously in the air and will not be answered before more damage is done to the long struggle against Islamofascism into which we were blasted six years ago and that I persist in calling World War IV.

Mr. Podhoretz is editor at large of Commentary. This essay is adapted from his new book, "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism," out today from Doubleday, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

What follows are three articles in which American socialist journalists excoriate the United States on the occasion of its birthday. Brit Hume featured excerps from these articles in his “Political Grapevine” segment of 2008-Jul-3. Some may think they make a good case, but none can deny that they hate America and Americans. The text is rendered in smaller type in recognition of their smaller thinking — and because they just don't deserve the space they'd occupy at normal size.

from the Progressive, 2008-Jul-2, by Matthew Rothschild:

Why I'm Not Patriotic

(In memory of George Carlin.)

It's July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out.

Spare me the puerile parades.

Don't play that martial music, white boy.

And don't befoul nature's sky with your F-16s.

You see, I don't believe in patriotism.

It's not that I'm anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic.

Love of country isn't natural. It's not something you're born with. It's an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game.

Yet most people accept it without inspection.

Why?

For when you stop to think about it, patriotism (especially in its malignant morph, nationalism) has done more to stack the corpses millions high in the last 300 years than any other factor, including the prodigious slayer, religion.

The victims of colonialism, from the Congo to the Philippines, fell at nationalism's bayonet point.

World War I filled the graves with the most foolish nationalism. And Hitler and Mussolini and Imperial Japan brought nationalism to new nadirs. The flags next to the tombstones are but signed confessions—notes left by the killer after the fact.

The millions of victims of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have on their death certificates a dual diagnosis: yes communism, but also that other ism, nationalism.

The whole world almost got destroyed because of nationalism during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The bloody battles in Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia in the 1990s fed off the injured pride of competing patriotisms and all their nourished grievances.

In the last five years in Iraq, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because the United States, the patriarch of patriotism, saw fit to impose itself, without just cause, on another country. But the excuse was patriotism, wrapped in Bush's brand of messianic militarism: that we, the great Americans, have a duty to deliver “God's gift of freedom” to every corner of the world.

And the Congress swallowed it, and much of the American public swallowed it, because they've been fed a steady diet of this swill.

What is patriotism but “the narcissism of petty differences”? That's Freud's term, describing the disorder that compels one group to feel superior to another.

Then there's a little multiplication problem: Can every country be the greatest country in the world?

This belief system magically transforms an accident of birth into some kind of blue ribbon.

“It's a great country,” said the old Quaker essayist Milton Mayer. “They're all great countries.”

At times, the appeal to patriotism may be necessary, as when harnessing the group to protect against a larger threat (Hitler) or to overthrow an oppressor (as in the anti-colonial struggles in the Third World).

But it is always a dangerous toxin to play with, and it ought to be shelved with cross and bones on the label except in these most extreme circumstances.

In an article called “Patriot Games” in the current issue of Time magazine (July 7), Peter Beinart, late of The New Republic, inspects his navel for seven pages and then throws the lint all around.

“Conservatives are right,” he says. “To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.”

And then he criticizes, incoherently, the conservative love-it-or-leave-it types.

The moral folly of his argument he himself exposes: “If liberals love America purely because it embodies ideals like liberty, justice, and equality, why shouldn't they love Canada—which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles—even more? And what do liberals do,” he asks, “when those universal ideals collide with America's self-interest? Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all. But it would harm Americans and thus be unpatriotic.”

This is a straw man if I ever I saw one, but if the United States gave a lot more of its budget to eradicating poverty and disease in Africa and other parts of the developing world, it might actually make us all safer.

At bottom, note how readily Beinart disposes of “liberty, justice, and equality.”

He has stripped patriotism to its vacuous essence: Love your country because it's yours.

If we stopped that arm from reflexively saluting and concerned ourselves more with “universal ideals” than with parochial ones, we'd be a lot better off.

We wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't have besmirched ourselves at Guantanamo, we wouldn't be acting like some Argentinean junta that wages illegal wars and tortures people and disappears them into secret dungeons.

Love of country is a form of idolatry.

Listen, if you would, to the wisdom of Milton Mayer, writing back in 1962 a rebuke to JFK for his much-celebrated line: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Mayer would have none of it. “When Mr. Kennedy spoke those words at his inaugural, I knew that I was at odds with a society which did not immediately rebel against them,” he wrote. “They are the words of totalitarianism pure; no Jefferson could have spoken them, and no Khrushchev could have spoken them better. Could a man say what Mr. Kennedy said and also say that the difference between us and them is that they believe that man exists for the State and we believe that the State exists for man? He couldn't, but he did. And in doing so, he read me out of society.”

When Americans retort that this is still the greatest country in the world, I have to ask why.

Are we the greatest country because we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?

No, that just makes us enormously powerful, with the capacity to destroy the Earth itself.

Are we the greatest country because we have soldiers stationed in more than 120 countries?

No, that just makes us an empire, like the empires of old, only more so.

Are we the greatest country because we are one-twentieth of the world's population but we consume one-quarter of its resources?

No, that just must makes us a greedy and wasteful nation.

Are we the greatest country because the top 1 percent of Americans hoards 34 percent of the nation's wealth, more than everyone in the bottom 90 percent combined?

No, that just makes us a vastly unequal nation.

Are we the greatest country because corporations are treated as real, live human beings with rights?

No, that just enshrines a plutocracy in this country.

Are we the greatest country because we take the best care of our people's basic needs?

No, actually we don't. We're far down the list on health care and infant mortality and parental leave and sick leave and quality of life.

So what exactly are we talking about here?

To the extent that we're a great (not the greatest, mind you: that's a fool's game) country, we're less of a great country today.

Because those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.

From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act to the new FISA Act, and all the signing statements in between, we are less great today.

From Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base and Guantanamo, we are less great today.

From National Security Presidential Directive 51 (giving the Executive responsibility for ensuring constitutional government in an emergency) to National Security Presidential Directive 59 (expanding the collection of our biometric data), we are less great today.

From the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to InfraGard and the Terrorist Liaison Officers, we are less great today.

Admit it. We don't have a lot to brag about today.

It is time, it is long past time, to get over the American superiority complex.

It is time, it is long past time, to put patriotism back on the shelf—out of the reach of children and madmen.

from the Philadelphia Inquirer, 2008-Jul-1, by Chris Satullo:

A not-so-glorious Fourth
U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

Put the fireworks in storage.

Cancel the parade.

Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.

This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.

Today, our nation does such things in the name of our safety. Petrified, unwilling to take the risks that love of liberty demands, we close our eyes.

We have done such things, on orders from the Oval Office. We have done them, without general outrage or shame.

Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo. CIA secret prisons. "Rendition" of prisoners to foreign torture chambers.

It's not enough that we had good reason to be scared.

The men huddled long ago in Philadelphia had better reason. A British fleet floated off the Jersey coast, full of hands eager to hang them from the nearest lampposts.

Yet they pledged their lives and sacred honor - no idle vow - to defend the "inalienable rights" of men. Inalienable - what does that signify? It means rights that belong to each person, simply by virtue of being human. Rights that can never be taken away, no matter what evil a person might do or might intend.

Surely one of those is the right not to be tortured. Surely that is a piece of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This is the creed of July 4: No matter what it costs us, no matter how it scares us, no matter how foolish it seems to a cynical world, America should stand up for human rights.

No, not even the brave men who picked up a quill, dipped it in ink and signed the parchment that summer day in Philadelphia lived up perfectly to the creed. But they did something extraordinary, founding a new nation upon a vow to oppose all the evil habits of tyranny.

That is why history still honors them.

But what will history think of us, of how we responded to our great challenge? Sept. 11 was a hideous evil, a grievous wound. Yet, truth told, it has not summoned our better angels as often as our worst.

We have betrayed the July 4 creed. We trample the vows we make, hand to heart.

Don't imagine that only the torturer's hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us.

Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little.

We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power.

But did we heed them? Hardly. Barely . . .

We were so busy. Soccer practice at 6. A credit card balance to fret. The final vote on Idol.

We left it to those in power to keep our precious selves from harm. Whatever it took.

We took the coward's way.

The world sees this, even if we are too dim to grasp it. We've lost respect. We've shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

And all for a scam. The waterboarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep - all the diabolical tricks haven't made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they've spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears.

So put out no flags.

Sing no patriotic hymns.

We deserve no Fourth this year.

Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.

from the Nation, 2008-Jul-2, by Robert Scheer:

Happy Oil Dependence Day

As we head into the Fourth of July weekend of patriotic bluster and beer swilling--but before we are too besotted with ourselves--might we also for once consider our imperfections? Why not take a moment to heed the cautions of our founding father, George Washington, whose true legacy will most likely be ignored during the flag-waving weekend?

Washington's Farewell Address to the new nation was a warning about the threat of American imperial ambitions and a declaration of his high expectations for a republic of free men: "In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

We are drowning in the "impostures of pretended patriotism," used to cover the lies that got us into Iraq, the defense of torture and the violation of our basic liberties. In the name of patriotism, we presume a God-given American right to reorder the world to our liking, masking the vice of unfettered greed as an obligation of national security.

Any doubts as to this later governing impulse of our imperial ambitions were shattered with the recent news that US advisers to our puppet government in the Green Zone of occupied Iraq have worked out agreements for American oil companies to gain control of Iraqi oil fields. But, then again, what did we expect when we elected a Texas oil hustler, and a failed one at that, to be our President?

Only in an America dumbed down by constant propaganda about our innate moral superiority will anyone any longer believe that we didn't invade Iraq for the oil, even though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the Bush Administration from the board of directors at Chevron, where they named an oil tanker after her. Like Vice President Dick Cheney with those Halliburton contracts, Rice has stayed true to her corporate sponsors. That's what the US invasion of Iraq accomplished; for the first time in more than three decades after Iraq joined a worldwide trend of formerly colonized nations gaining control of their own resources, Big Oil is getting its black gold back. It was always about the oil--that's why "we" invaded Iraq--only "we" aren't getting any, at least not at a reasonable price. The oil companies are.

I know it's difficult for the corporate media and politicians, both fueled generously by energy money, to grasp the distinction, but we the people and they the oil companies are not one and the same. While we suffer at the pump, they make record profits, which is the way they like it. Don't think for a second that US oil companies are rushing into Iraq to expand production to help lower world oil prices, thus making their investments less profitable. They just want to be on the winning side, which is why the CEO of Halliburton relocated his office from Texas to the United Arab Emirates, where I am certain he and his fellow corporate expatriates are able to happily celebrate the Fourth of July.

So, take that American flag off your lapel and replace it with a button bearing the Exxon or Chevron logo. C'mon, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice, be straight about what it is you are really pushing here. 'Fess up--it's not the good old USA as represented by the sucker taxpayers conned by your patriotic blather. No sirree, what you would have Americans paying homage to is the majesty of the big multinational corporations that exploit American military power to rule the world.

But recognize that you have shamed the legacy of our first President. George Washington, who distinguished the promise of the new world from the corruptions of the old by shunning imperial conquest, said: "Our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing."

If Barack Obama or John McCain were to offer such words of wisdom this Fourth of July, he would be vilified as "weak," and that is a fit measure of just how far we have descended from the high hopes of our first President.

from ABC News, 2008-Mar-13, by Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri:

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism."

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Sen. Obama told the New York Times he was not at the church on the day of Rev. Wright's 9/11 sermon. "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," Obama said in a recent interview. "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative," Obama told the paper.

Rev. Wright, who announced his retirement last month, has built a large and loyal following at his church with his mesmerizing sermons, mixing traditional spiritual content and his views on contemporary issues.

"I wouldn't call it radical. I call it being black in America," said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.

"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.

Rev. Wright, who declined to be interviewed by ABC News, is considered one of the country's 10 most influential black pastors, according to members of the Obama campaign.

Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright's approach, referring to his "social gospel" and his focus on Africa, "and I agree with him on that."

Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright's denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on "Good Morning America" Thursday, said Obama "had repudiated" those comments.

In a statement to ABCNews.com, Obama's press spokesman Bill Burton said, "Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

from National Review, 2007-Apr-30, by James W. Ceaser:

Anti-Americanism, Ever with Us
Reflecting on a stubborn ideology

Traveling last month across Iowa in his legendary “Straight Talk Express,” Sen. John McCain took some time out from the presidential campaign to sweet-talk Europeans. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, McCain lamented the dismally low standing of America in Europe and promised, if elected, to make restoring America's reputation a “top priority.”

One can only wish Senator McCain, or whoever else is elected president in 2008, Godspeed on this mission. We would certainly be better off if more people in Europe thought more highly of America. (Our standing there is currently lower than China's, and as many Europeans consider America a threat to world peace as feel that way about Iran.) No doubt part of being president is to deal with the “atmospherics” of our relations with other countries.

But a healthy measure of skepticism is in order. While trying to change European opinion of America is not exactly a fool's errand, neither should we expect much from the effort. Seeking to buy favor by concessions would be both unwise and futile. The plain fact is that the structure of thought known as anti-Americanism was forged long ago and has sunk its roots deeply into both popular and elite European opinion. This ideology has become vital to the functioning of European politics, and involves the passions, interests, and reputations of many people. To paraphrase the late Jean-François Revel, if you remove anti-Americanism, nothing remains of European thought today on either the left or the right.

True enough, the degree of anti-Americanism varies with the U.S. administration. Anti-Americanism has spiked under President Bush — it actually began its rise before 9/11 — and has been greater under conservative presidents than under liberal ones. A similar surge took place a quarter century ago under President Reagan, who had the audacity to speak ill of Communism. Part of anti-Americanism is thus opposition to American conservatism. But the basic negative image of America persists no matter who holds the reins of power. Thus in 1992, under the moderate George H. W. Bush presidency, a group of intellectuals sought to halt the opening of Euro Disney outside Paris, which they labeled a “cultural Chernobyl . . . a construction of hardened chewing gum and idiotic folklore . . . for obese Americans.” And it was during the 1990s, under President Clinton, that the French populist farmer José Bové began his attacks on McDonald's restaurants. Bové later joined the motley crew of protesters at the 1999 WTO meetings in Seattle to denounce globalization, known also as “Americanization.” While many intellectuals in Europe applauded Clinton for doing his darnedest to challenge Americans' puritanical hang-ups (even as they secretly took him to task for his bad taste), their solidarity never signaled a cessation of anti-Americanism.

What are the causes of anti-Americanism? One of them surely relates to the primitive part of the human psyche that, in order to cope with our deepest fears, wants to believe that everything in the world is governed by a conscious and unitary force, not by accidents or multifarious causes. Disasters and tribulations are thus at least comprehensible, having come from a known source. It is not just in unenlightened corners of the world that conspiracy theories have flowered. Spectacular plots have captured the popular imagination in advanced parts of Europe. Many novels and studies have appeared there claiming that the American government brought down the Twin Towers in order to justify its subsequent military ventures. One such work, written by a former government minister in Germany, Andreas von Bülow, was a national bestseller. According to polls, a fifth of the population, and a third of those under 30, believe this strange theory.

A more specific cause of anti-Americanism is what Phillippe Roger has called a “stratification of negative discourses” about America that stretch all the way back to the 18th century. It was then that cutting-edge environmental science held that the climate of the New World caused a decline in all sentient beings there, so that Euro-Americans were weaker and less intelligent than Europeans. A little later, upon the discrediting of this far-fetched theory, European thinkers shifted ground and argued that it was not Americans' physical properties that made America so awful, but rather their low culture, brought on either by an excess of equality and commerce (this was the story of the Right) or by unbridled capitalism (the mantra of the Communist Left).

HEIDEGGER'S `MONSTROUSNESS'

The greatest source of anti-Americanism, however, arose at the turn of the 20th century, when the terms “Americanism” and “Americanization” were coined to designate industrialization, modernization, and the assault of modernity on all traditional social arrangements and values. Martin Heidegger, the most important philosopher of the era, later elevated this critique to metaphysical status, defining “Americanism” as “the still unfolding and not yet full or completed essence of the emerging monstrousness of modern times.” America represented, and was bringing to the world, a “dreary technological frenzy” and an “unrestricted organization of the average man.” America was infecting Europe with commodification, homogenization, and the reduction of thought and culture to mere information.

Such highbrow thinking seems removed from anything in real life until one recalls the successive campaigns that have been waged against American corporations and that rely on exactly these arguments. What Coca-Cola is said to have done to taste, Disney to children's imagination, and McDonald's to culinary habits, Google is now accused of doing to thought. A 258-page book just appeared in France under the title Google-moi, La deuxième mission de l'Amérique (Google Me: The Second Mission of America). The author, Barbara Cassin — a prominent philosopher — argues that once you enter Google's site and begin to click, you are immediately ushered into America's House of Being, where pure “information,” in all of its banality, is destroying genuine “culture.” (For further information about Mme. Cassin's book, readers may Google “cassin impérialisme américain.”)

The success of anti-Americanism in identifying the United States with modernity is not surprising. America blazed the trail for many modern developments, and the size of its economy has allowed it to have an enormous impact on much of the world. And who would deny that many aspects of modernity are, just as Heidegger said, monstrous? Yet modernization was originally spawned in Europe, and would have occurred even without America. Linking all of its negative aspects to a single nation is uninformed, and has had the consequence of dividing the West against itself and rendering it less able to cope with common challenges.

Besides, Europe is hardly innocent of efforts to commodify and universalize, even in our own age. European firms launched the first attempt to establish a common idea of fashion for women and fragrances for men. Is it more destructive to the cultural diversity of mankind to influence what people eat than to dictate how they look and smell? And there can be no doubt that by far the most successful effort at homogenization belongs to Europe: In developing and exporting anti-Americanism, European intellectuals have created the world's first universal ideology. Next to this achievement, the efforts of McDonald's and Google look like the crude work of amateurs.

Ideologies are to rational thought what viruses are to health. Both adapt and mutate in order to continue to target their enemies. Despite earlier analyses that identified America with modernity, anti-American thinkers in our day have not hesitated to shift positions and, where it is convenient for them, claim just the opposite. America is too modern, they say, except where it is not modern enough. Most conspicuously, Americans have not all followed Europeans, as they should have, in the modernizing process of secularization. In this, as well as in worrying about the maintenance of traditional institutions such as marriage, Americans are increasingly atavistic. Shortly before his death, the French philosopher Jacques Derrida assailed America for having a religious culture that still countenances “a fundamentally biblical (and primarily Christian) . . . discourse of its political leaders.” The world is caught between two fundamentalisms, he argued: one American and Christian, the other Islamic. Many Europeans follow Derrida in seeming to think that, by attacking religious belief in America, you also, in a shaman-like fashion, strike a blow at Islamic fundamentalism. Stick pins in George W. Bush and Osama will feel the pain.

CHARM WITHOUT IMPORTANCE

Another factor that has contributed to anti-Americanism is the enormous transformation of military and political power over the last century. On the eve of the First World War, the major European nations were the world's greatest military powers. But the effect of the two great wars was not only to exhaust these nations but also to show that the greatest military power now lay in America and the Soviet Union. Yet an accident of history worked to put Europe at the center of the world's interest as it became the strategic battleground between East and West. This kept American soldiers in Western Europe throughout the Cold War and allowed diplomats and journalists to make cities such as Paris and Vienna their delightful bases of operations. With the collapse of the Soviet empire and the emergence of Europe as a zone of peace, all of this has changed. Europe retains its charm but has lost some of its strategic importance.

An argument could be made that, despite appearances, Europe is no less a strategic battleground today than it was during the Cold War. It is now the focal point in the struggle between the West and the new barbarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism. But not very many Europeans see the world in these terms: The European public thinks that Americans vastly exaggerate the threat of terrorism, and sees 9/11 as an isolated and faraway event, not the announcement of a major confrontation. It is no longer clear that there is anything left to the West, at least if the West includes America.

No one likes the kind of loss of power and status that Europeans have had to endure. It is a hard reckoning for peoples that commanded the summits of world influence for some 500 years. Even European intellectuals, who like to think of themselves as cosmopolitan, have chafed at their reduced status. Like the Greek philosophers after the Roman conquests, they look with disdain at the new power from the west. Americans, for their part, feel a bit abused. Thinking that they saved Europe at least three times in the last century, they ask: Where is the gratitude? They should be more realistic and understand that, where gratitude is felt, resentment can never be very far behind.

One final factor has contributed to the growing rift between Europe and America and added to anti-Americanism. It is the fact, difficult even to comprehend, that Europeans and Americans no longer live under, or look up to, the same kind of political “form.” Of course, both Europe and America are democracies, but how and where democracy should take place is now a matter of disagreement. Europeans invented the nation-state, where a “people,” however difficult that notion was to define, chose to live in common and establish a political order. Americans followed Europeans in adopting this political form. Near the end of The Federalist, Hamilton writes that “a nation without a national government is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” The great change today is that Europeans, perhaps for understandable reasons, have abandoned the nation-state and begun a process of denationalization — but without knowing what alternative form will take its place. According to the French political theorist Pierre Manent, the ruling classes of Europe have become persuaded that the machinery of democracy must be separated from “any underlying conception of what it means to be a people.” In adopting this view, they increasingly look at the American nation-state as something alien. Robert Kagan may have underestimated the differences when he declared a few years ago that “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus”; it looks more and more like the two are from different galaxies.

Which brings us back to Planet Earth and John McCain in Iowa. To his great credit, he seems to be giving very little away. He did commit himself to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay and moving it to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas — a change that, for Europeans, will succeed only in making Leavenworth into Guantánamo — but this is a position McCain has favored for some time. He also promised to address another problem of deep concern to Europeans: “climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions.” Now that's a fine exercise in atmospherics!

Mr. Ceaser is professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2007-Aug-7, by Ion Mihai Pacepa:

Propaganda Redux
Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

During last week's two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged "the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism" and vowed to follow Winston Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While "America" was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war--if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Later, when I headed Romania's intelligence station in West Germany, everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the "Amis" meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By "night" they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.

But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll 40% of Canada's teenagers called the U.S. "evil," and even before the fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered "neither" when asked which country was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman--the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching the slogan "Europe for the Europeans."

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the Boot."

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America's international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."

On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents--some better than others--but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.

For once, the communists got it right. It is America's leader that counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let's vote next year for people who believe in America's future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination" (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.

from Fox News, 2008-Apr-8, by Joseph Abrams:

Report: Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria

NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter's press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."

Some Carter critics called the latest reports typical of the ex-president.

“It's about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does," said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. "To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part."

“I'm not surprised that Carter would do this, as he has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years,” said Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a watchdog group.

Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.

“I think this [visit] undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas,” said Emerson. “I think this encourages Europeans to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.”

"When you put the prestige of a former president of the United States in a meeting with one of its terrorist leaders, you're giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had,” said Bolton.

But Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a non-profit advocacy group, said Carter's efforts demonstrate he's a true partner in peace.

“I think if true, this report would indicate that President Carter is willing to travel any road in search of peace,” he said. “I think President Carter would only undertake such a mission if he believed that something could be achieved in terms of peace and reconciliation in the region.”

Hooper added that because of Carter's reputation among Palestinians he might be able to bring some pressure to bear.

“Obviously President Carter has a great amount of credibility in the region because of his past efforts seeking peace internationally,” Hooper said.

The Al-Hayat report stated that Carter would be traveling in his capacity as head of the Carter Center, and not in his capacity as a former president.

“That's a distinction that's absurd,” said Emerson.

“Maybe he'll give up his pension, but he's always a former president,” said Bolton.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Apr-15, p.A18, by Bret Stephens:

Jimmy's World

Former President Jimmy Carter has an interesting way of saying more than he intends. He lusts in his heart. He turns to his 13-year-old daughter for foreign policy wisdom. He titles a book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." What Mr. Carter means to say is that he is a flesh-and-blood human being, a caring father, a missionary for peace. What he actually communicates is that he is weirdly libidinal, scarily naive and obsessively hostile to Israel.

Now the 2002 Nobel laureate is in reprise mode. "In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels," he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel's top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people."

Come again?

Mr. Carter is on a tour of the Middle East, the most newsworthy aspect of which is a scheduled meeting in Damascus with Khaled Mashal, the head of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. More on that below. For now, ponder what he could possibly have meant by this statement. On a charitable view, what Mr. Carter had in mind is that in a democracy it is the people who ultimately make the policy, whereas in a dictatorship it is only the dictator's opinion that counts. Or as W.H. Auden put it, "Only the man behind the rifle [has] free will."

That's not quite what Mr. Carter said, however. He said the dictator "speaks" for "all" the people, just as the people in a democracy speak for themselves. Taken at face value, this is a reflection of every dictator's conceit: that his will is also the general will, whether the people agree with him or not. This is what Fidel Castro meant when he praised Cuba's elections, in which only the Communist Party is on the ballot, as "the most democratic in the world." Perhaps Mr. Carter has harbored similar views about the relative merits of his opinion versus the people's since he was turned out of high office by 44 states.

Yet a dictator does not speak for the people. Properly speaking, a dictator speaks for none of the people. A dictator speaks only for himself, while "the people" are transformed, through force and fear, into an abstraction, an instrument, a rhetorical trope. On the contrary, it is only in a democracy where the government can morally and lawfully be said to speak for the people, since it was morally and lawfully chosen by the people to speak for them. Which means that Mr. Carter has matters precisely backwards: It is in democracies such as Israel where the views of the leadership matter most, and in dictatorships such as Syria where they matter least.

Besides Israel, Mr. Carter's trip will take him to the West Bank, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. What would the logic suggested above mean in terms of his choice of interlocutors?

- In Egypt, Mr. Carter could give an address at the newly established Middle East Freedom Forum. He could call for the immediate release of George Ishak, a lawyer and democracy activist who helps coordinate the liberal Kifaya ("Enough") movement and was arrested by security forces last Wednesday. He could pay a call to journalist Gameela Ismael, the wife of Ayman Nour. Mr. Nour, who contested the 2005 election against President Hosni Mubarak and took 8% of the vote, has spent the past two years in prison on trumped-up charges of electoral fraud.

- In Saudi Arabia, Mr. Carter could raise the case of Fawza Falih, an illiterate woman who was convicted of "witchcraft" and sentenced to death on charges that she used sorcery to render a man impotent. He might also seek out the now famous "Qatif Girl," the woman who was gang-raped by seven men and, as a result of her "crime," sentenced to 200 lashes.

- In Jordan, Mr. Carter might find time for Jihad Momani, editor of the weekly "Shihan," who in 2006 was arrested for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. "Muslims of the world be reasonable," he wrote in an editorial that ran alongside the cartoons. "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

- With the Palestinians, Mr. Carter could denounce the Hamas-operated Al Aqsa TV, whose programming includes a Sesame Street-like show that urges its young viewers to "get rid of the Jews."

- In Syria, Mr. Carter could ask to meet with representatives of the National Council of the Damascus Declaration for Democratic Change. A dozen leaders of this pro-democracy umbrella group were arrested in December on charges of "spreading false or exaggerated news which would affect the morale of the country"; Human Rights Watch charges that at least eight of the men signed false confessions under torture.

Will Mr. Carter do any of this? The odds are long. Instead, he will meet with Mr. Mashal, author of the murder of several hundred Israeli civilians and not a few Americans, too. On a visit yesterday to Sderot, the besieged Israeli town near Gaza, the former president denounced the "despicable crime" of Hamas's incessant rocket attacks of the past several years. Yet he continues to defend the view that all relevant parties, including Hamas, must be partners in a negotiation to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Hamas, it is true, fairly won a parliamentary election in January 2006. It is also true that nobody elected Mr. Mashal to his position, that he is another of Auden's men behind the rifle, and that Hamas has never accepted the Oslo Accords that are the legal basis of the Authority they seek to govern, much like other totalitarian parties of yore that participated opportunistically in a democratic process – cf. Weimar Republic. They do not seek an entente with the Jewish state but its elimination. In meeting with a former U.S. president, they seek to burnish their reputations as legitimate Mideast players, not outlaws. Perhaps Mr. Carter knows this, or perhaps he doesn't. Whichever the case, his actions bespeak more than he intends.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2008-Apr-25, by Bernard-Henri Lévy:

The Sad End of Jimmy Carter

The problem is not that he is, or is not, talking to the Syrians – everyone does it to some degree.

It isn't that he went to Damascus to meet with the exiled head of Hamas – everyone, including the Israelis, will one day have to do that too, in accordance with that old rule which says that in the end it is with your enemies not your friends that you have to come to an understanding and make peace.

No.

The problem is how Jimmy Carter went about it.

The problem is the spectacular and useless embrace he exchanged with the senior Hamas dignitary, Nasser Shaer, in Ramallah.

The problem is the wreath he laid piously at the grave of Yasser Arafat, who, as Mr. Carter knows better than anyone else, was a real obstacle to peace.

It is that in Cairo, if we are to believe another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, whose statement has so far not been denied, Mr. Carter apparently described Hamas as a "national liberation movement" – this party which has made a cult of death, a mythology of blood and race, and an anti-Semitism along the lines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion into the linchpin of its ideology.

The problem is also the formidable nose thumbing he got from Hamas's exiled leader, Khaled Mashaal, who, at the very moment he was receiving Mr. Carter, also triggered the first car bombing in several months in Keren Shalom on the Gaza strip – and that this event elicited from poor Mr. Carter, all tangled up in his small-time mediator calculations, not one disapproving or empathetic word.

The former president, it will be recalled, is an old hand at this sort of thing.

Going off track like this is not new for the man who 30 years ago was one of the architects of peace with Egypt, but who since then has not stopped vilifying Israel, comparing its political system to that of South Africa during apartheid, ignoring Israel's desire for peace, which is no less real than its errors, even denying its suffering.

A year ago, he told CBS that for years his beloved Hamas had not committed any terrorist attacks resulting in civilian casualties – this, a few months after the assassination of six people at the Karni Terminal, and the attack on Aug. 30, 2004, which killed 16 passengers in two buses in Beersheba.

And it is one thing to speak to CBS, and another to say these words, which are unofficial but have indisputable moral authority, to the belligerents.

It is one thing to say, in Dublin on June 19, 2007, that the true criminals are not those who proclaim, like Mashaal, that "before dying" Israel must be "humiliated and degraded," but those who would prefer that these charming characters be pushed out of the circles of power, sooner or later, with a distinct preference for "sooner." It is quite another to come over in person and put all one's weight behind the most radical elements, those who are the most hostile to peace, the most profoundly nihilistic in the Palestinian camp.

The truth is, if one wished to discredit the other side, to fully humiliate and ridicule the only Palestinian leader (Mahmoud Abbas) who at the risk of his life continues to believe in the solution of two states – if with a word one wanted to ruin the last dreams of men and women of goodwill who still believe in peace – one would be absolutely on the right track.

So what happened to this man, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate?

Is it the vanity of someone who is no longer so important, who wants a last 15 minutes in the spotlight before he has to leave the stage forever?

Is it the senility of a politician who has lost touch with reality and with his own party? Barack Obama, even more clearly than his rival, has just reminded us that it will not be possible to "sit down" with the leaders of Hamas unless they are prepared to "renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and respect past agreements."

Could he be suffering from a variant of self-hatred, or in this case a hatred of his own past as the Great Peacemaker?

All hypotheses are permitted. Whatever the reason, Mr. Carter has demonstrated an unusual capacity to transform a political error into a disastrous moral mistake.

Mr. Levy's new book, "Left in Dark Times: A Stand against the New Barbarism," will be published by Random House in September. This essay was translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.

from CNSNews.com, 2007-Sep-11, by Patrick Goodenough:

Bush the 'Best Ally' of Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Professor Says

President Bush is the "best ally" of Osama bin Laden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky was quoted as telling one of Japan's largest newspapers on Tuesday.

The newspaper, Mainichi Shimbun, published what it called an exclusive interview with Chomsky, to coincide with the sixth anniversary of al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks on the United States.

In the interview, Chomsky argued that the Iraq war "significantly increased the threat of terror," and he cited Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of the book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," as calling Bush bin Laden's main ally.

Chomsky later added, "just as Bush is Osama Bin Laden's best ally, he is also Ahmadinejad's best ally." Washington's "threats" against Iran had the anticipated effect of making the Iranian government "more harsh and verbal," he said.

The interview was published four days after al-Qaeda released a video message from bin Laden in which the fugitive terrorist approvingly cited both Chomsky and Scheuer.

"This war [in Iraq] was entirely unnecessary," bin Laden said in the video, according to the transcript released by the SITE Institute. "And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice."

The al-Qaeda chief also urged those wanting to know the reasons why the West is "losing" the war to "read the book of Michael Scheuer."

Elsewhere in the Mainichi interview, Chomsky is quoted as saying:

-- That he had predicted directly after 9/11 that governments would use the attacks "as an excuse" to intensify repression.

-- That the invasion of Iraq was a war crime.

-- That the U.S. bombed Taliban-ruled Afghanistan after 9/11 despite having no real evidence at the time that the plot had been hatched in that country.

-- That while Afghanistan today needs constructive help, including offers of alternatives to poppy cultivation by peasants, "what the West prefers to do is to bomb."

-- That "the United States is not a functioning democracy."

-- That the "first 9/11" wasn't the al-Qaeda attack in 2001 but the Sept. 11, 1973 military coup that toppled Chile's communist President Salvadore Allende. "The effect of the first 9/11 was incomparably worse than the second 9/11," Chomsky says. "How come nobody talks about that? Well there is a simple reason. Because we were responsible for it."

from the Los Angeles Times, 2007-Sep-28, by Patrick J. McDonnell in Bolivia:

Morales: Down with capitalism; move the U.N.; give Iran a chance

Bolivian President Evo Morales welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Bolivia on Thursday, sparking an outcry in Bolivia, where the leftist Morales is a hero to some, a divisive demagogue to others. He's seldom short of words.

The visit came a day after Morales, speaking at the United Nations, called for the end of capitalism and moving the U.N. headquarters away from New York. Delays in obtaining U.S. visas and clearing customs and immigration really irked Bolivia's first indigenous president, leader of Bolivia's coca-leaf growers.

"My ministers who came, indigenous people, are subjected to hours and hours of control, and some come to be threatened by the head of the household, by President Bush," Morales said, according to El Nuevo Día.

The newspaper's front page bannered word of Morales' wish to "eradicate capitalism."

Moving the U.N. seat from the United States, Morales said, would speed the descolonización (de-colonialization) of the world body.

While in New York, Morales also did a televised interview with comedian Jon Stewart, declaring, "Please don't consider me part of the axis of evil."

from the Booman Tribune blog, 2007-Sep-9, by George Maschke:

Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze

Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.

The video may be downloaded as a 677 mb MPEG file here.

from the SITE Institute, 2007-Sep-7, by Osama bin Laden et al.:

Osama Bin Laden Video Transcript

The following is the transcript of the latest Osama Bin Laden Video as provided by the SITE Institute:

[Comments in square brackets are by the AMPP editor.]

All praise is due to Allah, who built the heavens and earth in justice, and created man as a favor and grace from Him. And from His ways is that the days rotate between the people, and from His Law is retaliation in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the killer is killed. And all praise is due to Allah, who awakened His slaves' [In his conception, one cannot be a Muslim without being a slave.] desire for the Garden [see Returning to Eden for some context on the "Garden" references], and all of them will enter it except those who refuse. And whoever obeys Him alone in all of his affairs will enter the Garden, and whoever disobeys Him will have refused.

As for what comes after: Peace be upon he who follows the Guidance. People of America: I shall be speaking to you on important topics which concern you, so lend me your ears. I begin by discussing the war which is between us and some of its repercussions for us and you.

To preface, I say: despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal as well; and despite it spending on this war and is army more than the entire world spends on its armies; and despite it being the being the major state influencing the policies of the world, as if it has a monopoly on the unjust right of veto; despite all of this, 19 young men were able - by the grace of Allah, the Most High- to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden.

Since the 11th, many of America's policies have come under the influence of the Mujahideen, and that is by the grace of Allah, the Most High. And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically [This is just an obvious falsehood.], even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions [what?].

And for your information media, during the first years of the war, lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader [apparently the New York Times doesn't deliver to caves in Waziristan].

Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor. [This is accusing the US of precisely what al Qaeda affiliates have been actually doing.]

And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure.

So these are some of the results of the freedom about whose spreading he is talking to you. And then the backtracking of Bush on his insistence on not giving the United Nations expanded jurisdiction in Iraq is an implicit admission of his loss and defeat there. [again, what?]

And among the most important items contained in Bush's speeches since the events of the 11th is that the Americans have no option but to continue the war. This tone is in fact an echoing of the words of neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle, the latter having said previously that the Americans have no choice in front of them other than to continue the war or face a holocaust.

I say, refuting this unjust statement, that the morality and culture of the holocaust is your culture, not our culture. [False. The Nazi religion was a syncretion of eastern religion with some imagery from extinct ancestral Indo-European religion, neither of which is part of our culture. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close friend of Adolf Eichmann and advised him on the implementation of the Holocaust.] In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?! [What of 2001-Sep-11, ya big weenie?] The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us. And my proof for that is in what your brothers, the Spanish, did when they set up the horrible courts of the Inquisition to try Muslims and Jews, when the Jews only found safe shelter by taking refuge in our countries. And that is why the Jewish community in Morocco today is one of the largest communities in the world. ["Jews first appeared in Morocco more than two millenia ago, traveling there in association with Phoenician traders. The first substantial Jewish settlements developed in 586 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. In June 1948, bloody riots in Oujda and Djerada killed 44 Jews and wounded scores more. That same year, an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews. In 1956, Morocco declared its independence, and by 1959 Zionist activities became illegal. In 1963, more then 100,000 Moroccan Jews were forced out from their homes and moved to Israel. During these years, more than 30,000 Jews left for France and the Americas in search of a better life." (from here] They are alive with us and we have not incinerated them, but we are a people who don't sleep under oppression and reject humiliation and disgrace, and we take revenge on the people of tyranny and aggression, and the blood of the Muslims will not be spilled with impunity, and the morrow is nigh for he who awaits.

Also, your Christian brothers have been living among us for 14 centuries: in Egypt alone, there are millions of Christians whom we have not incinerated and shall not incinerate. But the fact is, there is a continuing and biased campaign being waged against us for a long time now by your politicians and many of your writers by way of your media, especially Hollywood, for the purpose of misrepresenting Islam and its adherents to drive you away from the true religion. The genocide of peoples and their holocausts took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons [regarding the nukes, see "Terrible, but not a crime: Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered for the suffering which was brought to an end"].

And among the things which catch the eye of the one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of justice, liberty, equality and humanitarianism. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan- in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction, killing, hunger, illness, displacement and more than a million orphans in Baghdad alone, not to mention hundreds of thousands of widows. Americans statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq as a result of the war and its repercussions.

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped [But not by ceding Iraq to bin Laden's accolytes or the Iranian mullahs]. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning [The Democrats are Americans too.]. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?

I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is:

Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw Iraq?

In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers [The Viet Nam War ended 1975-Apr-30. Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defense on 1975-Nov-20. He was in Congress from 1962 (aged 30) to 1969, then until 1973 served in economics-related posts in the Nixon Administration, then served as ambassador to NATO. He has no nexus with the Viet Nam conflict.]. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

And so Kennedy was killed [apparently we're dealing with an old fashioned conspiracy theoriest...], and al-Qaida wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade. But after it became clear to you that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, Rumsfeld. And even more incredible than that is that Bush picked him as secretary of defense in his first term after picking Cheney as his vice president, Powell as secretary of state and Armitage as Powell's deputy, despite their horrific and blood history of murdering humans. So that was clear signal that his administration - the administration of the generals- didn't have as its main concern the serving of humanity, but rather, was interested in bringing about new massacres. Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent- to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th - were I to claim such a thing. But it is impossible for me to humor any of you in the arrogance and indifference you show for the lives of humans outside America, or for me to humor your leaders in their lying, as the entire world knows they have the lion's share of that. These morals aren't our morals. What I want to emphasize here is that not taking past war criminals to account led to them repeating that crime of killing humanity without right and waging this unjust war in Mesopotamia, and as a result, here are the oppressed ones today continuing to take their right from you.

This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky [Oh swell, now Noam gets a bin Laden bump on Amazon.com, to go with his Chavez bump.], who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice. The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no to spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed. It is time for humankind to know that talk of the rights of man and freedom are lies [Note paragraph one, above, in which bin Laden says all good Muslims are "slaves".] produced by the White House and its allies in Europe to deceive humans, take control of their destinies and subjugate them. ["Islam" means "submission".]

So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. [Actually, "Kennedy increased America's troop numbers from 500 to 16,000", according to Wikipedia.] Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks." And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.

However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations. [Well, that does sound a lot like Noam Chomsky..]

And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations [This is just parroted nitwittery, and moreover bin Laden is unwittingly doing the bidding of the global financier clique - see here], yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives. [Note that China is now the top polluter and CO2 emitter in the world, and their lead is on track to grow rapidly in the coming years.]

And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown- still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system. [This is too rich... after all, the global Caliphate that bin Laden dreams of establishing has all the faults of monks, kings, and feudalism, but even more tyranny.]

If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy. [Shit, this jackass sounds like he's been cribbing from my late 1990s writings.]

And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa: all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system.

So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you [Actually, not so much -- we do a better job of realizing equality under the law than anyone has before.], since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer. [Wait for it, here comes the punchline...]

The infallible methodology is the methodology of Allah, the Most High, who created the heavens and earth and created the Creation and is the Most Kind and All-Informed and the Knower of the souls of His slaves [wasn't he talking about freedom only a few paragraphs ago?] and the methodology that best suits them.

You believe with absolute certainty that you believe in Allah, and you are full of conviction of this belief, so much so that you have written this belief of yours on your dollar. [This makes clear that is addressing Americans here, which will shortly become bizarre in the paragraphs to follow.]

But the truth is that you are mistake in this belief of yours. The impartial judge knows that belief in Allah requires straightness in the following of His methodology, and accordingly, total obedience must be to the orders and prohibitions of Allah Alone in all aspects of life.

So how about you when you associate others with Him in your beliefs and separate state from religion, then claim that you are believers?!

What you have done is clear loss and manifest polytheism, And I will give you a parable of polytheism, as parables summarize and clarify speech.

I tell you: its parable is the parable of a man who owns a shop and hires a worker and tells him, "Sell and give me the money," but he makes sales and give the money to someone other than the owner. So who of you would approve of that?

You believe that Allah is your Lord and your Creator and the Creator of this earth and that it is His property, then you work on His earth and property without His orders and without obeying Him, and you legislate in contradiction to His Law and methodology.

This work of yours is the greatest form of polytheism and is rebellion against obedience to Allah with which the believer becomes an unbeliever, even if he obeys Allah in some of His other orders. Allah, the Most High, sent down His orders in His Sacred Books like the Torah and Evangel and sent with them the Messengers (Allah's prayers and peace be upon them) as bearers of good news to the people.

And everyone who believes in them and complies with them is a believer from the people of the Garden. Then when the men of knowledge altered the words of Allah, the Most High, and sold them for a paltry price, as the rabbis did with the Torah and the monks with the Evangel, Allah sent down His final Book, the magnificent Quran, and safeguarded it from being added to or subtracted from by the hands of men, and in it is a complete methodology for the lives of all people.

And our holding firm to this magnificent Book is the secret of our strength and winning of the war against you despite the fewness of our numbers and materiel. And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard. [So now there's a CIA alumnus on bin Laden's recommended reading list..]

Don't be turned away from Islam by the terrible situation of the Muslims today, for our rulers in general abandoned Islam many decades ago, but our forefathers were the leaders and pioneers of the world for many centuries, when they held firmly to Islam. [This is an unfounded myth.]

And before concluding, I tell you: there has been an increase in the thinkers who study events and happenings, and on the basis of their study, they have declared the approach of the collapse of the American Empire.

Among them is the European thinker who anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union, which indeed fell. And it would benefit you to read what he wrote about what comes after the empire in regard to the United States of America. I also want to bring your attention that among the greatest reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was their being afflicted with their leader Brezhnev, who was overtaken by pride and arrogance and refused to look at the facts on the ground. From the first year of the Afghanistan invasion, reports indicated that the Russians were losing the war, but he refused to acknowledge this, lest it go down in his personal history as a defeat, even though refusal to acknowledge defeat not only doesn't do anything to change the facts for thinking people, but also exacerbates the problem and increases the losses. And how similar is your position today to their position approximately two decades ago. The mistakes of Brezhnev are being repeated by Bush, who - when asked about the date of his withdrawing of forces from Iraq - said in effect that the withdrawal will not be during his reign, but rather, during the reign of the one who succeeds him. And the significance of these words is not hidden.

And here I say: it would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying - with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs - the price for these sorts of irresponsible statements. Among them is the eloquent message of Joshua which he sent by way of the media, in which he wipes the tears from his eyes and describes American politicians in harsh terms and invites them to join him there for a few days. Perhaps his message will find in you an attentive ear so you can rescue him and more than 150,000 of your sons there who are tasting the two bitterest things: [The US military consists entirely of volunteer adults. In fact, Don Rumsfeld was a key advocate of the all-volunteer military when it was first instituted in the 1970s.]

If they leave their barracks, the mines devour them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus, the only options left in front of them are to commit suicide or cry, both of which are from the severest of afflictions. So is there anything more men can do after crying and killing themselves to make you respond to them? They are doing that out of the severity of the humiliation, fear and terror which they are suffering. It is severer than what the slaves used to suffer at your hands centuries ago, and it is as if some of them have gone from one slavery to another slavery more severe and harmful, even if it be in the fancy dress of the Defense Department's financial enticements. [Hey bin Laden, how are your mujahideen making out when they run into the US Marine Corps, huh?]

So do you feel the greatness of their sufferings?

To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - ie., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life. The true religion is a mercy for people in their lives, filling their hearts with serenity and calm.

There is a message for you in the Mujahideen: the entire world is in pursuit of them, yet their hearts, by the grace of Allah, are satisfied and tranquil. The true religion also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals; protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him Alone. [I wonder if he really believes this crap.]

And it will also achieve your desire to stop the war as a consequence, because as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporations realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and begun to search for an alternative, and that this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam. So your true compliance with Islam will deprive them of the opportunity to defraud the peoples and take their money under numerous pretexts, like arms deals and so on.

There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat totaling only 2.5%. [One might want to scrutinize the per capita GDP figures of Muslim nations for comparison with those of Western nations...] So beware of the deception of those with the capital. And with your earnest reading about Islam from its pristine sources, you will arrive at an important truth, which is that the religion of all of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) is one, and that its essence is submission to the orders of Allah Alone in all aspects of life, even if their Shari'ahs differ.

And did you know that the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Quran dozens of times, and that in the Quran there is a chapter whose name is "Maryam," i.e. Mary, daughter of 'Imran and mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both)? It tells the story of her becoming pregnant with the Prophet of Allah Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), and in its confirmation of her chastity and purity, in contrast to the fabrications of the Jews against her [Actually, they were Jews themselves.]. Whoever wishes to find that out for himself must listen to the verse of this magnificent chapter: one of the just kings of the Christians - the Negus - listened to some of its verses and his eyes welled up with tears and he said something which should be reflected on for a long time by those sincere in their search for the truth.

He said, "verily, this and what Jesus brought come from one lantern": i.e., that the magnificent Quran and the Evangel are both from Allah, the Most High; and every just and intelligent one of you who reflects on the Quran will definitely arrive at this truth. It also must be noted that Allah has preserved the Quran from the alterations of men. And reading in order to become acquainted with Islam only requires a little effort, and those of you who are guided will profit greatly. And peace be upon he who follows the Guidance."

from Azure via OpinionJournal.com, 2007-Aug-8, by James Kirchick:

South Africa's Betrayal
Postapartheid Pretoria has become the free world's leading coddler of dictators.

Last September, not long after the Israeli-Hezbollah war, South Africa's minister of intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, praised the Islamist group committed to Israel's destruction. The Iran News Agency, albeit prone to exaggeration, reported that Mr. Kasrils "lauded [the] great victories of the Lebanese Hezbollah against the Zionist forces" and "stressed that the successful Lebanese resistance proved the vulnerability of the Israeli army." The comment received no attention in the South African media; nor, for that matter, did the international press seem particularly interested. And yet, the scandalous comment occurred immediately after the South African government had warmly received the visiting Iranian foreign minister and expressed support for Iran's campaign for uranium enrichment--in spite of the passing of a United Nations Security Council deadline that same week regarding the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.

This stance toward Iran is cause for concern on its own. Unfortunately, it is also illustrative of a much broader and more chilling trend in South Africa's postapartheid foreign policy: one that cozies up to tyrants, and is increasingly oriented against the West--even at the cost of its self-proclaimed principles of human rights and political freedom.

Postapartheid South Africa's easy relationship with dictatorships, it should be noted, is not a new development. Until very recently, however, it has largely been overlooked by the media. This oversight is likely due to the fact that, much like its out-of-control crime rate, any bad news about South Africa is viewed as a blemish on the popular and self-comforting narrative surrounding the country's emergence from apartheid. Indeed, that a country scarred by so many years of violent racial segregation could transform itself into a fully functioning democracy with a robust economy while simultaneously avoiding the wide-scale racial bloodbath feared by many is nothing short of miraculous. But judging by its international relations, South Africa--by far the most politically stable, economically productive and militarily powerful country in sub-Saharan Africa--appears to be moving into the camp of the anti-Western powers, a loose but increasingly worrisome consortium not unlike the Cold War-era Non-Aligned Movement. Drawing heavily upon its history as a liberation movement, the African National Congress cloaks itself in a shroud of moral absolutism that not so subtly implicates its critics as racists, Western stooges, or apologists for apartheid.

In a 1993 article written for Foreign Affairs on the eve of his country's transfer of power, Nelson Mandela declared that "South Africa's future foreign relations will be based on our belief that human rights should be the core of international relations." Mr. Mandela had good reason to attempt an improvement of his country's international image: South Africa's apartheid government was the cause of much instability in the region, involved as it was in international terrorism against antiapartheid leaders and cross-border raids in a number of black "frontline states."

With the transition of power, then, many hoped that South Africa would prove to be a beacon of good governance and responsible leadership for the rest of Africa. Unfortunately, not long after he was released from prison, Mr. Mandela himself began cavorting with the likes of Fidel Castro ("Long live Comrade Fidel Castro!" he said at a 1991 rally in Havana), Moammar Gadhafi (whom he visited in 1997 in defiance of American objections, greeting the Libyan dictator as "my brother leader") and Yasser Arafat ("a comrade in arms"). Mr. Mandela felt affection toward these men because they supported the ANC in exile. But he seemed unperturbed by the fact that Cuba, Libya and the PLO all employed terrorist tactics and treated their critics much as the apartheid state had.

That Mr. Mandela has comported himself so comfortably with dictators is more than hypocritical--it is a betrayal of the principles for which he languished twenty-seven years in prison. Yet while Mr. Mandela's grandstanding with tyrants is regrettable, it has been far less serious than his ANC successors' strategic and systematic support for a broadly anti-Western agenda.

Perhaps the best example of the ANC's betrayal of the cause of human rights is in its dealings with its immediate neighbor to the north, Zimbabwe. Since he initiated a policy of violent confiscation of white-owned farms in 2000, President Robert Mugabe has presided over what might arguably be the most abysmal degeneration of a modern nation-state. Once the "jewel of Africa," a relatively affluent country that boasted high life expectancies, abundant food exports and the continent's highest literacy rates, Zimbabwe may now lay claim to one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the world, mass starvation and a politically oppressed citizenry.

Four years ago, as the country entered free fall, President Bush referred to South African President Thabo Mbeki as his "point man" on Zimbabwe. And in March of this year, the African Union once again reaffirmed its support for Mr. Mbeki as a peacebroker. But the ANC government has failed to deliver on the responsibility with which the world has entrusted it. Primarily because Mugabe was a liberation hero who fought against white colonialism, the ANC has been reluctant to take any action that might alleviate the brutality of his rule, never mind dislodge the tyrant from power. Indeed, South Africa is worse than inactive on Zimbabwe: It props up Mugabe via a formal military alliance, and does its diplomatic best to keep Zimbabwe off the international agenda.

In March, Tony Leon, then the leader of South Africa's Democratic Alliance (the country's leading opposition party), invoked the repression of the apartheid years to make clear just how aberrant his country's policy on Zimbabwe has become. He went so far as to call South Africa's relationship with Zimbabwe "an insult to the Sharpeville victims," the 69 black civilians who were killed by the state's security forces at an antiapartheid rally in 1960, an act that sparked the ANC's armed campaign against white rule. Considering the conditions in Mugabe's Zimbabwe (where democracy activists are imprisoned, tortured and killed, opposition rallies are banned, and the free media are largely silenced), the comparison to apartheid-era South Africa is hardly hyperbolic.

South Africa's newfound presence on the U.N. Security Council (it took up a two-year, nonpermanent seat in January) has placed its troublesome foreign policy in stark relief. One of the strongest proponents of Security Council reform via an expanded number of veto powers, South Africa assumed its seat with the hope of stirring things up and providing a voice for both the underdeveloped and developing world. With its proximity to and influence over Zimbabwe, South Africa might have seized the opportunity its position on the Security Council offered to earn international respect by drawing attention to its neighbor's ill-doings. Indeed, Mugabe could not have offered a more convenient reason for South Africa's condemnation: In March, he cracked down on his opponents by violently suppressing a public prayer meeting, and government agents cracked the skull of the country's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Yet South Africa's ambassador to the U.N. repeatedly stated his government's belief that Zimbabwe is a local problem best left for Mugabe and his opposition to deal with among themselves. So, too, did South Africa oppose attempts to bring the issue before the United Nations, choosing to go the route of "silent diplomacy" instead. Yet this policy, partly inspired by South African President Mbeki's genuine fear of Mugabe, a man with far stronger anticolonial liberation credentials than he, has been an unqualified failure from the beginning.

South Africa has balked at the chance to champion human rights at the U.N. in other instances, as well, lest it be seen as siding with Western forces. For instance, the first significant vote placed before the Security Council this year dealt with a nonbinding resolution regarding the military junta in Burma. The resolution called for the release of all political prisoners, a process of national reconciliation (one, it should be noted, not unlike South Africa's) and an end to human-rights abuses. South Africa, along with Russia and its crucial trading partner, China (whose neoimperialism in Africa has been extensively documented), voted against the resolution's acceptance--which, ironically, called for far less stringent measures than what the ANC itself demanded the world invoke against the apartheid regime. Even Archbishop Desmond Tutu admitted that the Burma vote was "a betrayal of our own noble past." Yet South Africa was content to recommend that Burma be referred to the Human Rights Council, a kangaroo court at which the world's villains pass judgment on Western democracies, and where such a resolution would garner little attention.

The ANC has also made important entrées with the Arab and Muslim bloc by striking a defiantly anti-American pose. The ANC government opposed sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for example, and even questioned the legality of the American- and British-enforced no-fly zones, which protected the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from certain genocide. In the run-up to the Iraq war, South African Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad (who earlier this year claimed that the United States was responsible for a "volatile, dangerous and unpredictable environment" in world affairs) met with Saddam in Baghdad to deliver a letter from President Mbeki that "expressed [Mr. Mbeki's] solidarity with Iraq."

Other ranking members of the ANC have expressed similarly bizarre, anti-Western views. Just before the war began, the secretary general of the ANC told antiwar protesters that "because we are endowed with several rich minerals, if we don't stop this unilateral action against Iraq today, tomorrow they will come for us." A year prior, the Guardian quoted the country's health minister (who has suggested that AIDS sufferers eat beetroot and garlic to treat themselves) as saying that South Africa cannot afford drugs to fight HIV/AIDS partly because it needs submarines to deter attacks from nations such as the United States (she later denied ever making the statement).

The ANC (due to South Africa's appalling lack of political finance regulations) has accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments and officials including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, former Indonesian strongman Suharto and the viciously anti-Semitic Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia. Perhaps wary of how such an act would be received by its steadily increasing Muslim population, South Africa also decided not to co-sponsor the U.N. General Assembly resolution on Holocaust denial in January, and has joined in the chorus of those nations calling for the United States and the European Union to lift their sanctions on the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Though South Africa's Muslim community is small (just 1.5% of the population), it has become increasingly radicalized, and the ANC has done everything to appease it. In June of 2003, Mr. Pahad met with representatives of Hezbollah and legitimized the group by stating that "clear distinctions" ought be made "between terrorism and legitimate struggle for liberation." The ANC often lends credence to terrorism against Israel by likening the struggle of the Arabs to that of South Africa's nonwhites. Three years ago, Pakistani police captured three South Africans who stand accused of plotting to blow up the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and government buildings in Pretoria. Another South African has been arrested in connection to the July 7, 2005, London transit bombings, and earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury named two South African cousins as substantial financial contributors to al Qaeda. While the American government blocked them from making financial transactions in the U.S., South Africa's U.N. ambassador attempted to use his country's new seat on the Security Council to block the terrorist-sponsoring designation from taking effect. And to top this all off, the ANC called for South Africans to "turn out in their thousands" the week of June 4 "in solidarity with the Palestinian people."

Ultimately, however, what ought to matter most to the international community is South Africa's increasingly outspoken role in legitimizing Iranian nuclear ambitions. And the U.S. has indeed shown concern: In response to the Iranian foreign minister's visit to South Africa last August (when South Africa again declared that Iran has an "inalienable right" to a peaceful nuclear energy program) the United States sent its permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency to Pretoria in hopes of convincing South Africa to take a harder line.

Given the complicated nature of South African-American relations due to the latter's inaction (and, at times, obstruction) in bringing down apartheid, it was understandable that Ambassador Gregory Schulte would attempt to win the South Africans over with flattery: "South Africa's example and leadership position you to help Iran's leaders to think hard about Iran's future and to consider two different models: The first, North Korea--nuclear-armed, but impoverished, isolated, insignificant; the second, South Africa--nuclear weapons-free, but secure, dynamic, and a respected player in your region and the world. The choice should be clear. You can help Iran's leaders make the right one." Nevertheless, South Africa has remained credulous of Iranian protestations about the supposedly civilian purpose of its nuclear program. Indeed, its representative to the U.N. recently told South Africa's Sunday Times that "We will . . . defend the right of countries to have nuclear technology for peaceful uses. For instance, Iran."

South Africa's friendliness toward Iran has apparently increased in proportion to its emergence as a considerable player on the world stage. In March, serving in its temporary role as Security Council president, South Africa attempted to halt the imposition of a new round of sanctions on Iran for its defiance of IAEA mandates. The sanctions, proposed by the unusual alliance of the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany, instituted an arms embargo and asset freeze--both of which South Africa fought to remove from the resolution, and, barring that, to postpone until after a 90-day "time out" period. Although the Security Council's five veto powers overruled South Africa's attempts at watering down the resolution, France's U.N. ambassador told the Associated Press that South Africa's diplomatic maneuvering had nonetheless "weakened a lot of the resolution."

That South Africa would support Iran is partly a matter of oil politics: Iran supplies almost half the oil South Africa uses. Two years ago, the Iranians claimed that they had entered into talks with South Africa about the latter's supplying them with unprocessed uranium for enrichment purposes, a claim the South African government later denied. But South African sympathy for Iran clearly goes deeper than mere trade links. For instance, South Africa has recently found itself in a situation similar to Iran's as it debates whether or not to proceed once again with a uranium enrichment program for "peaceful purposes." Perhaps, then, the South Africans believe they will be labeled hypocrites for demanding greater scrutiny of Iranian activity while simultaneously sponsoring an enrichment program of their own.

Yet the issue with Iran, at least, has never been uranium enrichment per se. Rather, it has been transparency and intent. No one seriously believes that South Africa's motives in potential uranium enrichment would be nefarious, and that South Africa--for the most part a good international citizen--would hinder any sort of outside inspection effort of its facilities. The same can hardly be said of Iran. As the Johannesburg Star recently advised the South African government, "Sometimes you have to get off the fence and take sides." When it comes to Iran, a democratic country like South Africa ought to know which side to take.

Increasingly an influential force behind South Africa's power plays in the world arena is Ronnie Kasrils, the country's minister of intelligence and possibly the highest-ranking Jewish official in any government outside of Israel. A veteran of the antiapartheid struggle, Mr. Kasrils fled the country at the cusp of 25 and spent the next 27 years in exile as a leader of the ANC's military wing. Though the vast majority of South African Jews--safely ensconced within that country's privileged white community--did little to fight apartheid, Mr. Kasrils was one of the Jews who, in disproportionate numbers, took an active role in opposing the racist system (in addition to being one of the Jews who, also in disproportionate numbers, joined the Communist Party). Mr. Kasrils is also a vocal anti-Zionist and Israel's most outspoken critic in South Africa. He, like other high-ranking ANC figures, appears to believe that Iranian intentions are ultimately benign, and that Israel is in fact the major source of aggression and instability in the region. The prism of Mr. Kasrils's views on the Middle East provides the necessary context for understanding the ANC leadership's views on international affairs.

In early September of this year, Mr. Kasrils wrote of Israel in the weekly Mail & Guardian that "we must call baby killers 'baby killers,' and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis." This article was published mere days before Mr. Kasrils ventured to Tehran to glorify Hezbollah. A few months prior, Mr. Kasrils joined some 70 South African Jews in a statement published in several of the country's newspapers declaring that, "Jewish support for Israel aggression kills humanity." Not surprisingly, Mr. Kasrils supports boycotting the Jewish state, endorses a "one-state solution" that would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and frequently lends credence to the "Israel is an apartheid state" meme.

Mr. Kasrils's stance on Israel has become so egregious that Helen Suzman, a prominent secular Jew who served 36 years in Parliament as an opponent--sometimes the only one--of apartheid, has written that "it is not only religious Jews who object to Kasrils's allegations. The issue is the anti-Semitism fostered by Kasrils's pronouncements." In May of this year, Mr. Kasrils invited Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader and prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority, to South Africa. Of the invitation, the South African Board of Jewish Deputies released a statement reading: "Expressing support for an organization whose very founding charter describes the Jewish people as evil enemies of humanity and calls for its total annihilation, fundamentally contradicts the ideals both of South Africa and of the ruling ANC itself."

Joel Pollak, currently a student at Harvard Law School and a former speechwriter for the opposition Democratic Alliance, is a knowledgeable observer of Mr. Kasrils, having written a master's thesis on his relations with South Africa's Jewish community, which currently numbers between 70,000 and 80,000. It is not, Mr. Pollak maintains, Mr. Kasrils's extreme views that most upset South African Jews, but rather the way in which Mr. Kasrils advances them. "Kasrils, unlike Tony Judt, has political power," he told me. He went on to explain that Mr. Kasrils's attacks on Israel--and South African Jews, as well, for their alleged complicity in Israeli "war crimes"--echo the not so subtle warnings issued to Jews in the early 1960s by Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, who cautioned that Jewish support for the antiapartheid Progressive Party might inspire a wave of government-sanctioned anti-Semitism.

Though Mr. Pollak says there is no doubt that Mr. Kasrils believes the things he says about Israel (his unwavering communism, for instance, helps account for much of his anti-Zionist ideology), he has cynically used his Jewishness--a trait he rarely ever acknowledges, except when criticizing Israel--to curry favor within the ranks of the ANC, where anti-imperialism is still in vogue, however outdated. Mr. Kasrils "knows that because he's a white minister in an intensely racially nationalistic cabinet, he's very vulnerable," Mr. Pollak concludes. Thus, by so publicly going after his own relatively miniscule minority community of Jews, Mr. Kasrils proves his leftist, Third Worldist bona fides to the ANC elite. And if his rise in prominence within the party is any indication, the ANC certainly approves of Mr. Kasrils's frequent Israel-bashing: In 2004, he was appointed intelligence minister from his former post as minister of water affairs and forestry.

Mr. Kasrils, characteristic of the South African communists who were catapulted into power while their ideological fatherland crumbled, is unrepentant about the Cold War. In his self-congratulatory memoir, "Armed and Dangerous," he writes, "Whatever the drawbacks and failures I am convinced that in years to come humanity will look back to Soviet achievements as a source of profound inspiration." He blames the defeat of the Soviet system on those in power who were affected by a "fatal loss of confidence and will" and he writes admiringly of Che Guevara and "other communist heroes."

Many people might prefer to wave Mr. Kasrils off as a harmless crank from a bygone generation. But as minister of intelligence, Mr. Kasrils is instrumental in shaping South Africa's approach to dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. As Mr. Pollak observes, "South Africa is now the only state in the democratic world aside from Venezuela, maybe, that is standing behind Iran on everything." So, too, is Mr. Kasrils integral to South Africa's treatment of the Zimbabwe problem: In the spring of 2005, not long after Mugabe uprooted 700,000 of the country's poorest citizens from their homes in a move reminiscent of apartheid governments' forced relocations of poor blacks to "independent homelands" in the barren countryside, Mr. Kasrils signed a military agreement with Zimbabwe, declaring that "the liberation struggles of Southern Africa and the resultant shedding of blood for a common cause . . . cemented our cooperation on the way forward in the development of our respective countries."

The source of the ANC's kid-gloves treatment of totalitarians is undoubtedly its historic skepticism, even downright hostility, toward the West. This viewpoint solidified during the apartheid years, when it was the Soviet Union that supplied the ANC with weapons and issued diplomatic broadsides against the United States and Britain for their cozy relations with the apartheid regime. Today, the ANC rules South Africa not by itself, but as part of the fabled "tripartite alliance" that it legally formed with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) in the early 1990s after these opposition movements were legalized by the apartheid government. Herein lies much of the problem.

To its credit, the ANC's left wing has been its most insistent internal critic on Zimbabwe (largely because Mugabe has crushed his country's independent trade unions). Nonetheless, anachronistic "anti-imperialist" ideology still fills the heads of those in the highest echelons of the party. Only compounding matters, both the COSATU and the SACP are "rabidly anti-Israel," as a South African Jewish community leader told me, viewing Israel as America's mouthpiece in the region. Moreover, while the ANC has supported liberal macroeconomic policies (to the delight of both domestic and international business), this is due to economic necessity rather than an ideological commitment to free markets. Indeed, the ANC has long been suspicious of Western intentions, to the point of paranoia, and nowhere has this been more apparent than in the attitudes of many high-ranking ANC figures on the supposed "Western" approaches to HIV (such as the belief that it actually causes AIDS) and Zimbabwe.

The ANC has always featured communists in its ranks, and while some members were fervently opposed to left-wing totalitarianism, they never reached anything approaching critical mass. Indeed, those liberal antiapartheid movements and activists who were just as outspoken in their opposition to communism as they were to racial discrimination--such as the novelist Alan Paton, leader of the short-lived Liberal Party; Helen Suzman of the Progressive Party; and the English-language press--have notoriously been maligned by ANC apparatchiks as handmaidens to apartheid. Consequently, a history of antitotalitarianism--a strong, bipartisan current in American politics, shaped by the Cold War experience--simply does not exist in South Africa. Instead, fuzzy leftover notions of "anti-imperialism" dominate the political discourse of influential ANC leaders.

South Africa's coddling of Iran, then, must be seen as of a piece with its deferral of responsibility as concerns Zimbabwe, its following of the Chinese cue on Burma, and its siding with the Palestinians. All of these decisions are undergirded by a long-established and deeply rooted uncertainty, if not downright antagonism, toward the West.

Of course, this bleak picture just painted should not obscure the many admirable developments on the continent in which South Africa has played a leading role. It oversaw, for instance, the transformation of the Organization for African Unity, for too long a group that legitimized the kleptocratic tendencies of its member states, into the African Union, which, however weak, has at least deployed several thousand peacekeepers to Darfur. And with the largest and most professional military on the continent, South Africa has also deployed peacekeeping troops in Congo, Ivory Coast and Burundi. Despite his faults (and they are many), Mr. Mbeki is a dedicated internationalist who envisions his country playing a robust, leading role on a continent that could learn much from South Africa's democratic liberalism, political stability and economic vitality.

But creeping anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments seem to have bubbled up from under the surface of South African political discourse. Indeed, they have now become an ideological underpinning of South Africa's foreign policy. The American political and media establishment looks askance at this development as, at least on its face, it pales in comparison to the actual human misery that is so widespread on the continent. Moreover, there is little that America or its allies can do to "punish" South Africa for its waywardness; on the contrary, the United States relies heavily on South Africa to be the continental, never mind regional, hegemon, and isolating Pretoria might imperil America's many other initiatives in Africa.

For decades, the international community rightly considered South Africa a pariah state. With the fall of apartheid, South Africa earned the unique right to be a clarion voice for freedom and human rights around the world. What a shame, then, that the ANC pursues policies hearkening back to its country's discredited past.

Mr. Kirchick is assistant to the editor in chief of The New Republic.

from the Associated Press, 2007-Jun-13, by Scott McDonald:

China denounces anti-communism memorial

BEIJING — China criticized the United States' "Cold War" thinking Wednesday after President Bush attended the opening of a Washington memorial for those killed in communist regimes.

Bush had said Tuesday that that the Victims of Communism Memorial was dedicated to tens of millions of people killed in communist regimes including China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and Vietnam, and that their deaths should remind Americans that "evil is real and must be confronted."

China's Foreign Ministry responded Wednesday evening, saying Beijing had protested to the United States after the inauguration of the bronze memorial and Bush's comments.

"There are political forces in the United States who still think in Cold War terms and seek to provoke conflicts between different ideologies and social systems," ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement posted on the ministry's Web site.

Although China has embraced capitalist ideas and reforms for its economy, the government remains firmly under the control of the Communist Party, which allows no political dissent.

"We resent and oppose the U.S. acts and have lodged strong representations with the U.S. side. The U.S. should stop interfering in the internal affair of other countries," Qin said.

His statement did not mention Bush by name.

Despite tussles over trade issues, relations between the countries have generally been good recently, especially in cooperating on trying to shut down North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

However, China also denounced Bush the week after he met with a prominent Muslim activist and outspoken critic of Beijing's rule in the far western Xinjiang region, calling the meeting a "blatant interference" in Chinese affairs.

Bush met exiled Chinese activist Rebiya Kadeer on the sidelines of a conference on democracy in the Czech capital, Prague, after praising her in a speech.

The memorial has been more than a decade in the making, and aims to honor memories and educate current and future generations about communism's crimes against humanity.

Bush spoke on the 20th anniversary of one of President Ronald Reagan's most famous moments — a speech at the Berlin Wall in which he challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."

It was the ultimate challenge of the Cold War, and the wall fell in 1989 as communist rule collapsed in East Germany and Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe.

from OpinionJournal.com, 2007-Apr-11, by James Taranto, excerpted from Best of the Web:

Enmity Begins at Home

After the smashing success of their Syrian jaunt, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos are considering another trip--"to open a dialogue with Iran," the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go--and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''

Still, the Democrats have their limits. The Chronicle reports that there is one world leader with whom congressional Democrats are unwilling to hold an unconditional dialogue:

President Bush, raising the political stakes in his fight with Congress over the war in Iraq, made Democratic leaders an offer they could and did refuse--come to the White House to accept his demand for continued, unfettered funding of the war.

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," the president said of the fight over the emergency war spending legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in San Francisco, forcefully rejected Bush's invitation--as had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada several hours earlier at a Capitol appearance.

"What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Sen. Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind. . . ."

Meanwhile at the Puffington Host, John Kerry defends Pelosi's junket to Syria:

We Democrats should've been unapologetic last week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side: She had a right to go. And she was right to go. The coordinated attack on her trip to Syria was as inappropriate as it was irresponsible. And when that happens to one of our leaders, we should all damn well stand up and be counted in our support, or else we hand partisan operatives on the other side a dangerous victory.

The telling phrase here is "the other side." Which side is Kerry on? The Democrats' against the Republicans', it would seem, not America's against its enemies.

It used to be said that politics ends at the water's edge--that is, that both parties stood in solidarity against foreign foes. Many of today's Democrats have precisely inverted the meaning of that adage. They stand against Republicans, even if that means standing in solidarity with America's enemies.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2007-May-7, p.A15, by Stephen Rademaker:

Blame America First

Two groups with diametrically opposed agendas have for years argued that the likes of Iran and North Korea will not be deterred in their quest for nuclear weapons so long as the U.S. and the other nuclear powers are ignoring their obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to give up their nuclear arsenals. Apologists for the proliferators, who care not at all about nuclear disarmament, and arms control activists, to whom there is no higher priority than nuclear disarmament, have long agreed about this and little else.

Jimmy Carter spoke for the latter group when he wrote, in an op-ed in the Washington Post a while back, "The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT." The key to ending nuclear proliferation, according to Mr. Carter and the many others who share this point of view, is for the U.S. to demonstrate leadership by moving decisively to eliminate its nuclear weapons. This perspective is likely to be heard more frequently as international efforts to constrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea appear to falter.

There are, however, two basic flaws in the suggestion that nuclear proliferation is rooted in U.S. nuclear policy. First, the reasons why Iran, North Korea and other would-be proliferators seek nuclear weapons have nothing to do with Washington's nuclear policy. Second, the claim that the U.S. is disregarding its legal obligations under the NPT does not withstand scrutiny.

To recognize that the motivations of today's nuclear proliferators have nothing to do with U.S. nuclear policy, it is necessary only to consider one question: Would Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il be any less interested in having nuclear weapons if the U.S. gave up its nuclear weapons? In both cases, the answer is clearly no.

President Ahmadinejad, by his own statements, is bent on dominating the Middle East and destroying the state of Israel. Nuclear weapons afford a shortcut to the realization of these objectives and therefore the Iranian regime wants them. Whether or not the U.S. has nuclear weapons is irrelevant to this calculus. Mr. Ahmadinejad may occasionally find it a convenient talking point to draw comparisons with the nuclear programs of other countries, but there is little doubt his policy would be the same even in the absence of that talking point.

In the case of North Korea, the pursuit of nuclear weapons appears to stem from Kim Jong Il's hunger for prestige and power. All indications are that Kim would be even more interested in having nuclear weapons if he thought he could be the only leader on Earth to possess them.

Those who argue that the U.S. has disregarded its nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT are quick to make categorical assertions about the treaty's requirements, but almost never quote the pertinent language of the NPT, for the simple reason that it provides no support for their claims. The key provision, Article VI of the treaty, consists of only one sentence: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

It is impossible to discern from this language a binding legal obligation on the U.S. and the other four nuclear-weapon states to give up nuclear weapons. The operative legal requirement is to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating . . . to nuclear disarmament. . . ."

The U.S. has not only negotiated on such matters for more than three decades, but it has signed and implemented a series of arms control agreements beginning in 1972 that have ended the nuclear arms race and substantially reduced the U.S. nuclear inventory. When the latest arms control agreement with Russia expires in 2012, the U.S. will have reduced by about 80% the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed at the height of the Cold War.

Significantly, the obligations of Article VI apply not just to the five countries allowed by the treaty to have nuclear weapons, but to all parties to the NPT. Article VI clearly links the obligation to negotiate on nuclear disarmament with an obligation on the part of all NPT parties to negotiate "a Treaty on general and complete disarmament."

The treaty also does not assume that nuclear disarmament must be a prerequisite to general and complete disarmament. To the contrary, one of the treaty's introductory paragraphs spells out the expectation of the parties that actual "elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons" would take place not prior to, but "pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament."

Those who in essence agree with the views of a Noam Chomsky that "The United States has led the way in refusal to abide by the Article VI obligations," notwithstanding more than 30 years of nuclear arms control, need to explain why they are not similarly exercised by the failure of all other NPT states to satisfy their Article VI obligations. In particular, they need to explain why the U.S. must do more to comply with Article VI's nuclear disarmament provisions, in the absence of even token steps by anyone else to comply with that Article's general and complete disarmament requirements.

Because the language of Article VI does not actually say what proponents of nuclear disarmament want it to say, they have worked for decades to reinterpret it. They have, for example, promoted declarations by international conferences reformulating the requirements of Article VI, and then argued that these reformulations are legally binding on the U.S., without approval by the U.S. Senate. These efforts have succeeded to a remarkable degree, at least as measured by popular conceptions of the NPT's nuclear-disarmament requirements.

And so the critics are not impressed that by 2012 the U.S. will have reduced its deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 80%. They will not be satisfied if the U.S. reduces by 99%. So long as there is one nuclear weapon remaining in the U.S. inventory, they will point to this as a root cause of nuclear proliferation.

Few serious students of nuclear strategy believe that the stockpiles of the nuclear weapon states can be reduced to zero in the foreseeable future. Fortunately our reliance on nuclear weapons has been declining, and the U.S. should continue to eliminate unnecessary nuclear weapons based on considered judgments about our national security requirements. But we should not base such decisions about our nuclear force structure on wishful thinking that we can earn the goodwill of nuclear proliferators and other critics whose agendas are advanced by blaming America for nuclear proliferation.

Mr. Rademaker, assistant secretary of state from 2002 to 2006 with responsibility for arms control and nonproliferation, is vice president of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International.

from the New York Sun, 2007-May-25, by Claudia Rosett:

U.N.'s Reading List for N. Korea

Not only has the United Nations been caught funneling cash to the rogue regime of North Korea's Kim Jong Il, but it's now emerging that the U.N. Development Program was ordering up books critical of America and President Bush for North Korean arms experts in Pyongyang, and accepted a shipment on March 14, almost two weeks after the UNDP announced that it was suspending operations in North Korea.

The UNDP-sponsored reading list for North Korean officialdom includes such titles as "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End," and "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration."

These are among the 29 volumes that appear on a packing list, seen by this reporter, for books ordered on behalf of the North Korean government by the UNDP. Some are more focused on arms deals, or on regional powers, and all can be purchased on the open market. But that raises a number of questions. For starters, why was the UNDP, a development agency, in the business of designing and funding an arms-negotiation syllabus for North Korea?

Another question involves the sky-high price of the shipment. According to the packing list, the books were assembled and forwarded to Pyongyang by the Beijing office of a Belgian-based company, Elsingor S.A., which describes itself on its Web site as a provider of products for "green energy." For its services, including book purchases and freight fees, Elsingor charged the UNDP $2,978.78, or roughly $100 a book. A search on Amazon finds the same list of books can be purchased online, new, for a total of $826.24 — which suggests that freight fees to get this 40-lb. carton of books into North Korea (for the use of the North Korean government, no less), came to more than $2,000.

Reached by phone in Beijing, an Elsingor office worker with a French accent, who refused to give his full name, said his company does a lot of business with foreigners working in North Korea, including shipments for the European Union and fertilizer deals with the United Nations's World Food Program. He says the book shipment was part of "helping all those guys."

Yet another set of questions involves why the books were shipped out on March 9, and accepted March 14, after the UNDP had announced it was suspending operations in Pyongyang? Were they then turned over to the North Korean government, along with the $2 million or so worth of "project assets" that The New York Sun's Benny Avni reported last month had been left with North Korea by the retreating UNDP? The UNDP rationale for handing piles of property to Kim was that the assets were already in North Korea's possession. But these books arrived during the period for which the UNDP spokesman's office in New York has said, "Nothing new has been `given' or transferred to the DPRK authorities."

Queried by e-mail about these matters, the former UNDP resident representative in Pyongyang to whom the shipment was addressed, Timo Pakkala, refers the question to the UNDP press office in New York. There, a spokesman says they are operating "under certain constraints." These include a "pending audit" — which is now more than a month overdue, following Secretary-General Ban's promise in response to "Cash for Kim" of a report in 90 days.

The books were ordered under a "disarmament" project run in recent years out of the UNDP's Pyongyang office, as part of an initiative bankrolled in 2002 by the German government and later by Sweden. This project was meant to produce a more tractable North Korean regime by exposing Pyongyang officials to European ideas about arms control. But details eked out of the UNDP recently leave the question of whether this exercise might have served as a bonanza of free intelligence for North Korea, laced with views highly critical of American policy — all done in the name of "development," courtesy of the UNDP.

Under the project label of "Capacity Building in Arms Control and Disarmament," the UNDP served as sponsor, banker, and fixer for North Korean arms experts to visit Europe and Britain on fellowships and "study tours," including stops at security think tanks in Sweden, Germany, and Britain; meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels and at the General Staff College of the German Armed Forces; and meetings with assorted diplomats at U.N. missions in Geneva.

The North Korean officials who went on these UNDP tours were selected via the DPRK Institute for Disarmament and Peace, a Pyongyang policy shop at the core of the arms negotiations that North Korea has used for years to manipulate, threaten, cheat, and extort concessions such as aid and fuel from countries including America. In a project document, provided by the UNDP, this institute is described in language straight out of the propaganda mills of Kim Jong Il as an outfit dedicated to "achieving disarmament and peace on the Korean peninsula, strengthening peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region," and "preventing war."

North Korean officials continued their study tours, and the UNDP continued ordering books for Pyongyang, even after North Korea's illicit and widely condemned tests last year of an intercontinental missile and, it claimed, a nuclear bomb.

Ms. Rosett is a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

from the Associated Press, 2007-Aug-14:

Macon, Ga., Residents Upset by Mayor's Letter of Solidarity to Hugo Chavez

MACON, Ga. — Some Macon residents have called for demonstrations and boycotts after the mayor of the central Georgia city formally reached out to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with a declaration of solidarity.

Mayor Jack Ellis said the declaration, sent about two weeks ago by courier, was a message that local leaders can stand together despite disagreements at the highest reaches of government.

Some local leaders have blasted the mayor's decision to support Chavez, a vocal ally of Iran and Cuba who has called President Bush "the devil."

Former mayoral candidate David Corr said the mayor's comments were "an outrage."

"We should condemn Chavez as an enemy of liberty," Corr said. "In fact, we should also condemn Ellis as an enemy of liberty."

State Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon, said the mayor's action "taints" the town.

"I think it's a negative for us," he told The Macon Telegraph. "We need to be doing things in this community that show the tremendous positives of Macon." Related

Ellis praised the controversial leader, who has subsidized the cost of heating fuel for some American low-income citizens, as a champion for the common man who could offer aid to Macon's residents.

"This is about a humanitarian effort," he said. "This is not about politics."

A Venezuelan Web site reported that Chavez had thanked Ellis for his support during an eight-hour broadcast of his show "Alo, Presidente," which he used to call for a "global alliance of civilizations to resist the attacks of U.S. imperialism."

The mayor's decision prompted 20 pages of comments on The Telegraph's online message board before the newspaper decided to take it down. Some called for demonstrations and other ways to signal their distaste for the mayor's move.

Ronald Johnson, a 71-year-old resident of nearby Houston County, called the move "treasonous" and is urging neighbors to boycott the city's businesses until Ellis is rebuked by city officials.

"It's unbelievable that he would do what he's done," said Johnson. "That is so wrong."

Ellis, a Democrat, is serving his second term as mayor and cannot seek re-election because of term limits.

He announced in February that he had converted to Islam and was working to legally change his name to Hakim Mansour Ellis. Ellis, who was raised Christian, said he became a Sunni Muslim during a December ceremony in the west African nation of Senegal.

from the Associated Press, 2007-Jun-15:

NKorea denounces U.S. missile defense system, vows to strengthen 'deterrent'

SEOUL, South Korea: North Korea lambasted U.S. efforts to build a missile defense system and vowed to increase its "self-defense deterrent," a term that the communist regime usually uses to refer to its nuclear program.

"The U.S. is claiming that it is building a global missile defense system to protect against missile attacks from our nation and Iran. This is a childish pretext," the North's ministry said in a statement carried by the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

"We cannot but further strengthen our self-defense deterrent if arms race intensifies because of the U.S. maneuvers," it said.

from Reuters, 2007-May-30, by Deborah Charles:

U.S. ranks low, just above Iran on new peace index

WASHINGTON - The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.

According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.

"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde McConaghy.

He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue to be measured."

The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much money was made in arms sales.

Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.

The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.

"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to peace," said Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial director of the intelligence unit that is part of The Economist Group that publishes the well known magazine.

He said they found in general the most peaceful countries were the smallest, the most politically stable and democratic.

"Democracy didn't actually correlate with peace, but a well-functioning democracy did. Efficient, accountable government seems to be the leading determinant of peace. Beyond that, income helps."

Fifteen of the top 20 most peaceful nations are in Western Europe, and countries with higher income appeared to lead to higher levels of peace, he said.

The United States ranked 96th out of 121 nations, just worse than Yemen and just better than Iran, Honduras and South Africa.

Abruzzese said the United States' score was pulled down by the number of wars it is involved in, large numbers of soldiers killed on the battlefield and high defense spending.

He said the fact the United States has the world's largest prison population per share of overall population also pulled down the score.

"It also has relatively high levels of violent crime," he added.

McConaghy said the index would be revised each year and increase the number of countries included. Some countries like Afghanistan and North Korea were not included in the first index because reliable data for all 24 indicators was not available.

James Taranto's comments on the above item, from OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web, 2007-May-31:

The index, brainchild of the Economist Intelligence Unit, is described further in this press release, which also lists the countries in order of their ranking. It is a very silly exercise:

After compiling the Index, the researchers examined it for patterns in order to identify the "drivers" that make for peaceful societies. They found that peaceful countries often shared high levels of democracy and transparency of government, education and material well-being. While the U.S. possesses many of these characteristics, its ranking was brought down by its engagement in warfare and external conflict, as well as high levels of incarceration and homicide. The U.S.'s rank also suffered due to the large share of military expenditure from its GDP, attributed to its status as one of the world's military-diplomatic powers.

Let's just focus on that last measure, defense spending as a share of GDP. The most "peaceful" country, according to this survey, is Norway. OK, we guess Norway is pretty peaceful, but we seem to remember 60-odd years ago it was occupied by Germany, which comes in at a respectable No. 12.

Today both Norway and Germany are peaceful because America entered World War II and because America spends an outsize share of its GDP on defense in order to protect its allies from aggressive threats. But the Economist index faults the U.S. for the strength that makes possible Europe's peace. Of the 20 "most peaceful" countries, 12 are U.S. allies, and another five are formally neutral European states--i.e., free-riding nonmembers of the NATO alliance.

Another example of the survey's absurd bias: Israel places No. 119, ahead of only Sudan and Iraq. But of course most Israelis would like nothing more than to live in peace, as would their leaders. They are forced into frequent wars because they are surrounded by enemy states, almost all of which The Economist reckons as more "peaceful"--including Iran, which comes 22 places above Israel despite its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its president's vow to "wipe Israel off the map." Syria, at No. 77, actually places well ahead of the U.S., despite its support for terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel. The Palestinian Arabs aren't even mentioned in the survey, which covers only nations.

Then again, maybe this is all a clever ruse to discredit pacifism.

Noted by Taranto in BotW the very next day:

from the Associated Press, 2007-May-31:

Norway resumes aid to Palestinians

OSLO, Norway - Norway resumed direct aid to the Palestinian administration with a $10 million transfer, after it became the first Western country to recognize the new Hamas-led coalition, the foreign minister said Thursday.

"We hope our contribution will help ease the social crisis the Palestinians are now going through," said Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere. He said the aid will be used to pay wages for civilian public servants.

The United States, the European Union and other countries cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority last year after a government led by the Islamic militant Hamas party, which is committed to the destruction of Israel, took office.

Lack of aid spurred a Palestinian financial crisis, disrupting health care and other government-funded programs and halting infrastructure projects.

Norway recognized a new coalition, which included Hamas and the moderate [sic -AMPP Ed.] Fatah party, when it took office in March, and earlier this month announced it would resume direct aid.

"The critical situation in Gaza has many causes, but social need and desperation draw in a negative directions," Stoere said. "It is especially important for the Palestinian authorities to receive economic aid from the international community."

Many Western countries have refused to recognize the new government until Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and accepts previous peace agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

from the Associated Press, 2007-May-29, by Julie Watson:

Mexicans boo Miss USA, showing discord

MEXICO CITY -- Many here south of the border reveled in her disastrous evening: First Miss USA Rachel Smith slipped and fell on her bottom during the Miss Universe evening gown competition. Then she was booed by hundreds in the Mexican audience.

The treatment of the Tennessee beauty queen was nothing personal. It had more to do with Mexico's sometimes tense relationship with its powerful northern neighbor.

U.S. athletes have sparked a similar response. In 2005, when the U.S. played Mexico during a World Cup soccer qualifier, the crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and a smattering of fans chanted "Osama! Osama!" during the game.

Smith was booed repeatedly during her stay in Mexico, including last week, when she carried a guitar and wore an Elvis-style suit during a parade of national costumes held in downtown Mexico City.

She kept her poise during an interview Monday night with pageant judges, despite the boos and chants of "Mexico! Mexico!" that drowned out her answer.

"I am very passionate about education and being in South Africa sparked my interest in that," said Smith, a journalism graduate who volunteered for a month at talk show host Oprah Winfrey's Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa.

Then she paused, smiled and spoke in Spanish. "Buenas noches Mexico. Muchas gracias!" which earned her some applause and some chuckles.

Miss Japan Riyo Mori, who went on to win the crown, opened her interview with "Hola Mexico!" to cheers and claps. Her personal trainer, Ines Ligron, said she had warned Mori about the importance of speaking in Spanish to win over the crowd.

Even an opening "hola" might not have helped Smith, who faced long odds for simply being a gringa.

U.S.-Mexico relations worsened in the past year after the U.S. National Guard was sent to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist the U.S. Border Patrol and help build hundreds of miles of wall to keep out illegal migrants.

Mexicans are also upset over a U.S. Senate proposal for a sweeping immigration reform bill that would limit the consideration of family ties, capping visas for foreign parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 a year. The plan would change a system that favored family ties for four decades.

Many Mexicans also feel that the United States exerts its influence to tip the balance in its favor, whether in global politics or sports events.

On Tuesday, Mexican media lamented the fact that their contestant, Rosa Maria Ojeda, did not make it to the top five in the pageant while Smith did, despite falling down on the runway. Smith's fifth place finish only added to the theory that the United States always is favored.

The Mexican newspaper El Universal said Ojeda's fans were not as upset about her top-10 finish as they were that "the judges did not penalize that fact that Miss USA totally fell on her seat after she stepped on her dress."

The newspaper said that when the show went to a commercial break, an NBC representative warned the audience of 9,000 to behave because "this gives the world a bad image of Mexico."

Donald Trump, who co-owns the pageant, brushed off the ruckus as Mexicans' frustration with Washington politics.

Smith did not comment publicly after the contest. On Tuesday, she flew back to the United States.

from the National Ledger, 2007-May-29, by Karen Diaz:

Rachel Smith Trips, Booed: Video Shows Miss USA Heckled in Mexico

Miss USA Rachel Smith was booed and heckled by an audience in Mexico at last night's Miss universe competition. The reason given for her treatment is that the audience in the third world country is unhappy with American immigration policies. No - I'm not kidding. The people in attendance actually slammed a beauty contestant because they want to be able to use American services and cash American checks without any restrictions.

The display was pathetic. No other contestants were booed, only Miss USA Rachel Smith. To add insult to injury, Miss USA Tennessee also fell during the evening gown competition. There were likely cheers then as well, though the music is so loud they can't be heard.

***

The caption of the video says: "The pageant turned painful for Miss USA Rachel Smith, who suffered a rough trek in the evening gown phase. The high-heels proved hellish as she fell to the stage. She made a quick recovery and the judges showed lenience. The audience seemed less forgiving. During the question and answer segment, the crowd in Mexico City taunted the contestant with loud boos and whistles."

Donald Trump should take a stand and never take this competition to Mexico again. The NFL also takes games to the Mexico each year and if they boo the US there, that should be it for them as well. It appears that many Mexicans now believe they are part of the American entitlement class.

The video is here, decide for yourself.

from the Associated Press, 2007-May-29:

Vandals Burn Dozens of American Flags Decorating Veterans' Graves, Replace With Swastikas

ORCAS ISLAND, Wash. — Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.

Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

Sheriff's department officials declined to comment further on Monday.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2007-Feb-26, p.A18:

The Italian Job

The capture of an alleged Islamist terrorist recruiter in Milan four years ago in an operation carried out by U.S. and Italian intelligence could have been a model for transatlantic cooperation in counterterrorism. Instead, it is becoming Exhibit A in how European politicians are working against the U.S., undermining the fight against Islamic terrorism and endangering the NATO alliance.

An Italian court 10 days ago indicted 25 CIA agents and a U.S. Air Force lieutenant-colonel on charges that they kidnapped Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr and illegally took him back to his native Egypt, where he was imprisoned and, he claims, tortured. Five Italians were also charged -- including the top two officials at the military intelligence agency at the time.

Nasr, a radical imam also known as Abu Omar, is a terrorist suspect who had been under Italian police surveillance since 9/11. In the covert operation that took place in February 2003, Italians and Americans worked together to apprehend Nasr, before whisking him back to Egypt against his will and without the permission of an Italian court. The Milan prosecutor, Armando Spataro, contends that Nasr was "kidnapped." Such "extraordinary rendition," he tells us by phone, is illegal under Italian law, and he's ensuring that the "rules are really followed . . . without any political considerations."

As in many such operations, the particulars are in dispute. But no one, including the Italian prosecutors, doubts that Nasr posed a security risk. In 2005, a Milan court, at Mr. Spataro's behest, issued an arrest warrant for Nasr, charging him with building a terrorist network in Europe that actively recruited terrorists, including for Iraq. Eight of his accomplices have been sentenced to up to 10 years in prison on similar charges, and Italian authorities believe more are at large.

Why Nasr was captured rather than arrested in 2003 isn't clear. According to a July 2005 story in the New York Times, which cited unnamed current and former American officials, the CIA was concerned that Nasr was plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Rome. For whatever reason, the U.S. wanted him off the streets while the Italians weren't ready to arrest him. The CIA won't comment. The government of Silvio Berlusconi -- who was Prime Minister at the time -- denied any foreknowledge of the rendition.

No one seriously claims, however, that the CIA agents were in Italy without the explicit knowledge and participation of Italy's security services. This is the crucial point -- and explains why the indictments are a hostile act against the U.S. By long-established international legal practice, the official agents of one country operating in another with that state's permission are immune from prosecution. The status of forces agreement that governs U.S. troops stationed in Italy enshrines this principle at least for official conduct.

If the CIA agents did anything wrong, that's up to American authorities to decide. Mr. Spataro, an independent prosecutor, can indict as many Italians as he wants. His pursuit of U.S. government personnel, however, makes him a rogue. Aggravating the harm, Mr. Spataro cited the 25 agents by name, possibly putting their lives in danger. The trial in June, presumably in absentia, would likely do further damage by exposing intelligence-gathering techniques. Call it a tutorial for al Qaeda on how to avoid detection.

The appropriate response by Prime Minister Romano Prodi would have been a swift announcement that he would reject any extradition request from the court. Instead, Mr. Prodi merely hinted that he might do so before his government collapsed on Wednesday night. If he wins the confidence vote he's likely to face this week to resume power, he'll get a second chance to finally fulfill his obligation to his U.S. treaty allies and reject extradition.

European politicians are more at fault here than any prosecutor. Since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., many European leaders have been playing a double game, working with the U.S. to root out terrorist plots on the sly -- and saving countless lives -- while publicly condemning "American methods" in rhetoric that has fed rising anti-Americanism. It doesn't help that many Europeans embrace the preposterous legal notion of "universal jurisdiction," the idea that an ambitious prosecutor can indict and try anyone for an alleged crime committed anywhere in the world.

This is the climate in which, for example, a German court this month issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents allegedly involved in transferring a German-Lebanese terrorist suspect, Khaled al-Masri, to Afghanistan for questioning. It made no difference that Mr. al-Masri had been arrested in Macedonia. Also in Germany, prosecutors are considering whether to bring war-crimes charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet and other senior civilian and military officials. Mr. Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney were targeted by Belgian courts until the law there was changed. And so on.

European officials need to understand the risks they're running if they keep this up. Italy and the U.S. are NATO partners, but such an alliance is meaningless if "allies" make a habit of prosecuting each other for cooperating against a common threat. Italy's political grandstanding is endangering NATO, as well as the lives of millions on both sides of the Atlantic.

from net4now.com, 2007-Feb-22:

Anti - anti-Americanism internet campaign launched

18DoughtyStreet.com, Britain's first political web TV station, has launched a two minute viral campaign to combat growing anti-Americanism across Britain and Europe.

The two minute campaign that has been posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwAtNILh6uY) and is being distributed across Britain via email paints a world that would be less free, less healthy and less prosperous if America had never existed.

Through five fictional news reports from the 1950s onwards it portrays a world dominated by Soviet Russia and warns that much of the world's prosperity and medical advances would have been lost.

18DoughtyStreet.com is the initiative of internet entrepreneur Stephan Shakespeare and a number of Britain's most-read bloggers who have come together to challenge the biases of establishment broadcasters and mainstream parties.

Tim Montgomerie, Director of 18DoughtyStreet.com, said, ''For much of the last fifty years Europe has benefited from America's security umbrella and from the dynamism of American enterprise and science. The advert ends by suggesting that if the US-led coalition had not intervened in Iraq the world could now be being held to ransom by a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein."

The text of the advertisement is here: http://www.18doughtystreet.com/news_agenda/49

from NewsBusters.org, 2007-Mar-29, by Justin McCarthy:

Rosie Sees Only Evil in US, Not Iran, Speaks on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The co-hosts of "The View" again discussed the Iranian British hostage situation on the March 29 edition. Rosie O'Donnell trusted the Iranians more than the British and Americans, and the discussion evolved into more Rosie rants against alleged Bush administration tyranny and for the first time on "The View," Rosie ranted on her September 11 conspiracy theories. Rosie's rants were too much even for fringe liberal Joy Behar. Token non-liberal Elisabeth Hasselbeck was far more assertive than the previous day. In the teaser at the end of the first segment, Rosie and Joy made light of the upcoming discussion.

ROSIE O'DONNELL: Alright we're going to take a break and come back and talk about the situation in Iran with the soldiers, the British soldiers who were in international waters. The British say they were in the right waters and the Iranians say no they were in our waters, and so it begins.

JOY BEHAR: Do you think people are now clicking us off because you promoed that?

O'DONNELL: Well, I don't know, but we're going to talk about it and I'm sure it will make the news.

Rosie exclaimed what is certainly news to Iran, that the entire world is siding with Iran as opposed to Britain and the United States.

O'DONNELL: Here's the problem with what you just said, "us," because it's now Britain and the United States pretty much against the rest of the world. How did this happen?

Rosie, always concerned about the humanity of terrorists, brought that up again.

O'DONNELL: It's just it's very hard in America when anyone from the mid-east has been so demonized that no matter what, it's impossible for some people to believe that the Iranians in any way could ever do anything ethical in any capacity. They are not people. They have somehow been dehumanized to the point where they're not people who they're just the enemy, the terrorists.

With the aide of guest co-host Marcia Gay Harden, Rosie continued on that theme, but that was too much even for her ideological ally, Joy Behar.

MARCIA GAY HARDEN: That digresses from what the real issues are. You worded a war on terror, personally that is propaganda.

O'DONNELL: Exactly, Marcia. Thank you.

HARDEN: I don't like the wording of it.

O'DONNELL: Right, because it makes people into evil and good.

BEHAR: This guy Amanidajaja (sic), whatever his name is. He is a bad guy, he is a very bad guy. He stated explicitly he wants to wipe Israel off the map. This guy is a bad guy.

O'DONNELL: I'm not saying he's a good guy and I want him over for breakfast. No I'm not. I'm saying that in America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations one of them is this one. And you know what, go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our country because it's frightening. It's frightening.

HASSELBECK: So you think we're being brainwashed as a whole country? I think not. I think it's a media

O'DONNELL: Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble.

Rosie should do some research on U.S. history. She is apparently unaware of the Alien and Sedition Acts, President Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, the Red Scare immediately after World War I, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Rosie for the first time mentioned her September 11 conspiracy theories on "The View." Note that she has "no idea" who attacked us on that tragic day.

HASSELBECK: Do you believe that the government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11? Do you believe in a conspiracy in terms of the attack of 9/11?

O'DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by planes. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.

HASSELBECK: And who do you think is responsible for that?

O'DONNELL: I have no idea. But to say that we don't know it was imploded, that there was implosion in the demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the film. Get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard. Pick the school. It defies reason.

from the New York Post, 2007-Mar-22:

H'WOOD'S 9/11 IDIOT BRIGADE

SOME celebrities don't know when to keep their traps shut - like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell, who are throwing their weight behind the twisted theory that the United States government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks.

Page Six has learned that Sheen, the hooker-loving Hollywood hunk, has agreed to narrate a new version of the loopy YouTube documentary "Loose Change," which claims that a corrupt faction within the federal government orchestrated the mass murder at the World Trade Center.

Sources say Sheen - whose father, Martin Sheen, has been arrested 63 times protesting on behalf of various leftist causes - is in talks with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures to distribute "Loose Change." Sheen has called for a new independent probe of the attack, telling Alex Jones' radio show: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen's rep confirmed his participation. Cuban e-mailed us: "We are having discussions about distributing the existing video with Charlie's involvement as a narrator, not in making a new feature. We are also looking for productions with an opposing viewpoint. We like controversial subjects, but we are agnostic to which side the controversy comes from."

Meanwhile, on her blog, O'Donnell has pasted in a widely debunked rundown of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center from the whatreallyhappened.com Web site, created by conspiracy theorist Matt Rivero.

O'Donnell repeats his discredited theories, which include the notion that because the fires were not evenly distributed, it made the building's perfect collapse into its footprint "impossible that landlord Larry Silverstein told the FDNY that "the smartest thing to do is pull it," a phrase conspiracy theorists take to mean that he ordered the skyscraper's destruction; and that firefighters withdrawing from the building feared it was going to "blow up."

O'Donnell's rep declined comment.

from the New York Post, 2007-Feb-6, by Debbie Schlussel:

AN UGLY INVOCATION

THE Democratic National Committee made a strange choice to deliver the invocation last Friday at its winter meeting: Husham al-Husainy - an extremist who has a long record of support for prominent Islamists at war with America and Israel.

Al-Husainy's words before the Democrats - asking God to "help us stop . . . occupation and oppression" - were jarring enough, since he was likely referring to either American soldiers in Iraq or Jews in Israel.

But his past statements and activity make those words even more ominous.

Al-Husainy heads the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center mosque in Dearborn, Mich., one of the largest Shiite mosques in North America. He is an open admirer of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - under whose rule Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

During last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war, al-Husainy led rallies in Dearborn in support of the Lebanese terrorist group. Protesters displayed swastikas as well as anti-American and anti-Semitic posters.

I attended one rally, at Dearborn's Bint Jebail Cultural Center - named for the stronghold in south Lebanon from which Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. Al-Husainy was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. He cheered as others called for the hastened destruction of the Jews.

Then there are his anti-Semitic, anti-American conspiracy theories. In one interview, he said: "Saddam . . . handed Iraq to the Coalition. I believe he is an agent of America . . . And, by the way, I don't want to exclude the Zionists. I think some extremists from the Mossad came in and took a chance to have some revenge, because we don't know who killed [Imam Mohammed Bakr] al-Hakim or Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights."

Al-Husainy initially supported the liberation of Iraq. But by summer 2004, he was demanding that U.S. troops pull out. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army - with whom Al-Husainy and his congregants sympathize - had launched its first bid to seize power.

Once, being a fan of America's enemies would disqualify someone from a prominent role at Democratic Party events. But the Dems' opposition to President Bush seems to have changed that. Apparently, they want America to lose at all cost.

from the New York Post, 2007-Feb-2:

A FAN OBAMA DOESN'T NEED

SEN. Barack Obama might want to tell George Soros to shut up, now that the Hungarian-born billionaire has equated the George W. Bush administration with the Third Reich. Soros, who spent $26 million trying to beat Bush two years ago, is a key supporter of the media-darling Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign. But last week at Davos, Soros made folks like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sean Penn look downright patriotic. After asserting that the United States is recognizing the error it made in Iraq, Soros said, "To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future." He went on to say that Turkey and Japan are still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process." Soros spokesman Michael Vachon told Page Six: "There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president. Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office."

from Reuters via the Irish Times, 2007-Feb-10:

Putin attacks US for 'dangerous approach'

Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticised the United States and its Western allies today for what he said was an attempt to force their will on the world.

Speaking at an annual gathering of top security and defence officials in Germany, Mr Putin attacked the concept of a "unipolar world" - implying the United States is the sole superpower - and said US actions abroad had made conflicts worse.

"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," Mr Putin said.

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion. People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

Mr Putin said the United States had repeatedly overstepped its national borders in questions of international security, a policy that he said had made the world less, not more, safe.

"Unilateral actions have not resolved conflicts but have made them worse," Mr Putin said, adding that force should only be used when backed by the United Nations Security Council.

"This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law," he said.

Mr Putin mentioned no specific conflicts. But he has been very critical of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, where US soldiers are still struggling to crush an insurgency.

Mr Putin made clear he believed US President George W. Bush was a good man, despite their many disagreements.

"I consider the president of the United States a decent man. He is also a friend. He is criticised for everything he does but he is a decent man. He says Russia and the US will never be enemies and I agree with him," he said in answer to a question.

Mr Putin also called on European states, many of which have disagreed with US policy in Iraq and elsewhere, to be more active in international affairs.

He added that Russia had no intention of changing its approach to foreign policy, one Western diplomats say frustrates European and US leaders when it stands in the way of a consensus they have reached.

"Russia has always pursued an independent foreign policy," he said. "We are not going to change this tradition today."

Mr Putin said Russia would oppose any move to settle the future status of Serbia's breakaway province of Kosovo without the agreement of both Serbs and ethnic Albanians.

from the Associated Press via the Washington Post, 2007-Jan-22, by Christopher Toothaker:

Chavez to U.S. Officials: 'Go to Hell'

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to "Go to hell, gringos!" and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy" on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday, lashing out at Washington for what he called unacceptable meddling in Venezuelan affairs.

The tirade came after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant the fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the "enabling law," which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.

On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez's plans under the law "have caused us some concern."

Chavez rejected Casey's statement in his broadcast, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

He also attacked U.S. actions in the Middle East.

"What does the empire want? Condoleezza said it. How are you? You've forgotten me, missy ... Condoleezza said it clearly, it's about creating a new geopolitical" map in the Middle East, Chavez said.

In typical style, Chavez spoke for hours Sunday during his first appearance on the weekly program in five months. He sent his best wishes to the ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro, his close ally and friend who has been sidelined since intestinal surgery last summer.

Other comments ranged from watching dancing Brazilian girls wearing string bikinis at a recent presidential summit to Washington's alleged role in the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"They took out Saddam Hussein and they hung him, for good or worse. It's not up to me to judge any government, but that gentleman was the president of that country."

Holding up a newspaper with a photograph of him gazing at a string bikini-clad Brazilian dancing samba during a summit last week in Rio de Janeiro, Chavez laughed and said: "I didn't know where to look ... It was truly a thing of beauty."

Chavez, who was re-elected by a wide margin last month, has said he will enact sweeping reforms to remake Venezuela into a socialist state. Among his plans are nationalizing the main telecommunications company, CANTV, and the electricity and natural gas sectors.

He said Sunday his government will not pay the market value for CANTV, but rather will take into account debts to workers, pensions and other obligations including a "technological debt" to the state. CANTV, partially owned by U.S.-based Verizon Communications Inc., was privatized in 1991.

The president's opponents accuse him of using his political strength to expand his powers.

Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied being involved, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.

Since then, Chavez has consistently accused the U.S. of conspiring to oust him and often asserts the CIA is working to destabilize his government. U.S. officials have denied trying to overthrow Chavez, but they have labeled him a threat to democracy.

Criticizing excessive consumption and self-indulgence, Chavez also announced plans in his broadcast to raise domestic gasoline prices and approve a new tax on luxury goods such as private yachts, second homes and extravagant automobiles.

He did not give details on the gas price hike, which he said would not affect bus drivers who provide public transportation, or the luxury tax. He said revenue from the new measures would be put toward government social programs.

Venezuela is one of the world's leading petroleum exporters and gasoline now costs as little as 12 cents a gallon due to government subsidies.

from the Associated Press via USA Today, 2007-Jan-27, by Bradley S. Klapper:

Kerry says U.S. 'a sort of international pariah'

DAVOS, Switzerland — Massachusetts Senator John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."

The statement came as the Democrat lawmaker responded to a question about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran's government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.

Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues, speaking during a World Economic Forum panel discussion that also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad's more moderate predecessor as Iranian president.

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

Kerry said the government needs to use diplomacy to improve national security.

"We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that's what diplomacy is about," he said. "But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories."

Kerry criticized what he called the "unfortunate habit" of Americans to see the world "exclusively through an American lens."

He said a new approach could yet bring great benefits to the United States and other countries.

"I think if we did that more forcefully and effectively we could really change the dynamics of the world," Kerry said. "We should be less engaged in this 'neocon' rhetoric of regime change and more involved in building relations and living up to our own values so that people make a different judgment about us."

from the Guardian of London, 2006-Nov-3, by Julian Glover:

British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il

· US allies think Washington threat to world peace
· Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom

America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.

It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.

Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.

Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.

In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.

As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.

The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).

Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.

Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)

from the Daily Kos, 2007-Feb-8, by "Mickey Z.":

Why I hate America

When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole."

"Why do you hate America?" This is a remarkably easy question to provoke. One might, for instance, expose elements of this nation's brutal foreign policy. Ask a single probing question about, say, U.S. complicity in the overthrow of governments in Guatemala, Iran, or Chile and thin-skinned patriots (sic) will come out of the woodwork to defend their country's honor by accusing you of being "anti-American." Of course, this allegation might lead me to ponder how totalitarian a culture this must be to even entertain such a concept, but I'd rather employ the vaunted Arundhati defense. The incomparable Ms. Roy says: "What does the term 'anti-American' mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias?" (I'm a tree hugger remember? I don't argue with sequoias.)

When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America-with justification.

Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.

I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"

Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."

Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.

There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate...we will never create something that can be loved.

Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2006-Sep-26, by Roger Scruton:

Who Is Noam Chomsky?
Someone who should have stuck to syntax.

Noam Chomsky's popularity owes little or nothing to the eminent place that he occupies in the world of ideas. That place was won many years ago in the science of linguistics, and no expert in the subject would, I think, dispute Prof. Chomsky's title to it.

He swept away at a stroke the attempts of Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers to identify meaning through the surface structure of signs, as well as the belief, once prevalent among animal ethologists, that language could be acquired by making piecemeal connections between symbols and things. He argued that language is an all-or-nothing affair, that we are equipped by evolution with the categories needed to acquire it, and that these categories govern the "deep structure" of our discourse, no matter what language we learn. Sentences emerge by the repeated operations of a "transformational grammar" that translates deep structure into surface sequences: As a result, all of us are able to understand indefinitely many sentences, just as soon as we have acquired the basic linguistic competence. Language skills are essentially creative, and the infinite reach of our understanding also betokens an infinite reach in what we can mean.

Although some of those ideas had been foreseen by the pioneers of modern logic, Prof. Chomsky develops them with an imaginative flair that is entirely his own. He has the true scientist's ability to translate abstract theory into concrete observation, and to discover intellectual problems where others see only ordinary facts. "Has," I say, but perhaps "had" would be more accurate. For Prof. Chomsky long ago cast off his academic gown and donned the mantle of the prophet. For several decades now he has been devoting his energies to denouncing his native country, usually before packed halls of fans who couldn't care a fig about the theory of syntax. And many of his public appearances are in America: the only country in the whole world that rewards those who denounce it with the honors and opportunities that make denouncing it into a rewarding way of life. It is proof of Prof. Chomsky's success that his diatribes are distributed by his American publishers around the world, so as to end up in the hands of America's critics everywhere--Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez included.

To his supporters Noam Chomsky is a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class. But to his opponents he is a self-important ranter whose one-sided vision of politics is chosen for its ability to shine a spotlight on himself. And it is surely undeniable that his habit of excusing or passing over the faults of America's enemies, in order to pin all crime on his native country, suggests that he has invested more in his posture of accusation than he has invested in the truth.

To describe this posture as "adolescent" is perhaps unfair: After all, there are plenty of quite grown-up people who believe that American foreign policy since World War II has been founded on a mistaken conception of America's role in the world. And it is true that we all make mistakes--so that Prof. Chomsky's erstwhile support for regimes that no one could endorse in retrospect, like that of Pol Pot, is no proof of wickedness. But then the mistakes of American foreign policy are no proof of wickedness either.

This is important. For it is his ability to excite not just contempt for American foreign policy but a lively sense that it is guided by some kind of criminal conspiracy that provides the motive for Prof. Chomsky's unceasing diatribes and the explanation of his influence. The world is full of people who wish to think ill of America. And most of them would like to be Americans. The Middle East seethes with such people, and Prof. Chomsky appeals directly to their envious emotions, as well as to the resentments of leaders like President Chavez who cannot abide the sight of a freedom that they haven't the faintest idea how to produce or the least real desire to emulate.

Success breeds resentment, and resentment that has no safety valve becomes a desire to destroy. The proof of that was offered on 9/11 and by just about every utterance that has emerged from the Islamists since. But Americans don't want to believe it. They trust others to take the kind of pleasure in American success that they, in turn, take in the success of others. But this pleasure in others' success, which is the great virtue of America, is not to be witnessed in those who denounce her. They hate America not for her faults, but for her virtues, which cast a humiliating light on those who cannot adapt to the modern world or take advantage of its achievements.

Prof. Chomsky is an intelligent man. Not everything he says by way of criticizing his country is wrong. However, he is not valued for his truths but for his rage, which stokes the rage of his admirers. He feeds the self-righteousness of America's enemies, who feed the self-righteousness of Prof. Chomsky. And in the ensuing blaze everything is sacrificed, including the constructive criticism that America so much needs, and that America--unlike its enemies, Prof. Chomsky included--is prepared to listen to.

Mr. Scruton, a British writer and philosopher, is the author of "Gentle Regrets" (Continuum).

from the New York Times, 2006-Nov-15, by Mark Landler:

12 Detainees Sue Rumsfeld in Germany, Citing Abuse

FRANKFURT, Nov. 14 — A week after President Bush announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would resign, lawyers asked a German prosecutor to investigate Mr. Rumsfeld and other American officials for suspected war crimes stemming from the treatment of prisoners in military jails in Iraq and Cuba.

The lawsuit filed in Karlsruhe on Tuesday cites 11 other current and former American officials, including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who it says helped formulate legal reasoning legitimizing the use of torture.

The suit, filed by civil-rights legal groups on behalf of 12 detainees — 11 Iraqis and a Saudi — asserts that they were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of food and sexual humiliation.

With lawyers all but admitting they do not expect to see Mr. Rumsfeld hauled before a German court, the suit is as much about politics as it is about law. They hope to make an example of the man who helped engineer the war policy in Iraq, hounding him into private life with suits filed in other countries if Germany does not pursue the case.

“Even if we never put Rumsfeld on trial in a German court, he will be harassed and publicly stamped as a torturer,” said Wolfgang Kaleck, a Berlin lawyer who filed the complaint along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, an American group, and other legal organizations.

Mr. Kaleck acknowledged that Germany would be reluctant to prosecute top American officials. But he described a protracted legal procedure, during which he said Mr. Rumsfeld might encounter trouble traveling to Germany or other European Union countries. The lawyers picked Germany in part because German law has the principle of universal jurisdiction, under which courts are entitled to prosecute people for war crimes regardless of where the crimes were committed.

The Pentagon is in the process of reviewing the filing, said a spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith. “We have no reason to believe the suit has merit,” she said, adding that the allegations of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had been reviewed by Congress and the courts.

The German prosecutor's office confirmed it had received the document and said it would begin reviewing it.

This is the second time lawyers have asked German prosecutors to investigate Mr. Rumsfeld in connection with accusations of war crimes. Prosecutors turned down a request in February 2005, saying the case would be better handled by United States prosecutors.

The lawyers contend that almost two years later, the United States has done nothing to investigate the role of senior Bush administration officials in the treatment of prisoners who are suspected terrorists.

Moreover, they contend, the Military Commissions Act, passed in September, will make it harder to prosecute American officials at home if charged with violating the Geneva Conventions because it is intended to provide retroactive immunity dating to the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We've had two years of complete inaction by the Bush administration,” said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, which has expressed support for the case. “They've been very good at prosecuting lower-level officials, but done nothing to investigate high-level officials.”

Among the others charged in the suit are John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, two former Justice department lawyers who were integral in drafting the administration's legal arguments for treatment of suspected terrorists. It also cites George J. Tenet, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Janis L. Karpinski, who as a brigadier general commanded the military police unit at Abu Ghraib and was relieved of her command and demoted to colonel after the abuses came to light, has offered to testify. Ms. Karpinski, who was a defendant in the first lawsuit and has since left the Army Reserve, traveled to Berlin to offer to stand as a witness.

While the first lawsuit focused on Abu Ghraib, this one includes as a plaintiff Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was arrested in Afghanistan months after American officials said he tried to meet some of the Sept. 11 hijackers. A lawyer for Mr. Qahtani, who is being held at Guantánamo Bay, says he was subjected to abuse authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld.

The lawyers said they also chose to file the suit in Germany for practical reasons. Several military officials implicated in the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib returned to bases in Germany and, if still here, could testify.

The lawsuit comes at an awkward time for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been trying to improve German-American relations.

Prosecuting high-level officials for war crimes in foreign countries has a patchy record, legal experts say. A Spanish judge was unable to win the extradition of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, to face trial for crimes against humanity. But General Pinochet was held in London, and upon return to Chile, he found himself under legal siege.

Henry A. Kissinger, a former secretary of state, has been sought for questioning by overseas courts about involvement with Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s.

“If I were Rumsfeld's travel agent, I would advise him to choose some other part of `old Europe,' ” said Detlev F. Vagts, emeritus professor of international law at Harvard Law School, referring to Mr. Rumsfeld's now famous poke at two wayward American allies, Germany and France. “There is some danger out there.”

The point of the following article is that Human Rights Watch supports prosecution of Rumsfeld and opposes the conviction and punishment of Saddam Hussein. That's the headline.

from the Associated Press via the International Herald Tribune, 2006-Nov-20:

Human Rights Watch says Saddam was not given fair trial

NEW YORK: Human Rights Watch said Monday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not given a fair trial, claiming in a report that attorneys and judges undermined the legitimacy of the process by staging repeated walkouts and failing to uphold standards of international law.

In a 97-page report, the group called the soundness of the guilty verdict "questionable" and said the Iraqi High Tribunal was not equipped to handle such a complex case. The document was based on observation of the trial and interviews with court officials, lawyers and other key parties, the group said.

The New York-based rights group said it found "serious procedural flaws," citing shortcomings in the timely disclosure of incriminating evidence. It also said that the defendants were not allowed to properly confront witnesses, and that the judges at times did not maintain an impartial demeanor.

"The court's conduct, as documented in this report, reflects a basic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles, and how to uphold them in the conduct of a relatively complex trial," the report said. "The result is a trial that did not meet key fair trial standards. Under such circumstances, the soundness of the verdict is questionable."

The chief prosecutor, Jaafar al-Mousawi, defended the trial Monday, calling it "fair and transparent." The verdict, he said, "was fair enough to a dictator who killed dozens of innocents."

"There were only simple administrative flaws that did not affect the verdict," he said.

On Nov. 5, the court sentenced Saddam and two other senior members of his regime to death by hanging for ordering the execution of nearly 150 Shiite Muslims from the Iraqi city of Dujail following a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life.

The Iraqi court was created in 2003 after the U.S. invasion to prosecute cases of human rights violations in Iraq.

In the report, Human Rights Watch chastised defense lawyers for staging repeated walkouts, saying the tactic "created the strong impression that some counsel deliberately sought to delay or obstruct the course of the trial."

Chief defense counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi, who voiced support for the report's conclusions, defended attorneys' frequent boycotts of the proceedings.

"This was a political trial, not a legal one," he said by phone from Britain. "What can we do when the rights of the defense lawyers are breached in the courtroom, when they shut our mouths, when they threaten our lives?"

The report said defense lawyers were provided with inferior protection, with three being killed in the course of the trial. Witnesses, too, were left unprotected following their testimony, it said.

Defense attorneys were inadequately trained in international criminal law and their performance was "generally poor," the report said.

"No consistent and identifiable argument as to why the prosecution case was wrong or flawed was developed," it said.

Human Rights Watch, which is against the death penalty in general, also said the death sentence against Saddam is "an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment," and "in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

An appeals court is expected to rule on the verdict and death sentence by mid-January. Saddam's defense team must present an appeal to a higher, nine-judge panel by Dec. 5.

Last week, Saddam's lawyer complained that the court was ignoring his requests for documents to appeal the guilty verdict.

"The verdict against President Saddam Hussein is purely political and all the conditions of a fair trial - as stipulated under international law - have been gravely violated, including the right to appeal the verdict in a court of cassation," al-Dulaimi said in a written statement.

Associated Press writers Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad and Jamal Halaby in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

from the Associated Press via the Washington Post, 2006-Sep-22, by Nick Wadhams:

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Marks U.N. Gathering

UNITED NATIONS -- The hallmark of this year's U.N. General Assembly debate has been the heavy anti-American tone from not only its rivals like Iran and Venezuela, but also a host of more moderate nations, a trend underscoring the United States' troubled image in the world.

One after another, speakers in the General Assembly have lamented a world gone wrong -- renewed turmoil in the Middle East, a wider gap between rich and poor, anxiety about human rights abuses. While the U.S. is not mentioned often, the reference is clear.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaks at the Mount Olive Baptist Church in the Harlem neighborhood of New York Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006. Chavez promised to double the amount of discounted heating oil his country is shipping to needy Americans, while also using his appearance at the Harlem church as an opportunity to deride President Bush as an Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaks at the Mount Olive Baptist Church in the Harlem neighborhood of New York Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006. Chavez promised to double the amount of discounted heating oil his country is shipping to needy Americans, while also using his appearance at the Harlem church as an opportunity to deride President Bush as an "alcoholic and a sick man." (AP Photo/Shiho Fukada) (Shiho Fukada - AP)

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, for example, accused powerful nations of failing to solve the Middle East conflict, and argued a more equitable world is in rich nations' interests -- "as long as they do not make the mistake of ignoring the hideous cry of the excluded."

The United States is blamed indirectly for not doing enough to stop Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and is seen as spearheading the drive to curb Iran's nuclear program -- a campaign many nations believe is unnecessary. Countries lament the dominance of the U.N. Security Council and seek a greater U.N. role in the fight against terrorism.

"What it boils down to is a sense that the world doesn't believe that the United States is acting in its interest anymore, whereas it used to at a much greater level," said Nancy Soderberg, a deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N. during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The issue was thrust to the fore over the first few days of the General Assembly with a string of speeches from leading critics of the United States -- the presidents of Bolivia, Iran, Sudan and Venezuela -- who also riffed on their anger toward America at lengthy news conferences.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was the most bombastic, outstripping even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by branding Bush the devil. What surprised many listeners was not necessarily the remarks, which were typical for Chavez, but the applause and titters of laughter that he received in response.

"A few years ago that would have been heard in stony silence," Council of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis said. "Not because people were afraid to show their agreement, but because they wouldn't have agreed with it. If I was working for the American government, that's what would worry me."

A June poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that America's image in 15 nations dropped sharply in 2006. Less than a third of the people in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey had a favorable view of the United States. According to that poll, America's continuing involvement in Iraq was seen as a worse problem than Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

The anger toward the United States seems itself to reflect a larger concern about the world. There is a sense Mideast turmoil mirrors a wider division between Muslims and the West. Poor nations seem to want a greater say in U.N. reform, where the United States is only one of many nations pushing for change.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged those divisions in his speech, saying they were so great they now "threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands."

Annan's top deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, said the U.N. chief's staff had wrestled with what message to deliver and decided they must address the somber mood about the state of the world.

from the Washington Post, 2006-Sep-21, p.A14, by Colum Lynch with Glenn Kessler contributing:

Venezuelan Leader Demonizes Bush
Chavez Calls President a Racist 'Devil'

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20 -- President Hugo Chavez, the combative Venezuelan leader, denounced President Bush in a U.N. speech Wednesday as a racist, imperialist "devil" who has devoted six years in office to military aggression and the oppression of the world's poorest people.

Speaking from the lectern where Bush spoke a day earlier, Chavez said he could still smell the sulfur -- a reference to the scent of Satan. Even by U.N. standards, where the United States is frequently criticized as the world's superpower, Chavez's remarks were exceptionally inflammatory. They were also received with a warm round of applause.

Chavez's address followed a series of strident speeches by U.S. adversaries, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Together, they represent an emboldened alliance of oil-rich states that defy U.S. demands to change their policies on a range of issues, including the development of nuclear technology and the role of U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world," Chavez told the chamber of international diplomats. "I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world."

Bush administration officials dismissed Chavez's remarks as the ravings of a reckless political leader. "I'm not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president towards the United States," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "I think it's not becoming for a head of state."

In an effort to bolster his case, Chavez waved a copy of Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Domination" and recommended that everyone read it. The book, written by the American linguist and longtime critic of U.S. foreign policy, argues that the United States' pursuit of political supremacy is having devastating consequences for the majority of the world's people.

"The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world," Chavez said. "What would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? . . . I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people, think. They would say, 'Yankee imperialist, go home.' "

"The world is waking up," he added. "I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism."

Chavez's U.N. appearance is part of a Venezuelan campaign to gain election to the Latin American seat on the U.N. Security Council, a post that would place it in a position to challenge U.S. policies. The United States, which vigorously opposes Venezuela's candidacy, is supporting a competing bid for the post by Guatemala, a poor Central American republic with little political influence at the United Nations.

In portraying the United States as an imperial power, Chavez sought to evoke memories of the Cold War, when Third World revolutionaries such as Cuban President Fidel Castro (an ally and mentor of Chavez) and Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe delivered scathing attacks against the United States.

U.N. experts said that though Chavez's speech may resonate with delegations who oppose a new world order built around American power, it was so undiplomatic that it may undermine his chances of getting into the Security Council. It "confirms the worst stereotypes about the U.N. General Assembly being a circus sideshow filled with venom and rabid anti-Americanism," said Edward Luck, an expert on the United Nations at Columbia University. "I never thought anyone could make Ahmadinejad look like a moderate, but Chavez has done it."

Although Chavez is renowned for his caustic views on the Bush administration, some senior U.N. diplomats were startled by his statement. Asked if Chavez had gone too far, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhao Xing said: "He really said that? Are you sure? He would go that far?"

Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett suggested that the Chavez comments went beyond the pale of diplomatic protocol at the United Nations. "Even the Democrats wouldn't say that," she said.

Some of the world's poorest countries, such as Bolivia, sought to prove they could stand up to the United States. Bolivian President Evo Morales, a close ally of Chavez, chastised the Bush administration for adding his nation to a list of major drug-producing countries because it permits the cultivation of coca, which is consumed by many Bolivians as tea but is also used to make cocaine.

Holding a coca leaf in his hand, Morales told the General Assembly he would never yield to U.S. pressure to criminalize coca production. "With all respect to the government of the United States, we are not going to change anything. We do not need blackmail or threats," Morales said.

from the New York Times, 2006-Sep-20, by David Stout:

Chavez Calls Bush “the Devil” in U.N. Speech

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela bitterly and sarcastically assailed President Bush before the United Nations General Assembly today, portraying Mr. Bush as “the devil” who thinks he is “the owner of the world.”

“Yesterday, the devil came here,” Mr. Chávez said, alluding to Mr. Bush's appearance before the General Assembly on Tuesday. “Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.”

Then Mr. Chávez made the sign of the cross, brought his hands together as if in prayer and glanced toward the ceiling.

The moment may not become as famous as Nikita Khrushchev's finger-wagging, shoe-thumping outbursts in the General Assembly in the cold-war era, but it still produced chuckles and some applause in the assembly hall.

In case anyone had missed the point, Mr. Chávez drove it home:

“Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.”

The Venezuelan leader also had sharp words for the United Nations, which he said is “antidemocratic” and “doesn't work.”

Mr. Chávez, a left-wing populist who tried to seize power in a coup six years before winning election in 1998 on a tide of poverty-driven resentment, looked somewhat incongruous in a buttoned-up gray suit as he delivered an address that blended anti-Americanism with snippets of American life and culture.

“I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement by the president of the United States,” Mr. Chávez went on. “As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

“An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: `The Devil's Recipe.' ”

Mr. Bush spoke on Tuesday about Iran's nuclear ambitions and how they might be curbed, and about his broader visions for the Middle East — visions that Mr. Chávez saw as insincere, ridiculous or both.

“Wherever he looks, he sees extremists,” said Mr. Chávez, who won office by defeating a businessman educated at Yale, Mr. Bush's alma mater. “He looks at your color, and he says, `Oh, there's an extremist.' Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.”

Indeed, Mr. Morales, another leftist, does raise potential problems for United States interests in Latin America, though perhaps not as thorny as those posed by Mr. Chávez. Unlike Bolivia, Venezuela belongs to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and is a major energy supplier to the United States, and Mr. Chávez has courted Fidel Castro and the leaders of Iran and Syria, all factors that make him a man Washington must watch.

Mr. Chávez's remarks were translated from Spanish, and while subtleties can sometimes be lost in translation, his feelings about the United States seemed to come through clearly enough. The United States, he said, is “the gravest threat looking over our planet, placing at risk the very survival of the human species.”

“We appeal to the people of the United States to halt this threat, like a sword hanging over our heads,” Mr. Chávez said.

It was not clear if Mr. Chávez was exhorting Americans to rise up in revolution, or if his gibe was an indirect reference to previous American-aided upheavals in Central and South America.

Needless to say, the speech did not go down well with American officials. John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, called the remarks “insulting.”

Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman in Washington, was a bit more diplomatic, saying, “I don't think you'll find it surprising that we disagree with the views that were expressed in President Chavez's remarks.

President Bush often notes that some of America's one-time enemies, notably Japan and Germany, are now friends. But any rapprochement with the Caracas government would seem to be a long way off, to judge by Mr. Chávez's closing remarks.

“It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us, and I embrace you all,” he said. “May God bless us all. Good day to you.”

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2006-Oct-11, by James Taranto, excerpted from Best of the Web:

Bush Made Them Evil

North Korea's putative nuclear test has prompted widespread denunciation . . . of President Bush . . . for a speech he delivered in 2002. It was in his State of the Union Address that year that the president characterized Pyongyang, along with the two Iras (n and q), as an "axis of evil." Now, according to a headline in the Washington Post, "Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States":

Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

The story doesn't quite come out and say what the headline implies: that Bush's speech caused the evil acts of North Korea, Iran and the enemy in Iraq. But Jimmy Carter does, in a New York Times op-ed:

Beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

Carter concludes by urging the Bush administration to hold bilateral talks with the North Koreans, as they have demanded. He quotes Jim Baker, secretary of state in the president's father's administration: "It's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

Baker's statement is true in one sense, false in another. It's not necessarily appeasement to talk to one's enemies. But it's not necessarily true that talking to one's enemies is not appeasement. In this case, what Carter is urging plainly is a policy of appeasement.

Merriam-Webster's defines appeasement simply as "conciliation," and although the usage example it gives suggests the term has a negative connotation ("that we should accept wrong and call it right . . . would be appeasement at its most cowardly"--A.L. Guérard), conciliation isn't necessarily a bad thing. Moammar Gadhafi appeased the U.S. when he gave up his nuclear-weapons programs; and North Korea could do the same thing today.

Let's expand a bit on the definition of appeasement in the context of foreign policy. It means, it seems to us, "yielding to an adversary's demands in the hope of defusing its belligerence." Since bilateral talks are precisely what Pyongyang is demanding, in this case "talking to the enemy" would be appeasement. And Carter makes quite clear that mollifying Pyongyang is his goal:

What must be avoided is to leave a beleaguered nuclear nation convinced that it is permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy.

During the Clinton administration, Jimmy Carter engineered an agreement with North Korea that was supposed to have curtailed its nuclear ambitions. What he left was a beleaguered ostensibly nonnuclear nation convinced that it was permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy.

As Carter tells it, this approach was effective, breaking down only because a new administration arrived in Washington that rejected it and insisted on calling the Pyongyang dictatorship "evil," whereupon that dictatorship reacted in the "predictable" way, resuming the belligerence that Carter had worked so hard to defuse.

This is a dubious and self-serving account of history, but even assuming it is accurate, it does not speak well for the Carter approach. Essentially what he is saying is that appeasement works--but only if the U.S. is absolutely committed never to do anything that might upset the North Koreans. In other words, the policies of the greatest nation on earth must be held hostage to the whims of a bunch of communist nutjobs.

One might argue that if this is the most effective way of preventing a conflagration on the Korean Peninsula, it is nonetheless the way to go. Although we question the premise, the argument is not without a certain force. But here is a counterargument. Human Rights Watch, a group that is far from pro-American, describes the Pyongyang regime as follows in its annual "Human Rights Overview":

The regime of leader Kim Jong Il, the subject of an intense personality cult, is among the world's most repressive. . . . The country's dismal human rights conditions, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, and lack of due process and fair trials, remain of grave concern. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. Basic services, such as access to health care and education, are provided according to a classification scheme based on the government's assessment of an individual's and his/her family's political loyalty.

Would an America that refused to call this "evil" have any integrity as a nation?

The Bomb That Bombed
"The North Korean test appears to have been a nuclear detonation but was fairly small by traditional standards, and possibly a failure or a partial success, federal and private analysts said yesterday," the New York Times reports:

Throughout history, the first detonations of aspiring nuclear powers have tended to pack the destructive power of 10,000 to 60,000 tons--10 to 60 kilotons--of conventional high explosives.

But the strength of the North Korean test appears to have been a small fraction of that: around a kiloton or less, according to scientists monitoring the global arrays of seismometers that detect faint trembles in the earth from distant blasts.

The Associated Press reports some scientists doubt the explosion was even nuclear. Xavier Clement of France's Atomic Energy Commission "said it could take days before scientists can declare with certainty whether the explosion was nuclear. And when blasts are very weak, 'we could be in a situation where we cannot tell the difference between the two.' "

'You Did It. You Crazy Son of a Bitch, You Did It.'
"North Korea Wants Congratulations"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 9

Life Imitates 'Team America'

Hans Blix: "I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else." Kim Jong Il: "Or else what?" Blix: "Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are."--dialogue from "Team America: World Police" (2004)

"The world lined up against North Korea on Monday for staging a nuclear test denounced even by key allies. . . . There was no talk of military action. But the Security Council quickly condemned North Korea's decision to flout a U.N. appeal to cancel the test after the reclusive regime announced it had set off an underground atomic explosion."--Associated Press, Oct. 9, 2006

from the New Yorker, 2005-Apr-18, by Chris Suellentrop:

Sy Hersh Says It’s Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print)
The runaway mouth of America's premier investigative journalist.
Since the Abu Ghraib story broke eleven months ago, The New Yorker’s national-security correspondent, Seymour Hersh, has followed it up with a series of spectacular scoops. Videotape of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib. Evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be a “composite figure” and a propaganda creation of either Iraq’s Baathist insurgency or the U.S. government. The active involvement of Karl Rove and the president in “prisoner-interrogation issues.” The mysterious disappearance of $1 billion, in cash, in Iraq. A threat by the administration to a TV network to cut off access to briefings in retaliation for asking Laura Bush “a very tough question about abortion.” The Iraqi insurgency’s access to short-range FROG missiles that “can do grievous damage to American troops.” The murder, by an American platoon, of 36 Iraqi guards.

Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation.

Every writer understands that there is a gap between the print persona and the actual self, but Hersh subscribes to a bright-line test, a wider chasm than is usually acknowledged, particularly in today’s multimedia age.

There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.

Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

And in bending the truth, Hersh is, paradoxically enough, remarkably candid. When he supplies unconfirmed accounts of military assaults on Iraqi civilians, or changes certain important details from an episode inside Abu Ghraib (thus rendering the story unverifiable), Hersh argues that he’s protecting the identities of sources who could face grave repercussions for talking. “I defend that totally,” Hersh says of the factual fudges he serves up in speeches and lectures. “I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. I’m just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else’s ass, I’m not writing about it.”

Hersh insists that he takes great pains to be right when it counts the most—that is, when he writes, not when he talks—and that his close ties with the underside of the defense world are the reason he’s so confident about his understanding of that reality. “I’m not working with guys outside the system,” he tells me. “You do understand that, don’t you? I’m not outside the system in what I do. I’m really not.”

Hersh’s colleagues say that he’s achieved mastery of his beat thanks to his reputation as someone who’d never compromise a source—and who will go to any length to find one. “It’s sort of like being a spy,” says Warren Strobel, a Washington-based Knight Ridder reporter who, with Jonathan Landay, wrote some of the most skeptical prewar coverage of the Bush administration’s WMD claims. “It takes years to develop sources who will talk to you and not talk to very many other journalists, which he obviously has. . . . The version of reality that he has described in his writing, since 9/11, to me is a lot closer to reality than the version of reality that the administration has described, whether it be WMD in Iraq, or the abuses at Abu Ghraib, or secret policies in Iran.”

Still, what’s emerged from Hersh’s numerous speaking engagements—dozens of speeches last year, he says, which have drawn as much as $15,000 per university lecture—is a vast, tantalizing trove of what might be termed Hersh apocrypha: unpublished tales of official screwups, ideological intrigue, cover-ups, and government lies that have an influential—and growing—public life of their own.

It doesn’t take much prompting for Hersh to supply an example of the sort of story he keeps out of The New Yorker’s pages but will discuss freely elsewhere. He tells me a long tale of the ghastly killing of some Iraqi civilians by U.S. soldiers. He frames his account as a hypothetical set piece: “You’re a soldier on a patrol . . . and you see people running, and you open fire, okay? . . . Maybe they were bad guys, but then they run into a soccer game.” He gradually modulates the story to its climax: “You’re a bunch of young kids. And so maybe you pull the bodies together and you drop RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and you take some photographs about it because you’re afraid you’re gonna be investigated. And maybe somebody there tells me about what happened.”

Moving back into straight, declarative talk, Hersh lays out how this no-longer-quite-so-hypothetical scenario shaped his on-the-job news judgments. Investigating the tip, he discovered that, even though the photographs he obtained of the incident could suggest a terrible lapse of responsibility in the field, there was nothing here to qualify it as a Hersh story. “It was stupid, it was wrong, it was terrible, but it wasn’t murder. Do I write that? No. I don’t write that. Because then six, eight, ten American kids who did nothing but panic, and did what anybody would, would get in trouble. Do I have some photographs that are interesting? Yes. Do I publish those? No.”

But does he talk about it? Sure. Did this event happen? Who knows? Hersh never subjects these sorts of stories to any kind of public truth test, but he bandies them in his lectures, as part of the ongoing effort to bring his speaking audiences closer to that other reality of the Iraq War. He does it so frequently, in fact, that it’s hard to accept that he’s only doling out information for its own sake. In part, one senses, Hersh’s stump performances are of a piece with the sort of one-upping bravado that makes up many conversations journalists have with their colleagues—only done here in public and for hire. Again, Hersh is refreshingly candid about the showman aspect of his anecdotage: “I get paid to do speeches. . . . And I’m not there to be on straight. I’m there to tell, you know, give somebody, exchange views with people.”

It also seems clear that, more than just thinking out loud, Hersh is often reporting out loud from the lecturer’s podium. One notorious example: At Berkeley in October, Hersh described a phone call from a soldier who informed him that another platoon had massacred “30 or so” friendly Iraqi guards. Hersh advised the soldier to keep quiet about it: “You’re gonna get a bullet in the back.” The speech—and the subsequent flurry of breathless blog items—prompted the New York Observer’s Tom Scocca to theorize that Hersh “appears to be running some sort of impromptu combination of a notebook dump and an assignment meeting, challenging other reporters to pick up his loose ends and surplus tips.”

Hersh basically confirmed as much when he told Scocca that some comments he made about Guantánamo Bay abuses were an effort to get some new sources to contact him: “At some point, Army reservists were sent down to Gitmo. And they didn’t like what they saw. And that’s where I’m trying to go—I’m trying to find these guys.”

Whatever Hersh’s motivations for talking so loosely in public, none of the safeguards that keeps these stories out of The New Yorker stops the most startling of Hersh’s revelations from spreading throughout the blogging world. By assuming that these stories can be kept at the level of informal talk, Hersh overlooks the way the mediasphere he works in has been utterly transformed. All sorts of people are learning the hard way that informal public utterances are not the ambiguous exercises in cocktail-party speculation they were in the pre–wired world. Instead, off-the-cuff remarks delivered at one or another public forum have become the lifeblood of crusading bloggers, online groups, and discussion boards—and their missionary zeal now can set agendas in mainstream news coverage. Eason Jordan resigned his post as chief news executive of CNN on February 11 after his off-the-record musings on whether American forces targeted journalists in the Iraqi theater of war became a blogging cause célèbre. Harvard president Larry Summers has been spared his job so far, but he has sparked a global controversy—and all sorts of interest-group crusades for his ouster—based on his spoken speculations on whether women possess less innate aptitude in math and science. And Judith Miller of the New York Times drew criticism from Times public editor Daniel Okrent (among others) for suggesting on Hardball that Ahmad Chalabi would be offered a job in the post-election Iraqi government—a scoop that her own employer hasn’t yet seen fit to print.

In the new-media world, the line between a spoken remark and a written one is becoming more and more blurry. “The world has changed, because there is this monstrously large amplifying megaphone that hovers at all moments everywhere,” says Okrent. “There’s no such thing as speaking out loud, off the record. As Jordan learned, I believe unfairly, you can’t take it back once it’s said.”

As a magazine writer, Hersh is given more leeway in his public remarks than an executive like Jordan, who is answerable not only to the press and the bloggers but also to CNN’s investors. A speech or public remark from Hersh is unlikely to do much damage to The New Yorker and its renowned fact-checking apparatus. But while Hersh may not be able to do much damage to the credibility of the magazine he writes for, he’s certainly capable of doing damage to his own.

Seymour Hersh has always had a rather loose relationship with literal truth. He seems to share with many of the people he writes about the belief that in certain circumstances, the end justifies the means. When Hersh was pursuing the My Lai story, he tracked down the lawyer of William Calley Jr., the man later convicted of participating in the 1968 massacre of Vietnamese civilians. Hersh intentionally inflated the number of deaths for which Calley was charged, in order to get the attorney to tell him the correct number, 109. A few years ago, Hersh told a crowd at Duke, “a word for what I did—an actual word, it has three letters—it’s called ‘lie.’”

Few would argue that Hersh’s impropriety should diminish the astonishing coup and public service of bringing the My Lai story to light. But Hersh’s swashbuckling journalistic methods have made for a very bumpy career. So vast was the impact of Hersh’s revelations of the massacre at My Lai that it’s easy to forget he did it essentially on his own, without the sanction of any major journalistic institution. He came to Washington from Chicago as an AP reporter in 1964 and knocked around town for a few years—he served briefly as press secretary for antiwar presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy—before uncovering the My Lai story. Circulated in 1969 on an independent antiwar syndication service called Dispatch News Service, it won the Pulitzer. Soon thereafter, Hersh published two books on My Lai and was admitted to the journalism Establishment’s Holy of Holies, the New York Times. At the Times, Hersh published scoop after scoop—on Nixon’s Watergate cover-up, the secret bombing of Cambodia, the CIA’s massive domestic spy operation—but when he asked for a leave in 1979 to write a book on Henry Kissinger, editor A. M. Rosenthal refused. Hersh quit. “He’s not a gear that fits into any motor very smoothly,” says the author Taylor Branch, who has known Hersh for more than 30 years.

Hersh’s rocky tour through the print Establishment has involved some factual misfires. In 1981, while he was working on his Kissinger book, Hersh wrote a 3,000-word, front-page retraction in the Times as penance for having mistakenly named Edward M. Korry, the former U.S. ambassador to Chile, as a collaborator in the CIA-backed 1973 coup. Throughout his career, Hersh has won a reputation as something of a journalistic pit bull, who can unsettle even his admirers with his single-minded determination to establish certain facts above others. Charles Peters, founding editor of The Washington Monthly, revised his opinion of Hersh somewhat after serving as a source for Hersh’s controversial Kennedy book, The Dark Side of Camelot. Hersh talked with Peters several times to discuss bribes the Kennedy campaign made to West Virginia sheriffs to deliver a victory for JFK in the critical 1960 state primary.

“He called me a lot, and he both educated me and disturbed me,” says Peters, who served as a West Virginia county director for the Kennedy campaign. “He converted me to some extent, but I would say I did not convert him at all to the reasonable points that I had. He took my good points on his side, and he ignored my good points that weren’t on his side.” Whenever he disagreed with Hersh, Peters says, Hersh would start exclaiming, “Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!”

“You can’t help but have a certain skepticism once you’ve been through that experience,” Peters says.

Hersh’s career as an author has run the gamut from intensively researched exposés to dubious scandalmongering. And its wilder swings in the latter direction came close to endangering his career. His first two books after leaving the Times—1983’s exhaustive, 700-page account of seemingly inexhaustible Kissinger moral trespasses, The Price of Power, and 1986’s The Target Is Destroyed: What Really Happened to Flight 007 and What America Knew About It—were critically applauded. But his next book, 1991’s The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, relied heavily on a source whom Hersh later characterized in an interview as a liar. And after the publication of The Dark Side of Camelot in 1997, Hersh’s reputation took another dip.

The reviews of Hersh’s singularly tumescent account of the Kennedy presidency were savage. Gail Collins wrote in The Nation that Hersh’s book on JFK was “best read as a sort of journalistic tragedy.” In the Los Angeles Times, Edward Jay Epstein decreed that Hersh “must have invented” some of his facts and that the book “turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy.”

More damaging than the book’s critical reception were revelations that Hersh had fallen for a set of forged Kennedy documents—including a handwritten note from JFK offering Marilyn Monroe hush money to keep quiet about their affair—peddled by Lawrence X. Cusack III, a con man. The phony docs didn’t make it into The Dark Side of Camelot, but the moral of the story stuck: The onetime giant of investigative journalism had let himself be duped again. Hersh’s next book, on Gulf War syndrome, was almost completely ignored.

After editor Tina Brown began using him as a regular contributor in 1993, Hersh wrote regularly for The New Yorker. But Hersh scoops that once would have prompted congressional inquiries and a bevy of prizes—such as his 2000 account of how troops under the command of Gen. Barry McCaffrey massacred Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War—faded after minor media flare-ups. Even after he published a flurry of New Yorker stories in the wake of 9/11, Hersh’s reputation was not completely restored.

But with the launch of the politically divisive Iraq War and the unexpectedly difficult American occupation that followed, Hersh’s nose for bad news and mysterious but obviously very deep sourcing found a larger, more receptive audience—and his methods once again yielded historic scoops. In late March 2003, Hersh pronounced in The New Yorker’s pages that the Bush administration’s claims about Iraq’s purchase of uranium from Niger were based on an obvious forgery. He followed that up with stories about how the Pentagon and the White House circumvented the government’s traditional methods for evaluating intelligence. And in 2004, Hersh’s succession of shocking stories about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison proved that Hersh was back on top of his world—or, more precisely, underneath it, unearthing the Bush administration’s trove of secure, undisclosed secrets.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas soured on Hersh after The Dark Side of Camelot, telling the Columbia Journalism Review in summer 2003, “I read what he writes with some skepticism or doubt or uncertainty.” But Thomas has since changed his mind. “Even if he’s made a few mistakes—even if you’re not sure what they are—overall you’d have to say he’s pretty much been ahead of everybody,” Thomas says.

Investigative reporting is often an elaborate dance around truths, large and small, wherein journalists hint at explosive revelations in order to induce sources to spill some relevant bit of compromising information to steer them onto the right path. Investigative stories often read like code, and they are hard to decipher (and evaluate).

The New Yorker rigorously polices the Hersh dispatches it publishes and insists that, like all the material in the magazine, Hersh’s pieces are fact-checked tight as a drum. The New Yorker’s editor-in-chief, David Remnick, looks over Hersh’s copy closely and keeps himself advised of the true identities of the writer’s many unnamed sources. Even so, he says, “closing is not easy. My job is to ask tough questions, and he answers them. Sometimes I say, ‘We don’t have enough,’ and he pushes forward in his reporting.”

Occasionally, Hersh’s half-confirmed spoken accounts of key events in the Iraq War do get significantly revised when they make their way into print. Last July, not too long after the Abu Ghraib story broke, Hersh spoke to the annual membership conference of the American Civil Liberties Union. He stood before the crowd and in mid-speech appeared to talk to himself. “Debating about it,” he muttered, then paused. “Um.” Clucked his tongue. “Some of the worst things that happened that you don’t know about. Okay? Videos,” he said. “And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.”

What Hersh said wasn’t entirely correct. His book Chain of Command would deliver the authoritative Seymour M. version: “An attorney involved in the case told me in July 2004 that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract employee who served as an interpreter at Abu Ghraib,” Hersh wrote. “In the statement, which had not been made public, the lawyer told me, a prisoner stated that he was a witness to the rape, and that a woman was taking pictures.”

Horrifying stuff. But key details were different from the impression Hersh gave to the ACLU crowd. And the Sy version raced halfway across the Internet before Seymour M. could get his boots on.

Many who blogged the revelation believed that Hersh was talking about multiple rapes committed by American soldiers. Nearly everyone took it for granted that Hersh had seen the videotapes himself because he’d described their horrifying soundtrack. And everyone did assume that there were in fact videotapes, which there may not be. (“Was it a video camera or a digital camera? Nobody was quite sure,” Hersh told students at Tufts later in the year.) The speech was so widely blogged that the ACLU says Hersh asked it to remove part of the video—including the sodomy allegation—from the organization’s Website, which it proceeded to do.

That was Hersh’s first encounter with streaming online video, something that makes a spoken remark as replicable and as easy to distribute as the written word. He’d never heard of it before. “I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly,” Hersh now says. “It wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful.”

Yet a more careful Hersh may not be what the world needs at this moment. Former Washington Post reporter Scott Armstrong puts it this way: Say Hersh writes a story about how an elephant knocked someone down in a dark room. “If it was a camel or three cows, what difference does it make? It was dark, and it wasn’t supposed to be there.” And nobody else had yet described it. Sometimes, says Warren Strobel, “it’s worth it for him to be wrong.”

from the Washington Times, 2006-Jul-29, by Michelle Malkin:

Berserk 'peace' activism

You're walking down the street when you spot an antiwar protester wielding a peace sign on the corner. Quick, what do you do? Duck.

As we battle global jihad, perplexed and apoplectic pacifists show their true colors. Rainbow tie-dye has turned to raging-bull red.

Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams displayed what the Australian media called "her feisty Irish spirit" to hundreds of schoolchildren this week in a murder-minded diatribe against President Bush. "I have a very hard time with this word 'nonviolence,' because I don't believe that I am nonviolent," confessed Mrs. Williams. On the plus side, the rest of the sane world will no longer make the mistake of believing Peace Prize-winner Mrs. Williams is nonviolent, either (though the Nobel committee took the peace out of Peace Prize when it handed one to suicide bomber manufacturer Yasser Arafat in 1994).

While the kids cheered, Mrs. Williams, the world-renowned pacifist, fumed: "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." In America, we don't call this irrational hatred "feisty Irish spirit." We call it "unhinged." Or, as Charles Krauthammer first diagnosed it, Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Mrs. Williams would no doubt endorse the disgusting comments left on an America Online message board for Sgt. Leonid Milkin, whose wife, two sons and sister-in-law were murdered in Kirkland, Wash., last week while he was serving in Iraq. Human Events Online writer Lisa De Pasquale documented the comments of antimilitary Bush-haters: "Too bad the paid assasin [sic] wasn't home also.... Got what he deserved for serving an illegal government in an illegal war."

"Maybe he signed up for the wrong profession because who in their right mind would want to be a army man? He should have studied harder in school and found a real job instead of joining the army. Lmao, be all u can be? Don't patronize me. People who join the army either have no education or come from small towns. . . . He should blame himself for his family dying due to his lack of education."

"Another Bush tradjedy [sic] ... Yip folks here are 5 [sic [-] 4] more notches, Bush can add to his belt."

Then there's Dan Frazier, an antiwar huckster in Arizona selling T-shirts with the names of fallen soldiers, including Marine Cpl. Scott Michael Vincent, who was killed by a suicide bomber two years ago. The peace-loving Mr. Frazier demonstrated his "feisty" pacifist "spirit" by ignoring Vincent's mother's pleas to remove her son's name.

Want another dose? Earlier this month, a New Zealand peace activist and former Green Party candidate who served as a "human shield" for aSaddam Hussein in 2003 was charged with assaulting a teenage rock singer in London. Peace-loving Christiaan Briggs reportedly harassed the boy's girlfriend, then knocked the boy to the ground. Mr. Briggs ran off laughing before turning himself in to police. The victim had to have part of his skull removed and only days ago woke from a coma.

Announcing his decision to take a stand for peace three years ago, Mr. Briggs preached: " 'You must be the change you wish to see in the world.' But here in lies the twist. The change I wish to see is not simply that of countless Iraqi lives spared, but that of possibly inspiring just a small group of people I know; my family, friends, and community, illustrating to them an unbelievably important and simple lesson I learned recently: Wanna be happy? Just center your life around making others happy." By sending them into unconsciousness. Saddam would approve.

Meanwhile, at a peace rally in Boston convened by the Muslim American Society, a Jewish man who attended with a video camera was threatened verbally and physically by hostile demonstrators. Seva Brodsky was accosted by pro-Hezbollah thugs who grabbed him, cursed at him and tried to prevent him from filming the terrorist sympathizers. It was caught on tape and posted at the Solomonia.com blog this weekend. A rally marshal apathetically told Mr. Brodsky: "We cannot guarantee your safety."

If the "peace" activists gone wild had an iota of the same anger, contempt and callousness toward the jihadists that they have toward us, we would be a lot closer to achieving the peace they love to preach.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of the book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild."

from the Telegraph of London, 2006-Sep-8:

Osama meets 9/11 suicide crews

THE Arab television channel Al-Jazeera has today broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the US.

Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practising for their execution.''

The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.

The footage also showed hand-to-hand combat practice between people who wore masks over their heads.

The television station also broadcast a recording attributed to the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, in which he said he was sure of victory against US-led forces in the country.

The recording was posted on an Islamist internet site as well, but its authenticity could not be immediately established.

In the internet statement, Muhajer also urged Sunni Muslims to kill at least one US citizen within the next two weeks.

"Oh followers of (Taliban leader) Mullah Mohammed Omar, oh sons of (al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden, oh disciples of (slain al-Qaeda in Iraq leader) Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi ... I urge each of you to kill at least one American within a period not exceeding 15 days,'' Muhajer said.

The two broadcasts came four days before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Muhajer added: "I do not doubt for an instant victory'' against US-led forces in Iraq, calling President George W Bush a "liar'' and a "dog''.

"Do not be proud of the number and the equipment'' (of your army), Muhajer said. "The war has just begun.''

Muhajer had already issued a public statement in June, a few days after his predecessor Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike in Iraq.

from the Washington Post, 2006-Sep-8, p.C1, by Michael Powell:

The Disbelievers
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Are Building Their Case Against the Government From Ground Zero

NEW YORK -- He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours.

He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaeda had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen.

It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora.

He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered.

"To me, the report read as a cartoon." White-haired and courtly, Griffin sits on a couch in a hotel lobby in Manhattan, unspooling words in that reasonable Presbyterian minister's voice. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives."

Such as?

"There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives."

If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act."

You could dismiss this as a louder than usual howl from the CIA-controls-my-thoughts-through-the-filling-in-my-molar crowd. Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It's a piling up of improbabilities.

Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers.

Yeah, as if . . .

The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. As cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists anywhere this side of Guy Fawkes, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. There's nothing like a triple, Google-fed epiphany lighting up the laptop at 2:44 a.m.

Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site, there are really weird doings in Baluchistan . . .

The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota (Fetzer's an old hand in JFK assassination research); and Daniel Orr, the retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University [suspended without pay by BYU on 2006-Sep-8 -AMPP Ed.], who's studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite.

Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon -- or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush's administration and gained a fine reputation as a fraud buster; David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the "most unbelievable conspiracy" theory is the one retailed by the government.

Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a "dysfunctional creep," not to mention a "possible war criminal."

You reach Reynolds at his country home in the hills of Arkansas. His favored rhetorical style is long paragraphs without obvious punctuation: "Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government's case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11."

They are cantankerous and sometimes distrust each other -- who knows where the double agents lurk? But unreasonable questions resonate with the reasonable. Colleen Kelly's brother, a salesman, had breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11. After he died she founded September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to oppose the Iraq war. She lives in the Bronx and gives a gingerly embrace to the conspiracy crowd.

"Sometimes I listen to them and I think that's sooooo outlandish and bizarre," she says. "But that day had such disastrous geopolitical consequences. If David Ray Griffin asks uncomfortable questions and points out painful discrepancies? Good for him."

Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," never reviewed in a major U.S. newspaper, sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone. Last year he traveled through New England, giving speeches in whitewashed churches and gymnasiums. He came to West Hartford, Conn., on a rainy autumn evening. Four hundred mostly middle-aged and upper-middle-class doctors and lawyers, teachers and social workers sat waiting.

Griffin took the podium and laid down his ideas with calm and cool. He concluded:

"It is already possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt one very important thing: The destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists," he says. "The welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed."

The audience rose and applauded for more than a minute.

"Reality is a thin line between denial and paranoia."

-- Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement

"Me?" You've asked the Rev. Frank Morales, the bohemian Episcopalian minister with the hipster goatee, where he stands on the nature of the conspiracy. We're standing in the ancient graveyard of St. Mark's Church in the Bowery on Second Avenue. "I lean to LIHOP."

The 9/11 truthers share a lieutenant colonel's love of acronyms. They divide themselves into LIHOPS and MIHOPS and differences are not trifling. LIHOP stands for "Let It Happen On Purpose," which means someone inside the U.S. government intentionally let the terror conspiracy go. MIHOP means "Made It Happen On Purpose," and its gradations center on whether Bush was in or out of the loop (a surprising number believe he was clueless) and whether the Mossad or British intelligence was dealt into the deal.

Morales, 57, who came out of the Lower East Side housing projects, spent days at Ground Zero performing last rites for the dead, many little more than a collection of body parts.

"I didn't presume to know who did it," he says. "There was a lot of shucking and jiving. I wonder at what point massive incompetence crosses over into negligent homicide."

To make sense of the truth movement's anger, you need to hit the rewind button to early 2001, with the hindsight of today. There was, as the 9/11 Commission hearings made clear, a bad moon rising. Warnings kept coming of a "high probability" of a "spectacular" terrorist attack. A national security adviser warned Condoleezza Rice there were terrorist cells, probably al-Qaeda guys, in the country. CIA chief George Tenet said the "system was blinking red."

A presidential bulletin on Aug. 6 had a catchy title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush did not discuss it again with Tenet before Sept. 11.

So give the truth movement, many of whom are based in New York City, their props. They may be paranoid, but something nasty came our way. They pore over the paper trail with a Sherlock Holmesian intensity, alert to intriguing discrepancy.

Such as:

Former transporation secretary Norman Mineta told the commission he arrived in the presidential operations center -- under the White House -- at 9:20 a.m. on Sept. 11 and found Vice President Cheney. When an aide asked Cheney about the hijacked plane fast approaching the Pentagon, Mineta says the vice president snapped that the "orders still stand." Mineta assumed the orders were to shoot the plane down. Conspiracy theorists interpret this to mean: Don't shoot it down.

Cheney later said he was not in the operations center until after the plane hit. The commission never mentioned Mineta's contradictory version.

In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. But the government recently released tapes claiming to show the FAA did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed.

That would mean the FAA repeatedly lied. It would also mean, as Griffin points out, that the entire military chain of command stayed quiet about huge inaccuracies for four years "even though . . . the true story would put the military in a better light."

More mysteries pile up. The 9/11 Commission says Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. But Honegger says clocks stopped at the Pentagon at 9:32. Then there's the collapse of the twin towers, which Jones, the physics professor, timed at just short of free fall. Griffin cites firefighters, including a captain, who said in hearings and on tapes from that day that they saw flashes and heard the sound of explosions before the collapse.

"It's like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire," Honegger says from her home in California. "They guided and secretly protected it to justify their global agenda."

Let's put aside the could-anyone-do-something-that-spectacularly-twisted? question and touch on practicalities. Isn't the problem with big ugly conspiracies -- from the Gulf of Tonkin to My Lai to the 1961 Pentagon plan to provoke a war by attacking Americans and blaming it on Castro -- that they are too big and ugly to keep secret?

Griffin shrugs. History is littered with government black-bag jobs. "How do you know they can't keep big secrets? Can you be sure you know what you don't know?"

* * *

There is a "morning after" quality to the conspiratorial romance. One moment you groove on the epiphanies and the next moment you're lost in a dull haze of "this cannot be a coincidence," "perhaps significantly" and "if so . . ."

What of incompetence? Or the raw absurdity of life? The truth movement makes much of a 2001 BBC report that a half-dozen of the hijackers were still alive. They mention Waleed al Shehri, a pilot who still flies commercial runs in Morocco. But the BBC retracted that.

It turns out the live guy and the dead hijacker spelled their names differently.

Then there's the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and United 93 did not crash in Shanksville, Pa. But, like, what happened to the passengers? (Among the passengers on Flight 77 was Barbara Olson, wife of former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson).

"Why should any of us know where it went?" Griffin says. "It could have been it crashed in Kentucky. We don't need a theory where it went."

Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials.

But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists.

"They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," Berlet says over the phone. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet . That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard."

Now comes a loud sigh.

"I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it," he says. "My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again."

Let's move on to Eager of MIT. "Demolition experts say, 'Ohhh, it's all science and timing.' Bull!" Eager says. "What's the technique? If 200,000 tons gives way, where do you think it's going? Straight down."

In the days after Sept. 11, experts claimed temperatures reached 2,000 degrees on the upper floors. Others claimed steel melted. Nope. What happened, Eager says, is that jet fuel sloshed around and beams got rubbery.

"It's not too much to think that you could have some regions at 900 degrees and others at 1,200 degrees, and that will distort the beams."

The truth movement doesn't really care for Eager. A Web site casts a fisheye of suspicion at the professor and his colleagues. "Did the MIT have prior knowledge?" notes one chat room. "This is for sure another speculative topic . . . "

"It is no measure of health to be sane in an insane society."

-- Krishnamurti

Nico Haupt, a gaunt fellow in black sneakers, black socks, black jeans and black T-shirt, stands up in St. Mark's Church in the Bowery. He holds aloft two blue Oreos boxes taped to resemble the twin towers. A pen juts out, kind of like a Boeing airplane.

For an hour he's shown videos of planes hitting the towers. If you note the glinting sunlight and angle of wings and you're honest about vectors and maybe the hashish is kicking in, you'll realize there were no planes .

Truth movement veterans distance themselves from Haupt, who has a bit of a temper. But Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist, also is a "no-planer."

"There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is."

But what about all those New Yorkers who saw airplanes hitting the twin towers? A chuckle rumbles down the phone line. "I don't believe anyone in Lower Manhattan," he says. "You hire three dozen Actors' Equity dudes and they'll say anything ."

Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government -- dissolution is a certainty. Honegger and Griffin believe bombs brought down the twin towers but have little truck with make-believe planes. There's a faction that says the Mossad did it and another that says that's insane, and maybe anti-Semitic.

Where are we going here? There's a Journal of 9/11 Studies, documentaries, CDs and DVDs. Is conspiracy thought getting codified?

"That's our worry, of course," Griffin says. "I want my life back. But how can I ignore that we have become entranced by demonic power, so focused on lust for wealth and control that almost anything becomes possible?"

You reach Honegger a few nights later. She'd like to give it up, too. "I am sitting here in my little office trying to figure out what happened to my country on this day. I wouldn't be a patriot if I didn't try to prove the government's story is preposterous."

from CBS News, 2006-Sep-7:

New poll says most Canadians blame U.S. for 9/11 attacks

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

Those conclusions are found in a newly released poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies.

The poll suggests [actually, finds -AMPP Ed.] that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest [here, “suggest” is correct -AMPP Ed.] 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

When participants were given the option of choosing more than one cause for the attacks, two-thirds blamed Islamic fundamentalists and their anti-Western views, while a third pointed the finger at Israel and its position in the Middle East.

Canadian opinions have hardened against the United States and its role on the world stage, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to a change of heart among people, he said.

But Canadians are divided on whether their government should pay more attention to issues fuelling extremist organizations in the Middle East, he said.

"There are a lot of people who think we should be listening closely [to extremist groups] and that there is an opportunity to dialogue with these sort of groups," said Jedwab Wednesday. "So it is showing a real ideological divide on some of these issues."

There's a growing need since the Sept. 11 attacks for balanced public education about terrorism, added Jedwab. "There is a tendency to see in these movements something more romantic than actually exists. That's something we need to keep debating in the country."

Léger Marketing interviewed 1,508 Canadian adults from Aug. 22 to Aug. 27. The poll results are considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

from the Associated Press via CNN.com, 2006-Aug-25:

Chavez rips U.S., Israel during China visit

China -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez slammed Washington on Friday for opposing his bid for a U.N. Security Council seat and condemned Israel's strikes in Lebanon as comparable to the acts of Adolf Hitler.

The left-leaning Chavez also said Venezuela wants to expand ties with China, giving Beijing a bigger role in its oil industry and drawing on the communist government's experience in modernizing its economy.

President Hu Jintao on Thursday endorsed Venezuela's campaign for a Security Council seat. The bid has unsettled Washington because of Chavez's efforts to foster relations with North Korea and Iran. U.S. officials are backing Guatemala for the seat instead.

"The U.S. government has employed every means to block my country from joining the Security Council," Chavez told reporters. "The American imperialists are trying to stop us."

Chavez condemned Israeli attacks in Lebanon since July 12 that have killed civilians. He compared them to the acts of Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany, and said Israeli leaders should be prosecuted for genocide before the International Court of Justice.

"Israel is doing the same thing as Hitler today," he said. "We give our sympathy to the Arab people and condemn Israel."

Chavez has made similar remarks about Israel recently and has scaled back ties with the Israeli government while also building close relations with Iran.

Earlier this month, Chavez withdrew his country's top diplomat to Israel to protest its attacks in Lebanon and its actions toward the Palestinians. Israel, which responded by calling home its ambassador, has criticized what it calls Chavez's "one-sided policy" and "wild slurs."

Chavez said Friday he was invited to visit Syria but hasn't set a date. He said he has no plans to meet with Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, whose guerrillas are fighting Israeli forces in Lebanon.

Chavez, an admirer of Mao Zedong, founder of the communist Chinese government, was on his fourth trip to China since taking office in 1999.

On Thursday, he signed agreements that call for Beijing to help Venezuela, the world's No. 5 petroleum exporter, develop oil fields, a telecoms network, farming and gold and coal mines. (Full story)

China is eager for access to Latin American energy sources to fuel its booming economy, while Chavez wants to reduce Venezuela's dependence on the United States, its key export market.

On Friday, Chavez showed reporters a chart depicting a planned sharp increase in the share of Venezuelan oil produced and refined by joint ventures with China in coming years.

He said Venezuela plans to almost quadruple sales to China to 1 million barrels a day in the next decade.

Chavez said China and Venezuela would jointly build refinery project in his country to process 1 million barrels of crude a day, though he didn't give other details.

"China has rich experience in this field," he said. "China will provide personnel, training and experience and technology in the lower end of this industry."

Also Friday, Chavez visited the headquarters of China's space program in the Beijing suburbs, where technicians are building a communications satellite to be launched in 2008 for Venezuela.

He said 29 Venezuelan students were in China earning Ph.D.s and master's degrees, mainly in aerospace fields.

During the weekend, Chavez planned to travel to the eastern city of Jinan, where he reportedly was to visit Chinese companies involved in developing Venezuelan gold and coal mines.

from Reuters, 2006-Jul-26, by Bernd Debusmann:

Anti-Americanism prompts push for "citizen diplomacy"

WASHINGTON - With anti-American sentiment at unprecedented levels around the world, Americans worried about their country's low standing are pushing a grassroots campaign to change foreign perceptions of the United States "one handshake at a time."

The idea is to turn millions of Americans into "citizen diplomats" who use personal meetings with foreigners to counter the ugly image of the United States shown in a series of international public opinion polls. They show widespread negative attitudes not only toward U.S. policies but also toward the American people and, increasingly, even American products.

To stem the relentless decline of America's international standing -- a dramatic change from the almost universal sympathy for the country immediately after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington --leaders of more than 30 civic organizations formed a "Coalition for Citizen Diplomacy" two years ago.

The coalition, a loose alliance of national, state and community groups, held its first national summit in July in Washington, where speakers deplored the sorry state of the U.S. image but expressed hope that individual action and international people-to-people exchanges could go a long way toward improving things.

ROCK STARS, STUDENTS

"Citizen diplomacy is the concept that the individual citizen has the right and the responsibility to help shape U.S. foreign relations one handshake at a time," said Sherry Lee Mueller, one of the coalition's leaders.

"Whether you are student sitting next to a foreign scholar at your university, an athlete playing abroad, an elected official welcoming counterparts, a rock star or a business representative overseas, you are a citizen diplomat and can make a life-changing difference."

Not even the most optimistic delegates to the Washington meeting, billed as the first of its kind, thought citizen diplomacy could soon reverse a trend that has accelerated sharply under President George W. Bush, many of whose foreign policy decisions have been criticized as unilateralist and arrogant.

Distaste for America runs so deep that, for example, at the recent World Cup in Germany the American team was the only one asked not to display its national flag on the team bus. In South Korea, traditionally a U.S. ally, two-thirds of people under 30 said in a recent poll that if there were war between North Korea and the United States, they would side with North Korea.

"Anti-Americanism runs deeper and is qualitatively different than in the past, when it was largely attributable to unpopular U.S. policies," Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, says in a new book on the subject, "America Against the World."

Polls show that people who have visited the United States or have been involved in exchange programs have a more favorable impression of the country than those who have not, and one of the questions discussed at the Washington meeting was how to attract more visitors and increase exchange programs.

The coalition embraces long-established organizations such as Sister Cities International, the Fulbright scholarship program and the National Council for International Visitors as well as a host of small groups largely run by volunteers and operated on shoestring budgets.

BAD FOR BUSINESS

Between 4 million and 5 million Americans are estimated to be involved, directly or indirectly, in "citizen diplomacy" projects -- not a large number compared to the overall population of 300 million but substantial in comparison to the 51,000 employees of the U.S Department of State.

Since the alliance was established at a meeting in Racine, Wisconsin two years ago, its members have held 50 "community summits" on citizen diplomacy, most in places not usually associated with foreign policy concerns -- Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, Chattanooga, Tennessee, or Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

Parallel to the grassroots effort to spread the message that there is more to the United States than wars, superpower arrogance and tourists clad in shorts, a business-backed group called Business for Diplomatic Action (BDA) is lining up corporate support for public diplomacy by business travelers.

BDA, whose board includes executives from Exxon and McDonald's, last May began distributing a "World Citizen's Guide" to corporate travelers with 16 tips to change the behavior patterns that have earned Americans a boorish reputation in the first place.

This is not a philanthropic mission. "American companies should care about America's standing in the world, first of all, because sooner or later anti-Americanism is bad for business," BDA President Keith Reinhard said at the Washington meeting. "Corporate America needs a world that welcomes and values American brands. Unfortunately, this is becoming less and less true."

That holds true even for the United States as a travel destination. "A direct consequence of the decline of America's reputation in the world," according to Reinhard, "is that more people around the world are consciously and purposely saying 'I don't want to visit America.'"

Travel Industry Association Statistics show that the U.S. share of world tourism declined from 7.4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent last year. A 1 percentage point increase, according to the association, would mean 7.6 million additional arrivals, $12.3 billion in additional spending, 150,000 additional jobs, $3.3 billion in additional payroll and $2.1 billion in additional tax revenue.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Jan-19, by Osama bin Laden:

Full Text of Bin Laden Tape

The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press.

Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:

My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.

But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.

I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book ``Rogue State,'' which states in its introduction: ``If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all.''

Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

from the New York Times, 2006-Jul-20, by Edward Wong:

Hussein Writes to Americans, Urging Iraqi Pullout

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 20 — Defense lawyers for Saddam Hussein released a letter on Thursday that he recently wrote in prison that attempts to persuade the American people to demand a troop pullout because President Bush misled them into the Iraq war.

The 5,000-word letter is a rambling treatise outlining what Mr. Hussein asserts are the false reasons that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, from weapons of mass destruction to Iraqi links with Al Qaeda. Mr. Hussein blames Iran and pro-Israel interests for helping lead the Americans into war. He invokes the specter of Vietnam and the spirit of Mao Zedong, saying the Chinese revolutionary is “laughing in his grave because his prediction has been fulfilled and America is a paper tiger.”

The letter is dated July 7. It was handed by Mr. Hussein to Ramsey Clark, the former United States attorney general, who serves on Mr. Hussein's defense team, said Rasha Oudeh, the office manager for Mr. Hussein's eldest daughter. In the letter, Mr. Hussein said he wrote out his message to the Americans by hand at the behest of Mr. Clark.

“People of America, the misfortunes that have afflicted you and afflicted our Arab nation and within it our heroic people — including the breakdown of America's standing and reputation — were only caused by the reckless behavior of your government and by pressure from Zionism,” Mr. Hussein wrote, according to a translation of the letter sent by e-mail to reporters.

“The massacres and blood that now flows in the streets and countryside of Iraq in torrents — the responsibility for that falls on America before all others,” he added.

The release of the letter came on the 14th day of a hunger strike by Mr. Hussein and three of his co-defendants. Mr. Hussein and seven other men, including his half-brother, have been on trial since last October for the imprisonment and executions of 148 men and boys from the Shiite town of Dujail. The victims were killed after what Mr. Hussein said was an assassination attempt on him in 1982.

The trial is in its closing stages. Arguments are expected from the defense lawyers. But the main lawyers and defendants have been boycotting the trial for various reasons.

Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for the American-run detainee system, said Thursday that Mr. Hussein was in “relatively good health” and was being monitored every day by medical professionals. He said Mr. Hussein has rejected all his meals but drinks coffee with sugar and water with nutrients.

The American military had no immediate comment on the letter, he added.

In the letter, Mr. Hussein said an American general tried to use intimidation and threats against him after his capture, and also “tried to bargain with me, promising to let me live if I agreed to read in my own voice and sign a prepared announcement that was shown to me.”

“That stupid announcement called on the people of Iraq and the courageous resistance to lay down arms,” he said.

“They said that if I refused, my fate would be that I would be shot like Mussolini,” he added.

A week after that conversation, Mr. Hussein said, a group of Americans came to speak to him, saying they were from an American university. “I confirmed to them that Iraq didn't have any of the things the American officials claimed,” Mr. Hussein wrote.

Farther down in the letter, Mr. Hussein sought to portray himself as a humanitarian, telling the American government to designate a neutral country to whom insurgents can hand over American prisoners “rather than executing them as currently is said to be taking place.” That appeared to be a reference to the abduction and mutilations of two American soldiers in the town of Yusufiya last month.

The letter ends with a final bit of advice: “Save your country, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, and leave Iraq.”

Here is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2006-May letter to George W. Bush. His arguments are the same as Western leftists', and no more coherent.

from FoxNews.com, 2006-Nov-29:

Iran's Ahmadinejad Sends Letter to American People

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a lengthy letter to the American people Wednesday, addressing "Noble Americans" and urging unity with Iran in spite of what the U.S. government says and does.

The letter was released in New York on Wednesday and seems to be an attempt by the controversial Iranian president to circumvent the Bush administration to directly reach Americans.

Click here to read Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to the American people. (pdf)

"Noble Americans ... we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world," Ahmadinejad writes.

"Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

"Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies."

Iran first reported on the existence of the letter in bold type on the front page of a state-run newspaper, saying "the five-page letter to the American people will be released by Iran's representative at the United Nations today."

Ahmadinejad wrote a rambling, 18-page letter to U.S. President George W. Bush in May, which Washington criticized for not addressing Iran's nuclear program — where the United States is leading the drive to impose U.N. sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

Iranians in the street were disappointed by the cold response to the May letter because, while it did not make clear proposals, it was the first official communication between the two countries' presidents since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad said he was planning to write a letter to Americans.

"Many American people asked me to talk to them in order to explain the views of the Iranian people," Ahmadinejad told reporters, referring to his visit to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly session in September.

Ahmadinejad has alienated many Americans by calling for Israel's destruction and repeatedly dismissing the Nazi Holocaust as a myth. He also strongly supports the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Lebanese faction Hezbollah, which the U.S. State Department list as terrorist organizations.

"Governments are there to serve their own people," the Iranian president writes in his letter to Americans. "But regrettably, the U.S. administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people."

Ahmadinejad also addresses the situation in Iraq, condemning the U.S.-led war there.

Since the United States' presence in Iraq began, "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. ... Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

"About one hundred and fifty-thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current U.S. administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government."

Ahmadinejad suggests a "better approach to governance," and recommends that "the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized." He also advises that American troops be brought home from Iraq.

"I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world," Ahmadinejad writes.

Twice this year Iran has proposed talks with the United States over Iraq, but Ahmadinejad has said that for such negotiations to take place, Washington must change its behavior. On Sunday he said Iran was ready to help the United States get out of the "Iraqi quagmire if the U.S. changes its bullying policy toward Iran."

Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since 1979 when, after the revolution, militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and kept 52 people hostage for 444 days.

FOX News' Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

from the Associated Press, 2006-May-9, by Nick Wadhams and Anne Gearan with Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran contributing:

Iran President Says Democracy Has Failed

NEW YORK -- Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented "an ever-increasing global hatred" of the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter, saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's suspect nuclear program.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Rice said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why "any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, accused the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war and railed against the United States for its support of Israel. It questioned whether the world would be a different place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight poverty.

"Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?" the letter said. "And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever- increasing global hatred of the American government?"

Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called his letter "words and opinions of the Iranian nation" aimed at finding a "way out of problems" facing humanity, according to the official Iranian news agency. He spoke briefly before boarding a plane for Indonesia, where he was to attend a summit of developing nations.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new "diplomatic opening" between the two countries, but Rice said it failed to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program - the focus of intense U.N. Security Council debate this week.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she has no idea why the Iranian president sent this letter now.

The Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, also said Tuesday that Tehran had no intention of withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to cooperate if the U.N. atomic watchdog agency dealt with the issue of its nuclear program, rather than the Security Council.

On Sunday, Iran's parliament threatened to ask the government to withdraw its signature from a protocol in the treaty that allows intrusive surprise inspections of nuclear facilities.

"We have no reason to leave the NPT. Our case is completely different from that of North Korea," Larijani said during a visit to Athens, Greece. "The additional protocol is one thing and the NPT is another," he said.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had been briefed on the letter, which the White House received Monday through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.

"There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter," Rice said.

Even though the letter hardly touched on nuclear issues, officials said it appeared timed with a push by the United States and its European allies for a Security Council resolution to restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Both China and Russia are opposed to leveling sanctions against Iran and the letter could provide them support.

Rice, who said she expected no quick action on sanctions, met privately Monday night with foreign ministers from the other permanent members of the council.

Ministers from the five permanent members said they had agreed not to discuss specifics of a text, instead focusing on overall strategy. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said diplomats would need "another 10 days, 14 days" to get a resolution.

That was a clear sign that officials had not broken a stalemate with Russia and China, which oppose putting the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, thereby making it legally binding and opening the possibility of sanctions and even military action.

"They have not yet reached full agreement, especially China and Russia have not yet accepted the possibility of a general reference to a Chapter 7 resolution," Steinmeier said. "But it's not something they have excluded at this point in time."

China urged flexibility in reaching a negotiated settlement, rejecting the "threat of force."

"The Iran nuclear dispute is at a crucial junction. We hope relevant sides can show flexibility, restraint and calmness in order to create favorable conditions for the resumption of talks," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Tuesday.

Political directors from the five countries met again Tuesday in New York, trying to bridge the gap over the best way to send a message to Iran that its pursuit of uranium enrichment must be suspended to allay international concerns that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran contends it has the right to process uranium as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad says that people around the world have lost faith in international institutions and questions whether the Bush administration has covered up some evidence surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy "have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity," according to the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press late Monday from diplomats who declined to be identified because the text had not formally been made public.

"Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems," it read.

Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying hatred is increasing worldwide of the United States, and history shows how "repressive and cruel governments do not survive."

"How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?" the letter read.

Most of Iran's newspapers devoted their front pages to Ahmadinejad's message on Tuesday, with the moderate daily Shargh, or East, saying the message may open a new page in relations with the United States.

But a conservative lawmaker lambasted Ahmadinejad for failing to consult parliament before he sent the letter.

"This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking behaviors in Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is not aware of (the contents of the) letter is questionable," Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh told an open session of the parliament broadcast live on state-run radio Tuesday.

from the Associated Press via the Washington Post, 2006-Aug-9, by David Bauder:

CBS' Wallace Interviews Iran President

NEW YORK -- Twenty-seven years after a chilling sit-down with Ayatollah Khomeini that was one of Mike Wallace's most memorable, the CBS newsman snagged an interview this week with current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.

The 88-year-old Wallace had been pursuing the interview for so long that he had to be reminded by Ahmadinejad when he first asked for it.

A portion of Wallace's interview, conducted Tuesday at a crucial time in the Mideast with Israel fighting the Iran-backed Hezbollah, will be shown Thursday on the "CBS Evening News." A fuller report will air on Sunday's "60 Minutes."

In the interview, Ahmadinejad said of the Bush administration, "see how they talk down to my nation."

During the midst of the American hostage crisis in 1979, Wallace interviewed Iranian leader Khomeini, locking eyes with the cleric when he asked for a response to Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat calling Khomeini a lunatic.

Of Ahmadinejad, Wallace said, "He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell."

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course.

"You'll find him an interesting man," he said. "I expected more of a firebrand. I don't think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels ... about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

Wallace said he and producers Bob Anderson and Casey Morgan had been seeking the interview for more than a year, since he sat next to Ahmadinejad at a United Nations breakfast and told the Iranian leader that he'd like to come to Iran to talk to him someday. Wallace admitted he had forgotten about that encounter until the Iranian president brought it up.

Summoned to Iran for the interview, Wallace and his team waited for nearly a week until he was brought in to speak to Ahmadinejad.

Tehran in August isn't Wallace's usual haunt; that's when you'll usually find him in Martha's Vineyard. It's also no way to spend retirement. CBS News announced in the spring that Wallace had retired as a regular "60 Minutes" correspondent, although he would still be available for special interviews.

Wallace said he nearly fell out of his chair when Ahmadinejad told him, "I hear this is your last interview."

Wallace said he replied: "What do you think? Is it a good idea to retire?"

He said the Iranian president told him it was important to keep doing interesting things. And Wallace is already thinking about his next story: he said he's trying for an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

from the Universal of Caracas, 2006-Jul-27:

Chávez: Weapon sales agreement with Russia prevents US blockade on Venezuela

President Hugo Chávez Thursday met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and praised his weapon sales agreements with Russia, AP reported.

Chávez thanked Putin's help in "breaking the US policy intended to disarm Venezuela completely," DPA reported.

He added that without Russian support Venezuela would be practically disarmed, given the US blockade.

Venezuela and Russia initialed an agreement under which Caracas is to purchase 24 Russian Sukhoi Su-30 warplanes, Thursday said Serguei Tchemezov, head of the Russian weapon exports agency Rosoboronexport in the Kremlin, as quoted by AFP.

His announcement came following the meeting between Chávez and Putin.

Tchemezov told reporters that Venezuela and Russia have initialed arm deals for some USD 3 billion in the last 18 months, including purchase of 24 Sukhoi Su-30 warplanes and 53 helicopters.

Chávez, at the beginning of his meeting with Putin, said Venezuela needed the Russian warplanes because the United States refused to sell spare parts for the old fleet of F-16s planes Venezuela owns.

Earlier on Thursday, Chávez slashed out at the United States during a ceremony before the statue of Liberator Simón Bolívar. "After almost two centuries, we can say that the United States was meant to populate the whole world with poverty on behalf of freedom. That is what is happening in Iraq, the Middle East and Latin America. The United States is the worst threat facing the world today."

At the end of his three-day official visit to Russia, Chávez talked about a strategic alliance with Russia, claiming he was "determined to consolidate bilateral relations." Putin, in turn, branded Venezuela as "natural ally."

Next, Chávez is to visit Qatar, Iran and Mali, in his attempts to obtain support for Venezuela candidacy to the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member.

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2006-May-17, by Max Boot:

The Power of the Pentagon
An erstwhile priest says American power is "disastrous."

Any book with a subtitle that refers to "The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power" bears a heavy burden of proof--to show that the exercise of American power has indeed been a disaster. This would seem a difficult case to make, given that over the past six decades the U.S. has presided over an unprecedented expansion of free governments and free markets across the world, kept the peace in Europe and East Asia after centuries of disastrous conflicts, and defeated such monstrous regimes as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia and Baathist Iraq. The true disaster would have been if, as in 1914 and 1939, America had failed to exercise its power.

James Carroll does not bother to confront any of these obvious points in his lengthy diatribe against the "garrison state." An erstwhile Catholic priest turned moralistic writer (of novels, nonfiction books and a Boston Globe column), he simply assumes as his first principle that American power is indefensible and then unspools a long narrative of America's conduct since the 1940s to illustrate the point. His case should be familiar to anyone who has read anything by such far-left luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Jonathan Schell, or Seymour Hersh. It goes like this:

The bombing of German and Japanese cities, culminating with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was a war crime akin to the Holocaust. Thus "America's mid-twentieth century initiation into world power was as much in the state of mortal sin as its birth in slavery had been." America continued sinning by building more atomic bombs and targeting them on the Soviet Union. Good ole Joe Stalin simply wanted to live and let live--if only we had let him. "By portraying Stalin and his system as warmongering monsters," Mr. Carroll writes, early hard-liners like George Kennan and James Forrestal "helped push the Kremlin in that direction."

Mr. Carroll spends an inordinate amount of space on Forrestal's tortured psyche--the first secretary of defense committed suicide in 1949--to suggest that anyone else who hated and feared communism must have been equally deranged. Richard Nixon, among many others, is portrayed as a warmongering nut job. Ronald Reagan, by contrast, was a warmongering simpleton whose role in the fall of the Berlin Wall was minimal. How original. Mr. Carroll bemoans "Reagan's childlike inability ever to have mastered the broken logic of nuclear deterrence"--after having spent many pages claiming that deterrence was illogical and immoral.

A few themes emerge from this impassioned narrative. One is that America can do no right. Mr. Carroll has the gall to castigate President Gerald Ford for imposing "a punitive embargo" on Vietnam "in violation of America's obligations under the Paris Accords"--without ever mentioning that the sanctions were a wan response to Hanoi's invasion of the south, a much bigger violation of the accords.

Another theme is that war, at least as waged by the U.S., is never justified. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait should have been "handled as a diplomatic crisis." The 9/11 attacks should have been addressed with "an internationally coordinated law enforcement effort."

A third theme is that the true heroes of the Cold War were not the soldiers, spies and statesmen who fought communist expansionism but antiwar activists--like, well, Mr. Carroll--who tried to impede their efforts. In a book full of too many offensive statements to count perhaps the most infuriating is Mr. Carroll's comparison of the nuclear-freeze movement in the West with the Solidarity movement in Poland. He actually labels nuclear-freeze organizer Randall Forsberg "an American Walesa"--as if it were just as courageous to protest in Central Park as it was behind the Iron Curtain.

Such tortured logic pervades "House of War." Mr. Carroll wants to argue that in the post-1945 era "the Pentagon usurped controls over the levers of the American economy and culture, over science, academia, and politics." This is belied by two inconvenient realities. First, there is no "Pentagon viewpoint"--different members of different military branches often have conflicting views, as Mr. Carroll notes on many occasions. Second, whatever the views inside the Pentagon, the major decisions about war have usually been made elsewhere. For instance, in the 1990s, senior generals opposed humanitarian interventions in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, but the Clinton administration acted anyway. Mr. Carroll blithely waves away this problem by proclaiming that "the arrival of 'human rights' as the latest justification for war represented another triumph for the Pentagon." Huh?

The most interesting parts of this dreary (if smoothly written) tirade concern the author's difficult relationship with his late father, an Air Force general who was the first director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1960s. Unfortunately, Mr. Carroll already told that story in a previous tome, "An American Requiem" (1996). Here he incessantly cites his parentage and his childhood visits to the Pentagon to lend unwarranted authority to antimilitary and anti-American pronouncements of the sort that undoubtedly drove his dad batty. "I have the eyes of a soldier's son, through which, unfortunately, I see everything," he writes with mock humility. (Note that "unfortunately"--oh, what a curse omniscience is.) In reality he sees nothing beyond his own ideological blinders.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the forthcoming "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today" (Gotham Books).

from the Associated Press, 2006-Jun-7, by Nick Wadhams:

U.N. Speech Irks American Officials

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States strongly criticized the No. 2 United Nations official on Wednesday for a speech he gave that accused the U.S. government of leaving Americans in the dark about the world body's good works.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton called Tuesday's speech by Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown a "very, very grave mistake" that could undermine Secretary-General Kofi Annan's efforts to push through an ambitious reform agenda at the world organization.

He demanded that Annan repudiate the rare public criticism by a U.N. official, and even suggested that the fate of the organization itself might be at stake.

"I spoke to the secretary-general this morning, I said 'I've known you since 1989 and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official that I have seen in that entire time,'" Bolton told reporters on Wednesday.

Later Wednesday, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Annan stood by Malloch Brown's speech. Malloch Brown then met with reporters and said the thrust of his speech was that United Nations cannot function well without the U.S. playing a central role.

Malloch Brown described it as a calculated effort to spur the U.N. reform process, which has bogged down in a clash for power between poor and rich nations. That could lead to financial trouble because member states imposed a six month budget cap that ends in June and can only be lifted if they see reform.

"You have to engage to help make this institution a better institution," Malloch Brown told reporters. "And you need to engage, if I dare say so, with your own public opinion to explain better why the U.N. matters to American interests."

In the speech, Malloch Brown said the United States relies on the United Nations as a diplomatic tool but doesn't defend it against criticism at home. That policy of "stealth diplomacy" is unsustainable, he said.

While praising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessors, Malloch Brown lamented that the good works of the U.N. are ignored. "Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."

"The U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world," Malloch Brown said.

U.S. officials, including Bolton, said they were especially upset that Malloch Brown, a Briton, mentioned "Middle America."

Bolton said Malloch Brown's "condescending, patronizing tone about the American people" was the worst part about the speech.

"Fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant," Bolton said. "It's just illegitimate."

The dispute underscored the difficult relationship between the U.N. and the United States in recent years. That "unhappy marriage," as Malloch Brown called it, has been strained by sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers, fraud and corruption by officials involved in the U.N. oil-for-food program, and the Security Council's refusal to back the invasion of Iraq.

A Gallup Poll in March found that 64 percent of Americans think the United Nations is doing a poor job, but the vast majority still want the U.N. to play an important role in international affairs. The findings reflected the lowest ever U.S. opinion of the United Nations.

Malloch Brown's speech was delivered at a conference sponsored by two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation. Malloch Brown called it a "sincere and constructive critique of U.S. policy toward the U.N. by a friend and admirer."

It was a rare instance of a senior U.N. official directly and openly criticizing a member state.

Malloch Brown used the speech to defend U.N. peacekeeping missions in 18 places round the globe. He criticized the United States for voting against the creation of a new Human Rights Council. It was joined by just three nations, with 170 countries voting for the body.

He acknowledged that the U.N. desperately needs an overhaul - in the Security Council, over its budget, and even the headquarters building itself, which hasn't been renovated for decades.

But the U.S. tendency to criticize the United Nations and to take "maximalist positions," rather than seeking the middle ground, has made other nations suspicious of its intentions, Malloch Brown said.

Bolton warned that Malloch Brown's comments could undermine the very reforms that Annan wants and that the United States supports.

"Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations," Bolton said.

from the Times of London, 2006-May-23, by Martin Samuel:

Turn 9/11 rubble into a killing machine? Hello?

Whoever said that irony was dead in America clearly hadn't heard about the assault ship USS New York

THE CLICHÉ goes that Americans do not understand irony. Not true. Seinfeld ran for 181 episodes and TV Guide rated it the best comedy show ever. Maybe they just didn’t get it in the New York Governor’s office, or at the Pentagon. A warship is to be built in part from the wreckage of the fallen World Trade Centre. No? Oh, come on, this is good stuff here. Anyone in from out of town? Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

Shortly after the September 11 tragedy George Pataki, the Governor of New York State, contacted Gordon England, the Secretary of the United States Navy, with the request that the name of his state be given to a surface warship, engaged in the War on Terror. Usually state names are reserved for submarines.

On August 28, 2002, Mr Pataki’s wish was granted with the result that 24 tons of steel from the stricken buildings was taken to New Orleans and put to use by Northrop Grumman Systems in the construction of an amphibious assault ship that should be ready next year. In this way, the 2,800 souls that perished as an indirect result of an interventionist foreign policy that achieved the exact opposite of its stated aims can be honoured by a vessel built to ensure that this flawed cycle of violence continues. The USS New York will carry 360 soldiers and 700 combat-ready Marines. It puts to sea with the motto: “Never forget.” Except they do. They always do.

No sooner had work begun on the New York when the Secretary of the Navy announced that sister ships were to be built called the USS Arlington, after the Pentagon site that was hit by terrorists, and the USS Somerset, the Pennsylvania county in which Flight 93 came down. The ships would commemorate the attacks, if that is the right word, which it is plainly not. Exactly what is being commemorated anyway? Not the memory of the victims, as nothing is known of how they want to be remembered, and certainly not whether they would wish a warship to be dedicated in their name. Who knows in which direction their anger would be channelled? It could be that some of the dead might have thought over-reliance on warships was their downfall in the first place.

In essence what is being commemorated here is failure; the failure of American foreign policy to protect fully the interests of its citizens or make their world a safer place. America came under attack because the actions of successive governments have made it the enemy to large swaths of humanity. Anti-Americanism is growing alarmingly because, since September 11, the world’s most powerful nation has continued to alienate and divide even its allies. While not excusing wicked acts committed by terrorists, it would be foolish to view the behaviour of terrorists as motiveless. If we regard terrorism as the work of madmen and unrelated to our relationship with their world, we learn nothing from history.

Woody Oge, Northrop Grumman’s director of operations in New Orleans, is anxious to play down the USS New York as a weapon of mass destruction, saying that previous vessels had sometimes been used for humanitarian purposes. Announcing the naming of the ship, Mr England had no such reticence. Its mission would be to project American power to the far corners of the Earth, he said, without acknowledging that, on September 11, the far corners of the Earth not being entirely happy with the projection of American power, a fanatical minority choose to express its displeasure through random murder.

Since the September 11 attacks, the familiar argument is that the West did not start this war, but is determined to finish it. Yet the USS New York with its 700 combat-ready Marines was already on the drawing board before the World Trade Centre was hit, in all but name. Had the towers not fallen, there would still be a deadly billion-dollar vessel under construction in Louisiana. It would just be called the Saucy Sue and might not be built from the habitats of dead people and imbued with such heavy symbolism that workers in the shipyard are said to have treated its components with religious reverence.

The respected columnist Roger Cohen, writing in The New York Times, identified just 14 years since 1945 when America had not been at war, in some form or other, either metaphorical (the Cold War, the War on Terror) or literal (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). Some might think the two states do not compare. Then again, some of us have never tried to form a left-wing government in Chile, appeared before the Senate Permanent Investigations Sub-Committee led by Senator Joe McCarthy or been instructed to form a naked pyramid by a gap-toothed cracker with a semi-automatic weapon and a weird girlfriend.

Some aspects of metaphorical wars turn out very real for certain people. They have a habit of becoming tangible for the rest of us, too. The Cold War became a very hot one in Asia. The War on Terror unleashed the invasion of Iraq. And while USS New York may currently be serving metaphorically as a symbol of American indefatigability and courage, it will one day be engaged in a genuine sense in the propagation of a foreign policy that continues to contribute to recycled violence, from continent to continent, with New York office workers the occasional collateral damage. To turn the rubble they left behind into the machinery for the next big mistake shows an ignorance of cause and effect that explains why some still believe George Bush and Tony Blair were right about the war, but wrong about the peace; as if the two can be separated. Our mistake was that we didn’t have an exit strategy, they say. Makes the entrance a pretty dumb-ass move, then, doesn’t it, Sparky?

“I think somebody should do a marker,” said Gerry Howard, editorial director of Broadway Books, “to say that irony died on September 11, 2001.” Wrong, Gerry. Turns out it was just hitting its stride. How ironic is that?

In Best of the Web of 2006-May-24, James Taranto wrote of the foregoing, “That's right. Samuel is suggesting that the 9/11 attacks was part of a "cycle of violence" to which America's contributions were (1) a coup in Chile in 1973, (2) Sen. McCarthy's mistreatment of American communists in the early 1950s, and (3) the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which had not yet happened. Imagine what he might say if he were willing to make excuses for our enemies.”

from the Guardian of London, 2006-Jun-2, by David Batty:

Blix warns of WMD vicious circle

The US must abandon its "war on terror" to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, according to the former United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix,.

The US foreign policy of pre-emptive strikes against any perceived weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat, its development of new types of nuclear weapons and the "Star Wars" missile defence shield risked fuelling a new global arms race, said Dr Blix.

Dr Blix's warning came in a report, released yesterday, proposing ways to bring about global nuclear, biological and chemical disarmament.

from Investors Business Daily, 2006-Jun-1:

Blix (Again) Tries To Disarm U.S.

Nuclear Weapons: Ex-U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and an international panel want the U.S. to abandon missile defense to make the world a nuclear-free Utopia. They are, at best, naive; at worst, dangerous.

The report by Blix and a Swedish-financed international commission, titled "Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms," was presented to the United Nations this week.

The first thing that stands out is what is peddled as the "broad geographical and political base" of its members. They include Zhenqiang Pan, a retired major general of the People's Liberation Army and former professor at the National Defense University of China.

In an article several years ago for the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, General Zhenqiang wrote:

"In China's perspective, the Bush administration nuclear policy, which is still based on the value of nuclear weapons and which is even more enthusiastic in producing new ones and listing other countries as targets of nuclear strikes, will not be conducive to the strengthening of the international nonproliferation regime."

Another commission member is Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for International Security. In an interview with Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta in September 2004, Arbatov said, "Terrorism cannot be conquered by military means."

He added that "Russia believes that until Iran is caught (red-handed), it is premature to punish it."

Blix and the anti-American operatives and foreign service bureaucrats who make up the commission apply a kind of Marxist redistribution-of-wealth mentality to nuclear weapons in the world.

Again and again, the report refers to the world's nuclear "haves" and "have nots." Yet repeatedly in its 225 pages we hear of the failure of paper agreements and the treaty mentality:

The 1968 nonproliferation treaty failed to "prevent India, Israel and Pakistan" from going nuclear "and was violated by Iraq, Libya and North Korea . . . "

"The IAEA safeguards system, created to verify that no nuclear material is diverted from peaceful uses, proved inadequate to discover the Iraqi and Libyan violations of the NPT."

"Iran failed for many years in its duty to declare important nuclear programs."

Yet faced with these facts, the commission readily admits its Utopianism in espousing "the aim of outlawing all weapons of mass destruction. . . . The commission rejects the suggestion that nuclear weapons in the hands of some pose no threat, while in the hands of others they place the world in mortal jeopardy."

That's treating the United States and, say, Iran as morally equivalent in their possession of nukes — a dangerous absurdity.

At the same time, nuclear powers other than the U.S. are viewed ridiculously by the Blix Commission as being motivated by deterrence.

"The U.S. development of a shield against incoming missiles is viewed with much distrust by China and Russia as possibly affecting the deterrent capacity of their nuclear forces," the report claims.

To prevent nuclear terrorism, the Blix Commission says governments "should ensure that there is personal legal responsibility for any acts of nuclear terrorism or activities in support of such terrorism." That must make the Islamofascists — who are willing to die to commit genocide against infidels — just shake in their boots.

On missile defense, the best argument Blix can make against it is that there would be "a high risk of accidental or inadvertent launch of an interceptor" — not exactly a good-enough argument against trying to protect millions of people in an American city from being incinerated by an intercontinental ballistic missile.

In announcing in 1983 that we would build a missile defense, Ronald Reagan told the nation and the world: "We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share — is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war."

In making that decision, the United States began the end of the Cold War and changed the course of human history. Blix's commission prefers wishful thinking in combating the greatest threat that mankind faces.

from the Associated Press, 2006-May-20, by Ben Fox with Alexander G. Higgins contributing from Geneva, Switzerland:

Guards and Detainees Clash at Guantanamo

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Prisoners with makeshift weapons battled guards trying to save a detainee pretending to commit suicide at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in what military officials said Friday was a coordinated attack that left six prisoners injured.

Word of the injuries comes as a U.N. panel pressed the United States to close Guantanamo, saying the indefinite detention of terror suspects violates the ban on torture.

"This illustrates to me the dangerous nature of the men we have detained here," the detention center's commanding officer, Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, told reporters in a teleconference, describing Thursday's attack.

The clash, which took place the same day two detainees attempted suicide elsewhere in the camp, was among the most violent incidents reported at the isolated detention center, where the U.S. holds about 460 men suspected of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Defense lawyers said the suicide attempts reflect increasing despair among detainees, most of whom have been held for more than four years without charges.

"Under these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that people become desperate and hopeless enough to attempt suicide," said Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an attorney for a detainee from Bahrain who has repeatedly tried to kill himself.

The most recent turmoil at the detention center perched above the Caribbean on a U.S. Navy base in southeastern Cuba began Thursday morning when a detainee who failed to show up for morning prayers was found unconscious in his cell, Harris said.

Tests indicated he had taken an overdose of drugs similar to the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. He was hospitalized in serious but stable condition.

Early in the afternoon, guards searching the prison for contraband prescription medicine found another detainee "frothing at the mouth" from an overdose of drugs. He was also hospitalized in stable condition, the admiral said.

In the early evening, guards spotted a detainee in Camp Four - a medium security, communal-living unit for the "most compliant" prisoners - appearing to get ready to hang himself with a bed sheet in the room he shared with nine detainees.

The apparent suicide attempt "was a ruse to get the guards to enter the compound," Harris said.

The detainees had made the floor slippery with feces, urine and soapy water and attacked 10 members of Guantanamo's quick-reaction force with fan blades, pieces of metal and broken light fixtures, Harris said.

For several minutes, the detainees appeared to have the upper hand, knocking some of the soldiers to the ground, said Army Col. Michael Bumgarner, a camp official.

"Frankly we were losing the fight at that point," Bumgarner said.

Outside, Guantanamo officials mustered 100 more guards before the quick reaction force gained control using pepper spray, unspecified "physical force," five blasts of a shotgun that fires rubber pellets and one shot from a non-lethal weapon that Bumgarner said fires a sponge-like projectile.

Detainees in two other units of Camp Four began damaging security cameras, light fixtures and other items in their rooms in a show of support for those engaged in the melee. Guantanamo officials estimated the total damage at $110,000.

Six detainees had minor injuries and no guards were injured, Harris said. The prisoners involved in the melee were moved to a higher security area.

"I believe that this was probably the most violent outbreak here," Harris said.

President Bush has said he would like to close Guantanamo, but is waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on whether inmates can face military tribunals. And, regarding the UN report, the U.S. government insisted it complies with the world ban against torture, including at the lockup at Guantanamo on Cuba. "It is important to note that everything that is done in terms of questioning detainees is fully within the boundaries of American law," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

The United States expressed disappointment with the committee report, which was based on two sessions this month with a 25-member delegation of officials from Washington and hundreds of pages of U.S. documents.

"It's unfortunate that they don't appear to have read a good deal of that information or have ignored it, and as a result there are a number of both factual inaccuracies and legal misstatements about the law applicable to the United States," said State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger III.

On Thursday, the military transferred 15 Saudi detainees to their country, but Harris said he did not think there was a connection. Authorities did not provide the names or home countries of those involved in the attack or attempted suicides.

The U.N. committee also said detainees should not be handed over to any country where they could face a "real risk" of being tortured.

Bellinger, who led the U.S. delegation at the panel hearings, said it was not "practical" to recommend that Guantanamo be closed but insist that prisoners should not be sent to a large number of countries. "So it's not exactly clear what they think ought to happen to these individuals," he said.

Guantanamo has had a number of protests and more minor disturbances since the U.S. began taking prisoners to the base in January 2002.

The U.S. military said 23 detainees carried out a coordinated effort to hang or strangle themselves in 2003 during a weeklong protest. A hunger strike that began in August has involved up to 131 detainees, the military said, though the figure has dwindled to just a handful. Earlier this year, Guantanamo officials began strapping striking detainees into a restraint chair to force feed them.

Guantanamo officials said there have been 41 suicide attempts by 25 detainees and no deaths since the camp opened. Defense lawyers contend the figure is higher.

Clive Stafford Smith, an attorney, said a client of his from Chad had attempted suicide twice in January and he did not learn about it until March from another detainee. Before Thursday, the military said there had only been one attempt in 2006.

At least 12 suicide attempts were by Juma'a Mohammed al-Dossary, a 32-year-old from Bahrain.

Colangelo-Bryan, who represents al-Dossary and spoke to The Associated Press by telephone, said he visited his client last week and saw scars on his throat and the back of his neck from his most recent suicide attempt in March. The attorney, whose firm Dorsey and Whitney LLP of Minneapolis, Minn., represents three detainees from Bahrain, said he did not know if any of his clients were involved in Thursday's melee.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Mar-18, by Ed Johnson:

Global Protests Mark Iraq War Anniversary

SYDNEY, Australia -- Anti-war protesters marched in Australia, Asia, Turkey and Europe on Saturday in demonstrations that marked the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq with a demand that coalition troops pull out.

Around 500 protesters marched through central Sydney, chanting "End the war now" and "Troops out of Iraq." Many campaigners waved placards branding President Bush the "World's No. 1 Terrorist" or expressing concerns that Iran could be the next country to face invasion.

"Iraq is a quagmire and has been a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqis," said Jean Parker, a member of the Australian branch of the Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march. "There is no way forward without ending the occupation."

Opposition to the war is still evident in Australia, which has some 1,300 troops in and around Iraq. Visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was heckled by campaigners in Sydney this week, who said she had "blood on her hands."

But Saturday's protest was small compared to the mass demonstrations that swept across the country in the buildup to the invasion - the largest Australia had seen since joining U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.

The turnout also was lower than protesters had hoped in Britain, whose government has been the United States' strongest supporter in the war.

Authorities shut down streets in the heart of London's shopping and theater district for the demonstration, which organizers had predicted would attract up to 100,000 people, but police estimated the crowd was about 15,000 people.

Some protesters carried posters calling Bush a terrorist and other placards pictured Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying "Blair must go!" Britain has about 8,000 soldiers in Iraq but plans to pull out 800 by May.

"We are against this war, both for religious reasons and on a humanitarian basis, too. No one deserves to be bombarded," said one march, student Imran Saghir, 25.

In Tokyo, about 2,000 people rallied in a downtown park, carrying signs saying "Stop the Occupation" as they listened to a series of anti-war speeches.

"The war is illegal under international law," said Takeshiko Tsukushi, a member of World Peace Now, which helped plan the rally. "We want the immediate withdrawal of the Self Defense Forces and from Iraq along with all foreign troops."

Japanese Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi is a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led coalition in Japan and dispatched 600 soldiers to the southern city of Samawah in 2004 to purify water and carry out other humanitarian tasks. The Cabinet approved an extension of that mission in December, authorizing the troops to stay in Iraq through the end of the year.

But public opinion polls show the majority of Japanese oppose the mission, which has been criticized as a violation of the country's pacifist constitution. Many say the deployment has made Japan a target for terrorism.

In Turkey, thousands gathered in Istanbul for protests and other demonstrations were planned in the cities of Izmir, Trabzon and the capital, Ankara.

Opposition to the war is nearly universal in Turkey and cuts across all political stripes.

"Murderer USA," read a sign unfurled by a communist in Taksim Square in Istanbul.

"USA, go home!" said red and black signs carried by hundreds of the some 5,000 protesters gathered in Kadikoy on the city's Asian coast.

Turkey is Iraq's northern neighbor and the only Muslim-majority member of the NATO military alliance. Historically close relations with the U.S. were severely strained after the Turkish parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to launch operations into Iraq from Turkish territory.

U.S. military planners said the move complicated operations by shutting down the U.S. option of opening a northern front in the 2003 invasion.

Since the war, support for the United States has plummeted in Turkey.

In Sweden, about 1,000 demonstrators gathered for a rally in Stockholm before a march to the U.S. Embassy. Some protesters carried banners reading "No to U.S. warmongering" and "USA out of Iraq," while others held up a U.S. flag with the white stars replaced by dollar signs.

"More and more people today are realizing that the Iraq war is becoming a new Vietnam," said Skold Peter Matthis, one of the organizers of the protest. "But today, the USA is even more dangerous than it was then, because they have a monopoly on being a superpower."

Anti-war demonstrations were also planned in Spain, Austria, Germany, Greece and Denmark.

from European Jewish Press, 2006-Aug-15, by Jeremy Last:

NUS condemns Galloway for Hezbollah support

LONDON --- The British National Union of Students has condemned controversial left wing MP George Galloway after he spoke out in support of Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Although it is clear that Hezbollah began the war with Israel after capturing two Israeli soldiers on 12 July, Galloway blamed Israel for the situation and said he believed the Lebanese group was justified in continuing its rocketing of Israel.

The conflict now appears to be ending after the UN ceasefire resolution was passed, but last week the NUS said Galloway was wrong.

Letter sent

The NUS submitted a letter voicing its views to Galloway last week.

“As a progressive union it is our duty to promote peace and understanding between peoples. We believe that some of the statements made by Mr Galloway are damaging to the peace process and ought to be condemned.”

NUS President Gemma Tumelty said: “NUS deplores the violence in the Middle East and its sympathies are with all the affected peoples, Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese. NUS believe that support for Hezbollah...should not be equated with support for the Lebanese people.”

Sam Lebens, a Jewish member of the NUS National Executive put forward the motion following comments the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow made during a rally in London on 22 July.

Triade [Tirade -AMPP Ed.] continued

In an interview with Sky News, Galloway continued his tirade.

“Israel has been invading and occupying Lebanon for a large part of the last 24 years,” Galloway said. “Hezbollah are a part of the Lebanese national resistance who are trying to drive, having successfully driven most Israelis from their land in 2000, Israel from the rest of their land and to get back those thousands of Lebanese prisoners who are kidnapped by Israel under the terms of their illegal occupation of Lebanon.

“Its Israel that's invading Lebanon, Israel that's attacking Lebanon ,not Lebanon attacking Israel. Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation.”

The NUS action was welcomed by the UK's Union of Jewish Students.

Mitch Simmons, UJS' campaign organiser said: “I applaud the stance the NUS is taking against racism and fascism. Regardless of your opinions on the Middle East and this country's foreign policy, you can't have people like Galloway making those comments”.

from the Scotsman, 2006-May-27, James Kirkup:

Galloway stands by 'Blair death justifiable' comment

GEORGE Galloway, the Respect MP, yesterday stood by his statement that the murder of Tony Blair by a suicide bomber would be "morally justified".

Mr Galloway came under widespread political attack yesterday over a magazine interview where he was quoted as saying the Prime Minister's assassination would be "entirely logical and explicable".

Speaking to GQ , the former Glasgow Labour MP said: "Yes, it would be morally justified" ...though he added: "I am not calling for it."

While Downing Street refused to comment on the remarks yesterday, other politicians were critical.

"No politician, ever, by act, word, or deed - either expressly or by implication - should give any support to the notion that violence might be justified," said Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader.

Lord Foulkes, a former minister, called on the Commons to pass a motion that would expel Mr Galloway from Parliament for a period.

"This latest outburst is outrageous, even in comparison with his previously disgraceful comments," said the peer. But Mr Galloway, speaking on BBC Radio Four last night, insisted he stood by his comments.

He emphatically reasserted that Mr Blair was a "mass murderer" who had illegally caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people in Iraq and should stand trial as an international war criminal.

from The Scotsman, 2006-May-26, Andrew Woodcock:

Galloway comes to Castro's aid on TV show

RESPECT MP George Galloway joined Fidel Castro on a seven-hour TV show designed to rebut claims that the Cuban president has amassed a multi-million dollar personal fortune.

Mr Galloway denounced an article in Forbes magazine which claimed Castro was worth £477 million as part of a "Yankee imperialist" conspiracy. During the Round Table show on Cuban TV on Wednesday night, the president insisted that he did not personally possess a single dollar, and would resign his position if anyone in the United States could provide proof that he did.

He gave up his seat for Mr Galloway, who told viewers: "The Cubans are the only people in the entire world who have a leader who can say that he doesn't possess one dollar to his name."

The Bethnal Green and Bow MP contrasted Castro - whom he addressed as "Commandante" - with Tony Blair. He said Mr Blair had recently bought a £3.6 million house in London which he would pay for after stepping down as Prime Minister with earnings resulting from his "humble service to the empire of the US".

Mr Galloway is currently writing a book about Castro and was in Cuba to carry out some research.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Jun-10:

Castro: Al-Zarqawi Killing a 'Barbarity'

HAVANA -- President Fidel Castro called the U.S. airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a "barbarity," saying he should have been put on trial.

The United States acted as "judge and jury" against the leader of the al-Qaida in Iraq, Castro said late Friday.

"They bragged, they were practically drunk with happiness."

"The accused cannot just be eliminated," he told a literacy conference. "This barbarity cannot be done."

The U.S. military has said al-Zarqawi initially survived the dropping of two 500-pound bombs on his hide-out Wednesday, but died a short time later.

Castro said if Cuba used the same logic, it could bomb the United States to kill its No. 1 enemy, Luis Posada Carriles, who is being held in El Paso, Texas on immigration charges.

The communist government accuses the Cuban-born Posada of masterminding numerous violent attacks against the island, including the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people in 1976. Posada denies involvement in the bombing of the plane.

Note on the following: the official role of the US in the Mohammed cartoon brouhaha has been as bystander pleading for calm, criticizing the (European) media for its disrespectful provocation. The US is now a target of the Islamic street because of their wholly prejudicial hatred for the US.

from the Telegraph of London, 2006-Feb-19:

Cartoon violence erupts around the world

Muslim demonstrators have caused chaos around the globe in protest against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper last September.

In Pakistan, where violent protests last week left five people dead, police detained several Islamist leaders during raids in three cities in an attempt to prevent a planned rally by the Islamic coalition Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA).

Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a senior figure in the MMA, was eventually granted permission to lead a small rally through a square in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

Rahman's party of protesters chanted "Any friend of America is a traitor," as they marched.

Another group of about 100 protestors was broken up as it attempted to reach the same square by security forces using tear gas and gunfire.

In Indonesia, protestors attacked the American Embassy in Jakarta with rocks and sticks.

About 400 people arrived at the heavily fortified building, marching behind a banner that read "we are ready to attack the enemies of the Prophet."

They then tried to storm the gates, brandishing wooden staves and throwing stones. They set fire to American flags and posters of President George W Bush, and smashed the windows of a guard outpost before dispersing.

A spokesman for the embassy described the attacks as acts of "thuggery".

And in a three-hour rampage in Nigeria yesterday, rioters burned 15 Christian churches and killed at least 15 people in the city of Maiduguri before troops and police reinforcements restored order.

Security forces arrested dozens of people suspected of taking part in the violence.

from ArabNews.com, 2006-Feb-19, by Nilofar Suhrawardy, with agencies:

Indian Minister Offers Bounty

NEW DELHI — A minister in India's Uttar Pradesh state government has offered a reward of $11.5 million to anyone who would kill any of the cartoonists who drew the images of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Muhammad Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of state for Haj and Minorities Welfare in the Uttar Pradesh government, told a rally in Meerut, 65 km east of New Delhi, after Friday prayers that he would give “the avenger” 510 million rupees ($11.5 million) and his weight in gold.

“Drawing a cartoon of the Prophet is blasphemous and Muslims will not tolerate this insult,” he said in a speech that was broadcast by Indian television stations. “The money will be paid by the people of Meerut,” said Yaqoob.

The cartoons, drawn by 12 artists, were first published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September and later reprinted in a number of other mainly European dailies. They have sparked Muslim protests worldwide.

The minister's remarks sparked a nationwide furor and demands for his immediate arrest and resignation. When contacted by Indo Asian News Service yesterday, Qureshi repeated his declaration and said: “Muslim women of Uttar Pradesh have decided to give away their jewelry to weigh in gold any one who beheads the cartoonist, while I would collect 510 million rupees and donate it to him.

“Our protest is against none other than the United States which is solely responsible for masterminding a war against the Muslim world,” he said. “The Indian government should sever all diplomatic ties with the United States and recall its ambassador,” Qureshi said by telephone from Meerut.

Qureshi also said he had made these comments as an individual and not as a minister.

The government of Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state that has a large Muslim community, said the minister's statements were “his personal wish” and did not violate government rules.

The state's Principal Home Secretary Alok Sinha said: “Mere announcement of this kind does not amount to a crime.'”

“Let me clarify that he did not make the announcement in his capacity as a minister.

“Secondly, the reference is being made to something that has happened outside the geographical boundaries of India. Lastly, he was simply expressing the common feeling of members of his community,” Sinha said.

The home secretary also denied that such an announcement could cause sectarian tension.

“I am sure the minister has no intention of inciting communal passions and his statement is not intended to hurt the sentiments of any other community,” Sinha said. “But, of course, I am aware that the issue is a sensitive one. We are taking due precautions to ensure maintenance of law and order.”

In the state capital, Lucknow, most establishments owned by Muslims kept their shutters down as a mark of solidarity with the protesters in Meerut.

But the influential All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, an authoritative national body of Muslim scholars, slammed the announcement as “anti-Islamic and anti-humanity.”

The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party demanded immediate arrest and dismissal of Qureshi from the state government. BJP leader N. Venkaiah Naidu said: “He should be dismissed forthwith and arrested. He should also be tried under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.”

Describing Qureshi's comments as cheap, vote-buying tactics, Naidu said told reporters in Madras that he hoped the Uttar Pradesh government, governor and the federal government would take immediate action against the minister.

On the cartoons, Naidu said: “I can understand sentiments of the community being hurt by such caricatures. The BJP strongly disapproves and condemn such acts.”

In Indian-administered Kashmir, some 1,000 people yesterday protested the publication of the offending drawings and demanded punishment for the cartoonists.

Carrying banners and shouting slogans, the protesters marched through the streets of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir state, before handing over a memorandum to United Nations officials posted in the state.

“We love our Prophet” and “Down with enemies of Islam” read some of the banners carried by the protesters, who were led by the mayor of Srinagar, Ghulam Mustafa.

The protesters demanded that the governments of the countries where the drawings were published “tender unqualified apologies for such drawings and deal with the editors and publishers with an iron hand,” Mustafa said. “We are peace loving and secular people. Such acts outrage us,” he said, before the protesters peacefully dispersed.

from Mid-Day.com, 2006-Mar-25, by Prashant Shankarnarayan:

Raj's party to set Bush afire today

Outraged at the depiction of US President George W Bush as Lord Shiva in a cartoon, members of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) — Raj Thackeray's new party — decided to burn effigies of the president yesterday. But the protests, led by MNS worker Dr Shami Ahmed, were stalled for a day at the behest of the RCF police.

A general physician, Dr Ahmed was supposed to lead a small group of workers to the protest in the RCF area. But the RCF police requested them to postpone their plans by a day when the party sought permission to demonstrate against the cartoon that first appeared in International Herald Tribune on March 3.

“We were busy with bandobast duty yesterday. So, we asked them to hold the protests on Saturday (today) afternoon,” said an officer from RCF police station.

Meanwhile, the MNS workers used the extra time to get more party workers to join the morcha.

“We will see to it that at least 500 workers join us today,” said Dr Ahmed, while adding that Raj Thackeray will not be present at the meet. “But if the protests spread to the other parts of the city, he might join us,” he said.

A former Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena activist, Dr Ahmed voiced his party's ire when he said, “Koi baaharwala hamare bhagwan ko Bush ka darja de, toh hum kaise chup reh sakte hain?” [translation from the Hindi: “If some foreigner compares our god to Bush, and accords him the same status, then how can we stay silent?” -AMPP Ed.]

BUSHIVA

The cartoon depicts US President George Bush in the form of Natraj (Lord Shiva in his dance muse). While he holds two placards, titled `Stop Iran Nukes' and `India Nuke Deals' with the help of three hands, the remaining two hands hold a club and a ticking nuclear bomb. It first appeared in the International Herald Tribune on March 3.

from the Los Angeles Times, 2006-Sep-8, by Tina Daunt:

'Death of a President' Comes to Britain
The controversial film that depicts the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush will air on British cable.

A British cable network plans to broadcast a controversial new film that depicts the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush.

The head of More4 says it will air "Death of a President," by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, on Oct. 9. The film makes its premiere at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival on Sept. 10. So far, no one has picked up the rights to show the 90-minute movie in the U.S. The film combines archival footage of Bush as well as computer generated images, and does so in a way that, some say, makes the assassination scene look shockingly real.

"It's an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story," Dale told reporters in London. "It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic." He said the movie is "not sensationalistic or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama." Dale added: "I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good."

News of the movie, however, was greeted this week with a barrage of criticism.

Thomas Lifson -- editor of the political blog, "The American Thinker" -- called the movie "political pornography." "We are moving down a slippery slope, and our civilization is getting less civilized," Lifson wrote Friday.

White House officials, meanwhile, declined to discuss the matter. "We won't dignify this with a response," according to a statement. Toronto Film Festival officials did not return calls for comment on Friday.

from CNSNews.com, 2006-Feb-14, by Patrick Goodenough:

Gore's Remarks in Saudi Arabia Draw Strong Criticism

A speech in which former Vice President Al Gore told a mostly Saudi audience that the U.S. had committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11 continues to make waves, with critics calling the remarks disloyal and "inappropriate during a time of war."

Some also challenged Gore's reported assertion that "thoughtless" U.S. visa policies towards Arabs were playing into al Qaeda's hands. The most serious questions, however, involved Gore's decision to criticize his country's policies while abroad -- at a time when Muslim feelings against the West are running high.

Addressing the Jeddah Economic Forum, Gore said Sunday that after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Arabs in America had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Gore told his audience, "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

In a statement, the National Association of Chiefs of Police accused Gore of having "crossed the line of diplomatic decency by denigrating his own country within the Islamic world."

It said if he had evidence of "terrible abuses" he should put it before the Department of Justice or Congress.

The body also called the comments "shrill," "loathsome" and "ugly," and said they should be condemned by Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike.

"What possesses a former vice president of the U.S. to travel to the birthplace of Islamist terrorism and denounce his country?" asked the website Investors.com in an editorial.

"Unhinged by the 2000 electoral debacle, he has forgotten the meaning of 'loyal opposition,'" it concluded. "Now his only entitlement is disgrace."

Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events magazine, questioned Gore's statements criticizing post-9/11 visa policy, given the conclusions of the 9/11 commission that the hijackers - 15 of whom were Saudis - had taken advantage of weak immigration and law enforcement in the U.S.

Conservative bloggers also weighed in, calling Gore's remarks repugnant, insidious - even treasonous - and a debate is raging on Al Gore website discussion forums.

Many critics noted that Gore was making the comments in a country characterized by an absence of democracy, religious freedom violations, and second-class status for women

Irish President Mary McAleese and Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both also addressed the forum, speaking in a venue in which men and women were physically separated from each other. They called for women's participation in Saudi Arabia's political and economic life.

The three-day forum, now in its seventh year, has become a major event on the kingdom's calendar, and is sometimes nicknamed the Middle East Doha.

Previous keynote speakers have included former President Clinton, whose 2002 appearance netted him a $300,000 fee, according to the campaign finance website PoliticalMoneyOnline. Clinton returned in 2004.

Former President George H.W. Bush and his businessman son, Neil Bush, have also participated in past forums. Other visitors this year included former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and Forbes Inc. president Steve Forbes.

According to the forum website, the Saudi Binladin Group - the Jeddah-based construction firm owned by Osama bin Laden's family - has been a key sponsor, listed in that capacity for this year's event as well as those in 2004 and 2002.

The company, which employs 35,000 people, has distanced itself from the al-Qaeda leader.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Feb-18, by Brian Murphy:

U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil -- A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name."

The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.

The statement is part of widening religious pressure on the Bush administration, which still counts on the support of evangelical churches and other conservative denominations but is widely unpopular with liberal-minded Protestant congregations.

The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky, the moderator for the U.S. group of WCC members, said the letter was backed by the leaders of the churches but was not cleared by lower-level bodies. He predicted friction within congregations about the tone of the message.

"There is much internal anguish and there is division," said Kishkovsky, ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church of America. "I believe church leaders and communities are wrestling with the moral questions that this letter is addressing."

On Friday, the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."

The two-page statement from the WCC group came at the midpoint of a 10-day meeting of more than 4,000 religious leaders, scholars and activists discussing trends and goals for major Christian denominations for the coming decades. The WCC's last global assembly was in 1998 in Zimbabwe - just four months after al-Qaida staged twin bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Our country responded (to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks) by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors ... entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of national interests," said the statement. "Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous."

The Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), worried that some may interpret the statement as undermining U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We honor their courage and sense of duty, but ... we, as people of faith, have to say to our brothers and sisters, `We are so profoundly sorry,'" Watkins said.

The message also accused U.S. officials of ignoring warnings about climate change and treating the world's "finite resources as if they are private possessions." It went on to criticize U.S. domestic policies for refusing to confront racism and poverty.

"Hurricane Katrina revealed to the world those left behind in our own nation by the rupture of our social contract," said the statement.

The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues. The statement asked forgiveness for a world that's "grown weary from the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

---

On the Net:

World Council of Churches: http://www.wcc-coe.org

World Council of Churches, US: http://www.wcc-usa.org

National Council of Churches USA: http://www.ncccusa.org/

from the Associated Press, 2006-Feb-23, by Brian Murphy:

World Council of Churches Slaps Cartoons

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil -- The world's biggest group of Christian churches criticized the use of military forces to fight terrorism Thursday, and denounced both the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim rage they unleashed.

Wrapping up a wide-ranging conference, the statements underscored how the World Council of Churches increasingly wants to exert its influence into areas separate from its basic mission - seeking greater unity among Christians.

But the 10-day meeting - the largest gathering of Christian denominations in nearly a decade - also showed the limits of the WCC, which has no real lobbying power and can only urge its nearly 350 member churches to support public policies on topics as diverse as relations with Muslims, nuclear arms and efforts to battle AIDS.

"We are trying to play the role that's expected of us," said the Rev. Samuel Kobia, general secretary of the WCC, which includes mainline Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox churches representing more than 500 million followers. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member, but cooperates closely.

The conference delegates urged the WCC to "claim a clearer and stronger public profile." The statements appeared to move the Geneva-based group in that direction - and at times into clear disagreement with U.S. policies.

The group urged its member churches to oppose the use of military forces to fight terrorism, and complained that U.S.-led anti-terrorism efforts threaten to undermine international law and human rights. It also called for more projects with Muslim leaders to serve as "an early warning system" against religious radicalism, saying terrorism "can never be justified legally, theologically or ethically."

"Measures to counter terrorism must be demilitarized and the concept of `war on terror' must be firmly and resolutely challenged by the churches," said the statement.

The WCC urged a "criminal justice approach" to fight terrorist networks, such as strengthening the International Criminal Court, which is opposed by Washington as a possible tool for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.

"The `war on terror' has redefined war and relativized international law and human rights norms and standards," the statement said. "A military response to terror may become indiscriminately destructive and cause fear in affected populations."

Last week, representatives from the 34 U.S.-based churches in the WCC issued a statement sharply denouncing the U.S.-led war in Iraq; they also apologized to other nations for Washington policies.

The gathering also closely followed the widening Muslim outrage to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Kobia and other WCC leaders described freedom of expression as a fundamental right, but noted that it must be used responsibly.

Other positions staked out by the WCC include changing the U.N. Security Council to reflect new powers; urging North Korea to rejoin the international pact to control nuclear technology, and calling for debt relief for Latin America. The conference also strengthened bonds with the Vatican, which sent a high-level delegation.

from the Associated Press via the San Francisco Chronicle, 2006-Jan-8, by Ian James:

Belafonte Calls Bush 'Greatest Terrorist'

CARACAS, Venezuela -- The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.

The 78-year-old Belafonte, famous for his calypso-inspired music, including the "Day-O" song, was a close collaborator of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and is now a UNICEF goodwill ambassador. He also has been outspoken in criticizing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Chavez said he believes deeply in the struggle for justice by blacks, both in the U.S. and Venezuela.

"Although we may not believe it, there continues to be great discrimination here against black people," Chavez said, urging his government to redouble its efforts to prevent discrimination.

Belafonte accused U.S. news media of falsely painting Chavez as a "dictator," when in fact, he said, there is democracy and citizens are "optimistic about their future."

Dolores Huerta, a pioneer of the United Farm Workers labor union also in the delegation, called the visit a "very deep experience."

Chavez accuses Bush of trying to overthrow him, pointing to intelligence documents released by the U.S. indicating that the CIA knew beforehand that dissident officers planned a short-lived 2002 coup. The U.S. denies involvement, but Chavez says Venezuela must be on guard.

Belafonte suggested setting up a youth exchange for Venezuelans and Americans. He finished by shouting in Spanish: "Viva la revolucion!"

from ExposeTheLeft.com, 2006-Jan-30:

Belafonte Calls Poverty Under Bush Terror, Claims 100,000 People Have Been Killed in Iraq

In a recent interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, Harry Belfonte continued his tirade against Bush by calling the President a terrorist, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Later in the interview Belafonte claims that hundreds of thousands have been maimed and over 100,000 have been killed in Iraq.

When asked at the end of the interview would Belafonte serve today and encourage others too, he responds by saying “if I were a soldier today or going into the military today, as an act of conscience, I would not serve”.

AMY GOODMAN: You call President Bush a terrorist?

HARRY BELAFONTE: I call President Bush a terrorist. I call those around him terrorists, as well: Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales in the Justice Department, and certainly Cheney. I think all of these men sit—and women—sit in the midst of an enormous conspiracy that has been unraveling America for the last eight years—six years. It is tragic that the dubious way in which this president acquired power should have begun to unravel the Constitution and the peoples of this country.

Yes, I say that there are people in this country who live in terror. Poverty is terror. Having your Social Security threatened is terror. Having your livelihood as an elderly person slowly disappearing with no replenishment is terror. Students who are dropping out of school because there are no resources to keep us in school is terror. You find people in the streets, watching drugs permeate our communities and destroy our young, it's a life of terror. And men who sit in charge of that distribution mechanism, which can help the American people overcome these problems and refuse to do so, while giving the rich more money than they've ever dreamt of having, while turning around our institutions and redirecting resources from those who are truly in need to those who are already generously endowed, if not hedonistically so, it's a great tradgedy.

And I think most important is that we have words that attempt to give us moral cleansing, so that somehow we hold those responsible for crashing into the Twin Towers and killing over 2,000 Americans citizens in cold blood, which is an act of terrorism—people who have done that should be sought out and brought to justice; there's no question of that—but when we do what we have done, illegal war, going into the Middle East, bombing at will, and then hundreds of thousands of people get caught, who are either maimed or over 100,000 have already been killed, who are innocent men, women and children, and we chalk that off to a thing called “collateral damage,” as if somehow that murderous thing that we're doing so cruelly and so inhumanely has no judgment before world opinion, that we are somehow righteous and above criticism and above the law. That is unacceptable. And that's what I speak out against.

[...]

AMY GOODMAN: Would you counsel soldiers not to serve in Iraq?

HARRY BELAFONTE: If I were a soldier today or going into the military today, as an act of conscience, I would not serve.

from the Boston Herald, 2006-Mar-23:

Charlie Sheen doesn't buy 9/11 spin

Charlie Sheen, following in the footsteps of his politically outspoken father, Martin Sheen, has joined the chorus of conspiracy theorists who don't believe the official version of events surrounding 9/11.

The estranged husband of Denise Richards, who is better known for his affinity for prostitutes and gambling than his Homeland Security credentials, told the GCN Radio Network he doesn't buy the government's explanation that “19 amateurs with box cutters (took) over four commercial airliners and (hit) 75 percent of their targets.”

The “Two and a Half Men” star, who was shooting his former sitcom “Spin City” the morning the World Trade Center towers fell, said he was immediately suspicious about the official reason given for the buildings' collapse. After watching in horror as the South Tower was hit, he said to his brother, “call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

Sheen pointed out that eyewitnesses recounted hearing what sounded like bombs and explosions coming from the basement levels of the buildings and discounted the theory that the damage to the towers' lobbies was the result of fireballs traveling 110 feet down elevator shafts.

The father of two also questioned whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon and how President George Bush was able to see the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried.

“I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe,” the actor-turned-pseudo-intellect quipped.

“It is up to us to reveal the truth,” Sheen asserted. “We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.”

Excuse us if we don't exactly feel that Charlie's the man for that job!

from Agence France-Presse via breitbart.com, 2006-May-2:

Hollywood star Robbins blasts US media ignorance of 'high crimes' in Iraq

Acclaimed American actor/director Tim Robbins blasted the US government's policy on terrorism -- and the US media's failure to examine it critically -- at a news conference in Athens promoting his stage version of George Orwell's "1984".

"We have right now a media that is willfully ignoring the high crimes and misdemeanours of the president of the United States," the star of Hollywood hits including "Mystic River" and "The Player" told reporters.

"Clinton lied about a blowjob, and got impeached by the media and Congress," Robbins said.

"(Bush) got us into (the Iraq) war based on lies that he knew were lies. ... His war has recruited more Al-Qaeda members than Osama bin Laden could ever have dreamed for ... yet no one in the media is calling for impeachment," he said.

Robbins pointed out similarities between current US policies on terrorism and the authoritarian society described by Orwell.

"Unfortunately, the book and the play is more relevant now than it ever has been," he said. "(It) talks about continuous warfare as a means to control the Western economy, and as a way to control rebel elements within society through the use of fear, constant fear."

"In my country we seem to be sanctioning renditioning of innocent people without trial ... put them in jail without telling anyone ... and torture them out of suspicion of what we think they might do," Robbins said.

"This is exactly what Orwell was talking about when he spoke of thought crimes," he added.

Orwell's bleak classic, published in 1949, is based on a futuristic society in which the government, known as "Big Brother", spies on its citizens' every move and tortures them on suspicion of dissent.

The play, which Robbins produces and directs, opened in Athens for a five-day run on Tuesday.

He is hoping to also direct a film version of the play in the fall.

from the Independent of London, 2006-Apr-17, by Andrew Buncombe:

Neil Young sets his sights on Bush
He is country rock's biggest icon, and he is angry. Recorded in secret, his forthcoming album savages the war in Iraq. One track says it all: 'Impeach the President'

It started as a rumour - gossip shared by fans on internet chat sites. Could it true, they asked? Could Neil Young, a cultural lodestone for a generation of country rock fans, really be turning his attention to President George Bush and the war in Iraq? Now Young himself has confirmed it. Not only has he recorded an entire album about the conflict, but in one of the songs he spells out who he thinks is to blame for the ongoing chaos and violence and what the consequences for that person should be. That track is called "Impeach the President".

"I just finished a new record - a power trio with trumpet and 100 voices," the 60-year-old says in a ticker-tape message posted at the bottom of his official website. "Metal folk protest? It's called Living with the War."

Further details about the album came from Jonathan Demme, the film maker who produced the recently released documentary Heart of Gold about the singer-songwriter. "Neil just finished writing and recording - with no warning - a new album called Living With War," he told the music magazine Harp by e-mail. "It all happened in three days ... It is a brilliant electric assault, accompanied by a 100-voice choir, on Bush and the war in Iraq ... Truly mind blowing. Will be in stores soon."

Those who have followed Young's twisting career, stretching over more than four decades - from the psychedelia-tinged rock of the folk-rock band Buffalo Springfield in the Sixties, his joining up with Crosby, Stills, and Nash, his huge solo success in 1972 with Harvest, as well as the experimentation of the Eighties and finally his return to country rock - may be a little surprised by Young's decision to launch such a blunt political assault against the Bush administration.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the al-Qa'ida attacks on the US of 11 September 2001, it seemed that Young had taken the side with the President and supported the steps he was taking in the so-called "war on terror". Having written a song, "Let's Roll", to honour the passengers on board United Airlines' Flight 93 who apparently fought with the hijackers and forced the plane to crash-land in rural Pennsylvania rather than letting them use it to target the White House, he announced his support for the Patriot Act. The Act, which gave law-enforcement bodies a whole range of new powers, was condemned by many campaigners as an assault on civil liberties. Young said at the time he thought the legislation was necessary.

Speaking at an awards banquet in Hollywood where he had received the Spirit of Liberty award by the liberal campaign group People for the American Way, Young announced: "To protect our freedoms it seems we're going to have to relinquish some of our freedoms for a short period of time." But now it appears that for whatever reason, the Canadian-born singer's support for President Bush has run it's course and that his latest incarnation is as a protest singer. He has joined list of musicians such as the Dixie Chicks, Lou Reed, Dave Matthews, Steve Earle and REM who have used their platforms to speak out against the war or the administration in general. His song urging that Mr Bush be impeached reportedly accuses him of "lying" and features a rap with the President's voice set against the choir singing "flip-flop" - an accusation Mr Bush and other Republicans aimed at John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, during the 2004 election campaign.

Meanwhile the lyrics to the new album's title track include the words: "I'm living with war right now, And when the dawn breaks I see my fellow man, And on the flat screen we kill and we're being killed again, And when the night falls I pray for peace, Try to remember peace."

Whilst details of the 10-song recording are still incomplete - it is known that he is accompanied by Chad Cromwell on drums, Rick Rosas on bass and Tommy Bray on trumpet - a further insight into what to expect has come from the California-based musician Alicia Morgan, who was recruited to be part of the 100-strong choir. In an entry on her blog on Friday she wrote: "Have you, like me, been recalling the great protest songs of the Sixties, and wondered where the new protest songs are? Yesterday, I found out." She said she and the other singers read off the lyrics as they flashed onto a giant screen, with cheers of approval coming up from the choir. With the main tracks having been previously recorded, Young himself directed the backing singers. "Turns out the whole thing is a classic beautiful protest record. The session was like being at a 12-hour peace rally," she said.

"Every time new lyrics would come up on the screen, there were cheers, tears and applause. It was a spiritual experience ... We finished the session by singing an a cappella version of "America the Beautiful" and there was not a dry eye in the house." She added: "I've never been at a recording session that was more like being at church. Heck, I've never been to a church that was more like a church than that session." Speaking from Sherman Oaks, California, yesterday Morgan told The Independent that many people liked Neil Young because he "pisses everybody off".

She said: "I have always enjoyed his music and respected him. People have told me he used to be a Reagan supporter but I don't think he is bound by any ideology other than his own. He writes and sings about whatever is going on in his life. Sometimes it's political - sometimes it's not."

Asked if she thought Young had enjoyed the 12-hour session, at which they completed the 10 tracks, she added: "Very much so." Young, who has served on the board of Farm Aid, fellow singer Willie Nelson's project to help rural Americans, for more than 20 years, is not the first person to have suggested the impeachment of Mr Bush. With his approval ratings in the low 30s, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has sought to have Congress pass a motion to censure the President, though the effort has received only limited support from Mr Feingold's Democratic colleagues.

Meanwhile Mr Bush can apparently do nothing to shift his ratings, the worst for a president in second term since the days of Richard Nixon, for whom, incidentally, Young also wrote a song. Young, who has said he has previously voted for the Republicans, was apparently inspired to write the words for the song "Campaigner" - originally called "Requiem for a President" - after watching television news about Nixon's wife suffering a stroke and seeing the broken president arrive at the hospital. In the song he wrote: "I am a lonely visitor, I came too late to cause a stir, Though I campaigned all my life towards that goal."

Songs of shame

By Geneviève Roberts

* ROLLING STONES

Despite being famously apolitical, the band launched an attack on George Bush in their latest album, A Bigger Bang. The track "Sweet Neo Con" contains the lyrics: "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, Well I think you're full of shit."

Despite Jagger saying: "It's not aimed personally at President Bush. It wouldn't be called 'Sweet Neo Con' if it was," Stones fans were not convinced, especially as Jagger had previously said of the tune: "It is direct. Keith said: 'It is not really metaphorical. I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the US. But I don't."

* EMINEM

In 2004, rap artist Eminem urged fans to vote against George Bush in the US election by issuing a music video specifically to criticise the Iraq war. The lyrics for "Mosh": "Let the President answer on high anarchy, strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war," accompanied a video depicting a US soldier arriving home from Baghdad, to be told he must return.

* DIXIE CHICKS

"Not Ready to Make Nice", to be released in the US in May, is an attack on people who sent the Texan band death threats after they criticised Mr Bush. Singer Nathalie Maines, performing in London on the eve of the Iraq war, said: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Many US radio stations dropped the band and their CDs were smashed.

* GEORGE MICHAEL

In 2002, he released the single "Shoot the Dog", which featured a cartoon video of Tony Blair and Mr Bush's poodle on the White House lawn. The backlash was so forceful - the New York Post called him a "past-his-prime pop pervert" - that Michael feared he would not be able to return to the US.

from the Associated Press, 2006-May-21:

Bush Gets No Respect From Chicks' Maines

NEW YORK -- The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines apologized for disrespecting President Bush during a London concert in 2003. But now, she's taking it back. "I don't feel that way anymore," she told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands Monday. "I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."

As war in Iraq loomed, Maines told the London audience: "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

The remarks led to death threats and a backlash from other country stars, including a high-profile spat with Toby Keith. It also stalled what until then had been the group's smashingly successful career.

Bandmate Emily Robinson said she knew right away the remark wouldn't be taken lightly and got "hot from my head to my toes."

"It wasn't that I didn't agree with her 100 percent; it was just, 'Oh, this is going to stir something up,'" she told Time.

For band member Martie Maguire, the controversy was a blessing in disguise.

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

The Chicks' hits include "Landslide," "Goodbye Earl" and "Wide Open Spaces." Their new album, "Taking the Long Way," is due out May 23. The first single is "Not Ready to Make Nice."

from the Chicago Tribune, 2006-Jun-1, compiled by Cristi Kempf from Tribune news services and staff reports:

Shunned Dixie Chicks top 2 charts

The Dixie Chicks are on top of the pop and country charts with their first album since criticizing President Bush three years ago.

They did it without the support of country radio, which largely ignored them after singer Natalie Maines told a London audience in 2003 that the group was ashamed Bush was from their home state of Texas.

The new album, "Taking the Long Way," took the No. 1 spot Wednesday on the country albums chart and the Billboard 200 overall chart--which are based on sales rather than radio airplay--with 526,000 units sold in a week.

Wade Jessen, director of Billboard's country charts, said the strong sales figures may show that hard-core country fans are not as bothered by the controversy as many in the industry thought, or that the group is attracting a broader audience.

"There also might be a certain amount of support that may have been thrown their way by folks who are a little more liberal and that maybe never bought a country album in their lives but want to show their support," he said.

First-week sales on "Taking the Long Way" were better than Chicks nemesis Toby Keith, whose "White Trash With Money" sold 330,000 units.

from the Yakima Herald-Republic, 2006-Apr-29, by LEAH BETH WARD:

Calendar marks dubious birthdays

A "diversity calendar" published by the state Department of Corrections that lists the birthdays of several controversial historical figures, including the Japanese commander who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, has angered at least one employee and Sen. Jim Honeyford, who called it a "personal affront to veterans."

Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, wrote Corrections Director Harold Clarke requesting an explanation for why the April and May calendars recognize Isoroku Yamamoto, Lenin, Karl Marx and Ho Chi Minh.

"A Washington state agency supported by taxpayer funds has absolutely no place painting these individuals as worthy of the support of the state and its employees in the name of 'diversity,' especially when their birthdays are given exactly the same weight as Veterans' Day," Honeyford wrote in a letter sent earlier this week.

The monthly calendars are a part of the department's "workplace diversity program" and are sent to agency employees only. Many state agencies have diversity programs to promote tolerance and understanding of different races, cultures, religions and ethnicities.

Honeyford said in a telephone interview Friday that copies of the calendars were sent to his office.

"I opened it up and looked at it and was shocked," he said. "To me, if you're going to represent diversity, it should be someone worthy of honor, and I have a great deal of difficulty with these bloodthirsty people who killed a lot of people."

Gary Larson, a spokesman for Corrections, said the calendars are not celebrations of individuals.

"Basically, the purpose of this calendar was meant to be an instructional tool that just lists people who had an impact on the world and provoke thought. The intent was certainly not to be offensive to veterans or anyone else," he said. "One of the goals of diversity is that we co-exist in the world with people we disagree with."

The monthly calendars are distributed by e-mail and larger, printed versions are posted around the agency. Larson said the cost is "nominal."

Dave Holbrook, 52, a community corrections officer in Vancouver, said when he opened the calendars in his e-mail at work, he was offended.

"I'm a Vietnam veteran and to see Ho Chi Minh's birthday there, that just set me off. Then Memorial Day, when we honor my brothers and sisters who died," Holbrook said in a telephone interview.

Ho Chi Minh was the founder and president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Communist North, and is listed on Time 100, the magazine's compilation of the most important people of the 20th century.

Asked if the calendar was perhaps merely noting the birthdays of important historical figures, Holbrook said, "Maybe that was their idea, but not when you are also honoring the birthday of important people like William Shakespeare and the anniversary of the Women's Army Corps."

Other figures noted on the calendar include composer Irving Berlin, Audrey Hepburn, Sigmund Freud, Peter the Great, Eva Peron, Booker T. Washington, Charlotte Bronte and singer Sheena Easton.

Holbrook said to pick Yamamoto, the commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy at the outbreak of the Pacific War, was disrespectful of World War II veterans.

But Larson said it's wrong to assume all veterans would be offended. The employee who came up with the calendar spent 22 years in the military, he said. In the future, however, he said the department will more closely scrutinize names used on diversity calendars.

The calendars contain a few inaccuracies. Lenin's first name is Vladimir, not Nikolai, and the name of boxing great Joe Louis is misspelled. Lenin led the Russian Revolution based on the theory of Marx as explained in The Communist Manifesto.

Diversity may be valued at Corrections but objecting to some of the names on the calendars is not, or at least not in Holbrook's case. He responded to the e-mailed calendars by hitting the "reply to all" key that he was offended by them.

"In a half hour, a supervisor showed up at my desk and said my e-mail was an inappropriate use of e-mail."

Holbrook, a union shop steward, said he's not worried about being fired. Larson declined to comment on Holbrook's reprimand.

from the Wall Street Journal, 2005-Dec-1:

Europe's 'Moral Outrage'

Europe is enthralled by another American "torture scandal." Governments demand the truth behind allegations, first made by the Washington Post last month, that the CIA has operated covert prisons in Europe and secretly transported terrorist suspects through European airports. Human Rights Watch claims to have located the prisons in "New Europe" -- Poland and Romania.

The outrage on the Continent is deafening. Franco Frattini, the normally level-headed European Commissioner for Justice, threatened "serious consequences," including the unprecedented "suspension of voting rights" in the European Union for the Poles and Romanians if the allegations prove true. After all, "European values" would have been violated.

It is difficult to comment on the substance of the allegations because there isn't much substance at the moment. Both the Romanian and Polish governments have denied the reports, while Washington promised to look into the case. So for the time being, there are only allegations and a lot of moral outrage. That moral posturing, though, deserves a closer look. [Franco Frattini]

We'd be the first to applaud Europeans for finally concerning themselves with moral principles instead of commercial interests. Many of the Middle East's problems, including terrorism, would be easier solved if Europe were seriously concerned about morality. Europe would no longer be Iran's No. 1 trading partner, and its companies wouldn't be able to attend trade fairs in Sudan anymore.

Unlike American companies -- recently defamed in Germany as "(blood) suckers" and "locusts" by the former government -- European firms are quite busy in Sudan. The chamber of commerce and industry in Stuttgart has enthused over what great opportunities Sudan's oil resources offer to German companies.

Lest people think they are doing something morally reprehensible, the salesmen from Stuttgart prefer to describe the massacres of black Africans in Darfur as "political disturbances." The German economics ministry, which sponsored the German pavilion at last February's trade fair in Sudan, will also support next February's event, the chamber of commerce assures its members.

Where is the outrage? How does that jibe with supposed European values?

Or who in Europe has heard of Soghra, an Iranian woman sentenced in October to death by stoning for adultery? Or Mokhtar N. and Ali A., hanged last month in a public square in Iran for homosexuality?

In much of Europe's public debate, the true meaning of human rights has degenerated into a tool that gives anti-Americanism an aura of legitimacy. The real, horrendous human-rights violations in the Middle East, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc., are largely ignored or relegated to news blurs on the back pages. For front-page coverage, you need an American angle.

It is often said that this has nothing to do with anti-Americanism but with the fact that democracies, such as the U.S., must be held to higher standards. Really? Let's look at some recent European violations of human rights.

In October, the European Council's Commissioner for Human Rights inspected what the French call a detention center for foreigners. Alvaro Gil-Robles believes it is more properly called a dungeon. "With the exception of maybe Moldavia, I have not seen a worse center," he said about the facilities underneath the Palais de Justice in Paris, located not more than a few hundred yards from Notre Dame.

And what was Europe's reaction to these astonishing accusations? A yawn, a few wire reports and press pickups; that's it. After all, those prisoners, locked up under horrendous sanitary conditions, without natural sunlight and ventilation, some of whom, according to one prison guard, have in desperation mutilated themselves and smeared their blood on the walls, were only simple illegal immigrants. No need to suspend French voting privileges on their account, that's for sure.

Let's imagine for a moment the media coverage, the moral outcries and the calls for inquiries if those unfortunates had not been harmless migrants held in the City of Lights but jihadi terrorists held by Yankee soldiers?

Or take the double standard about allegations that CIA planes have used European airports to bring terror suspects to third countries where they might be tortured. The fact that Europe routinely sends back thousands of asylum seekers to countries where they could be tortured does not make the front pages, though. As recently as October, Amnesty International accused the Spanish government of violating the European Human Rights Convention for the mass expulsion of African migrants from the Spanish enclaves in Morocco. "Torture and bad treatment is endemic in Morocco," Esteban Beltran, the director of the Spanish Amnesty International section said.

If he could have proved that some of those poor souls trying to reach Europe to start a better life were in fact terrorists, and if he could have also somehow implicated the U.S. in their expulsion, he might have been able to get an audience for his complaints.

Anti-Americanism is so prevalent in Europe that it has permeated almost all areas of public discourse -- from arts to politics to economies. "American conditions" is a popular German slur against alleged social coldness in the U.S. -- one that former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has "successfully" used to reject necessary economic reforms. And just as it has poisoned the economic debate in Europe, anti-Americanism also poisons the debate about how to deal with terrorism. Any measure that involves the U.S. is almost immediately tainted as being beyond the pale.

That's particularly true because in the public debate in Europe, as all too often in the U.S. as well, terrorism is still seen as a conventional threat. That it is decidedly not, one doesn't need to trust the Bush Administration alone. Here is what Europe's anti-terror czar, the Dutch Gijs de Vries, told us recently: "Bin Laden has called the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists a religious duty. There is every reason to believe that here, as elsewhere, he is deadly serious about this."

Those decrying secret prisons and tougher interrogation methods (assuming the allegations have some validity) have yet to spell out what kind of "humane" treatment they would give to bombers whose mission it is to destroy Western civilization. If they can't, their complaints are hypocritical and intellectually shallow. How many bombing murders on European soil does it take for this realization to sink in?

from the Wall Street Journal via OpinionJournal.com, 2005-Dec-7:

Condi's European Torture
Mock outrage over "secret" terror prisons.

It has been quite the spectacle this week, with Condoleezza Rice touring Europe amid mock dismay over the fact that the CIA may have detained terrorists in European jails. If the Secretary of State weren't so diplomatic, she'd cancel her tour and say she won't come back until the Continent's politicians decide to grow up.

One of Europe's moral conceits is to fret constantly about the looming outbreak of fascism in America, even though it is on the Continent itself where the dictators seem to pop up every couple of decades. Then Europe dials 9-11, and Washington dutifully rides to the rescue. The last time was just a few years ago, as U.S. firepower stopped Slobodan Milosevic, who had bedeviled Europe for years.

In return, it would be nice if once in a while Europe decided to help America with its security problem, especially since Islamic terrorism is also Europe's security problem. But instead the U.S. Secretary of State has to put up with lectures about the phony issue of "secret" prisons housing terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.

We put "secret" in quotes because the CIA could hardly carry on operations in Europe without the knowledge of the countries involved. Rather, as Ms. Rice dryly put it, the U.S. often engages "the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts." So the so-called "rendition" programs at issue--involving the transportation, detention and questioning of terror suspects--are precisely the kind of anti-terror efforts that multilateral Europeans ought to love.

Yet as soon as the Washington Post began reporting on the "secret" detention facilities, the pretend questions began. A shocked, shocked British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote the U.S. on behalf of the European Union demanding "clarification" to "allay parliamentary and public concerns." EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini threatened "serious consequences," including the "suspension of voting rights" against any EU member found to be involved. The anti-American press that dominates Europe has been in full cry.

What gives? Mostly opportunism and political cowardice. The two countries mentioned in the press for helping the U.S.--Poland and Romania--ought to be applauded for doing so. But the European media have spun so many wildly false stories about U.S. detention policy that anti-American demagogues see an opening and even friendly European politicians are afraid to push back.

Ms. Rice's pledge that the U.S. isn't "torturing" anyone on European soil, or anywhere else, ought to be all the reassurance Europeans need. According to the CIA sources leaking these stories, the "secret" prisons were for housing only about a dozen top al Qaeda leaders, such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

And the most aggressive interrogation technique authorized against such men is "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation. That's rough treatment, but the technique has also been used on U.S. servicemen to train them to resist interrogations, and we suspect many Europeans would accept it if they believed it might avert another Madrid.

If not, they certainly ought to explain the other realistic options. One possibility is sending terrorists to the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where their intelligence services can do the interrogating. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger once memorably explained this policy as sending suspects to countries where justice is "streamlined"--which is putting it mildly. This kind of "rendition" strikes us as far more morally problematic than taking responsibility for interrogation ourselves.

Meanwhile, the claim that aggressive interrogations of these hard cases are unnecessary and unproductive is simply naive. On Monday, ABC News reported that "Of the 12 high-value targets housed by the CIA, only one did not require waterboarding before he talked." The exception was Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who "broke down in tears after he walked past the cell of" KSM. "Visibly shaken, he started to cry and became as cooperative as if he had been tied down to a water board," ABC's sources said.

The broad reality, of course, is that European intelligence and security services have been helping the CIA in fighting terror, both before and after 9/11. There have been arrests of terror-cell members, and even successful prosecutions. The failure has come at the level of political leadership, where elected officials refuse to acknowledge such cooperation, or to defend its moral necessity.

The danger here is less to America--which will continue to protect itself in any case--than it is to Europe. The phony outrage over American anti-terror practices will only make it harder for European governments to take the actions required to stop terror on their soil--witness French paralysis in the wake of the recent riots.

More dangerous for the longer term, the Continent's preening anti-Americanism has also been duly noted on this side of the Atlantic. Europeans should worry that their moral hauteur may well be repaid by American popular opinion the next time they call on the Yanks to put down one of their homegrown fascists.

from the Weekly Standard, 2005-Oct-13, by Stephen Schwartz:

And the Winner Is . . .
The Nobel Prize in Literature goes to: A Bush-hating leftist!

SWEDEN HAS A REPUTATION for a high suicide rate. But a psychological crackup striking an ordinary Scandinavian, brooding in the long, dark winter, is merely a personal tragedy. By contrast, the moral suicide of a whole institution, like the Swedish Academy--which has responsibility for awarding the Nobel Prize in Literature--is messier and more disturbing.

Yet like a pack of lemmings drunk on home-made aquavit, the Stockholm snobs have continued their rush to fully discredit the literature Nobels, by selecting Harold Pinter as their 2005 laureate. Pinter is an exhausted English playwright whose sole and obvious current qualification for the prize is his strident participation in the America-baiting, Israel-hating protests against the liberation of Iraq.

Pinter himself admitted that his career no longer has anything to do with literary aspirations. Notified of his good fortune, since the prize includes a $1.3 million payout, he snarled today, "I have written 29 plays and I think that's really enough. I think the world has had enough of my plays." He then declared that he has given up playwriting altogether.

Given that Pinter has produced no significant work for the stage in 40 years, one should perhaps admire the candor of his self-criticism. But viewed from another perspective, the Swedes have written a new chapter in ignobility, presenting the world's top literary honor to an author who considers his own work irrelevant. That, at least, could not be said of some of the anti-democracy miscreants previously so recognized in Stockholm. They have included the 1999 choice, German

novelist Gunter Grass, a veteran of the Nazi forces in the Second World War and unsparing foe of Western values; the 1998 laureate, the Portuguese Jose Saramago, a former Communist censor, and his immediate predecessor Dario Fo, a tireless enemy of religion. Some have never forgiven the ignominious past selection of Pablo Neruda, a fervent Stalinist and clandestine agent for the Soviet secret police. But, at the very least, none of those puffers and fakes would have disclaimed the importance of their writerly efforts.

Pinter, the George Galloway of literary London, has his eyes on bigger things than creative achievement. No longer a star in the world of theatre, he retains a theatrical personality. He is a pathological Bushophobe, whose hatred of our president is only exceeded by his disgust with Tony Blair. Pinter has called Blair a "deluded idiot." (With characteristic gentility, the prime minister's office commented, "Of course we congratulate Harold Pinter on the recognition that he has received.") Some in the media described Pinter's Nobel as "surprising," but the Swedes were actually reprising the scandal they perpetrated last year when they presented the award to an obscure Austrian pornographer, Elfriede Jelinek, whose only claim to fame was her production of a work attacking the U.S. intervention in Iraq.

That disgrace caused a rift within the Stockholm academy itself. This week Knut Ahnlund, a member of the once-august body, angrily announced his resignation, denouncing the Austrian termagant with the piquant argument that his fellow-academicians had not read any of her work at all.

But why should they have? She, like Harold Pinter, owes her Nobel to her posturing against American foreign policy. Jelinek herself has been quick to praise the Swedes for choosing another leftist as a recipient of the award.

Perhaps it is time to simply ignore, and forget, the Nobels.

from the Weekly Standard, 2004-Oct-8, by Stephen Schwartz:

Oops . . . They Did It Again
The Nobel Prize for Literature goes to Elfriede Jelinek: sensationalist, communist, and anti-American hack.

THE INFAMOUS SNOBS of the Swedish Academy, brooding in the land of military cowardice, interminable winter, and one of the highest suicide rates in the world, have returned to their habit of awarding the Nobel Prize for Literature to an unknown, undistinguished, leftist fanatic: The 2004 prize has gone to Elfriede Jelinek, of Austria. This time they got a two-fer shot at destroying literary standards, since Jelinek's writings mainly verge on gross pornography.

Ms. Jelinek's main recent work is a play, Bambiland, described as "a strident attack" on the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Published in Austria in 2003, it has been translated into English and will doubtless soon appear on the Anglo-American stage. Swedish Academy representative Horace Engdahl, laboring under the belief that the whole world can be fooled forever, disingenuously announced that the award should not be considered a political one. "When that play came out, this decision was--if not already made--then well under way," he said.

But Engdahl went on to describe Bambiland as showing "how patriotic enthusiasm turns into insanity," adding, "she's completely right about that." The Swedes are big experts on patriotism--they sold iron ore to the Nazis while claiming to be neutral in World War II. But you already knew that.

The New York Times--the Racing Form of the Nobel Prize competition--noted that Jelinek was a member of the Austrian Communist party from 1974 to 1991. One must know something of the history of European Communism to realize how despicable such a political option would appear to Austrians. The Austrian Communist party was the only one in the continent never to attract a noticeable following, and never to play a significant role in any historic event. After Soviet troops were withdrawn from the occupation zone of Austria in 1955, the Austrian Communist party was little more than a KGB network.

How interesting that Jelinek quit the party just when Moscow turned off the financial spigots to such efforts. The organization made her prize a banner headline on its website--finally, they're on the map.

But the Nobel Prize is bestowed for writing, and one must therefore address Jelinek's publications. In 2002, her novel The Piano Teacher was produced as an Austrian/French film starring Isabelle Huppert. Peter Rainer wrote of it, in New York magazine "Isabelle Huppert plays Erika, a stiff-backed piano instructor at a prestigious Viennese conservatory whose lust for her adoring student Walter (Benoit Magimel) exposes her deeply guarded sadomasochism. 'Do I disgust you?' she asks him after he reads a long letter from her outlining her most depraved fantasies." The novel also features voyeurism and self-mutilation with a razor. At the Frankfurt Book Fair, according to Reuters, "publisher Alexander Fest said [Jelinek's] writing showed 'great courage and huge savagery.' "

Sexual titillation makes a comparison between Elfriede Jelinek and, say, Britney Spears, fair--though any normal person would doubtless prefer the latter's company.

In bestowing the Nobel laurels on this Viennese virago, the Swedish Academy has confirmed that it must always compensate for its correct judgments with an atrocity. Last year the Nobel for Literature went to J.M. Coetzee, a serious and talented author; the year before to Imre Kertesz, a survivor of the Holocaust who, if little known outside his native Hungary, is nonetheless a writer of great eloquence and moral force; in 2001, it went to the controversial but respected V.S. Naipaul. In 2000, the prize was given to a Chinese, Gao Xingjian, although many of his compatriots, and experts in that country's literature, believed it should have gone to Ba Jin, a long-lived classic and dissident--however, Gao had the advantage of having been translated into Swedish.

But prior to then, Stockholm produced an outstanding run of scandalous Nobels in literature: scolding lefty turned Nazi-nostalgic Gunter Grass, in 1999; Jose Saramago, a vulgar enemy of religion and former Communist censor in revolutionary Portugal, in 1998; and the repellent Dario Fo, an Italian playwright specializing in denunciations of capitalism, in 1997. The prize for Jelinek is obviously a replay of the Fo foolishness; if America will hate it, then it rates with the Swedes.

Other Nobel stars have included Claude Simon (1985), a Stalinist who defamed George Orwell; Castro-lover Gabriel Garcia Marquez (1982); Pablo Neruda, Stalinist secret police agent (1971); and Soviet plagiarist and propagandist Mikhail Sholokhov (1965).

One would be tempted to say the Nobel recognition to an Austrian ogress proves that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only decent thing to come out of that Alpine land in the last two decades. But one should also add that the Nobel Prize for Literature, which includes a check for $1.3 million, each year increasingly diminishes in moral, if not in financial worth.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Jan-25, by Christopher Toothaker:

World Social Forum Begins in Venezuela

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Thousands of activists marched through Venezuela's capital demanding an end to the war in Iraq and shouting slogans against U.S. imperialism at the opening of the World Social Forum backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Throngs of spirited protesters danced to drum beats as they waved banners and chanted "No to war! Peace is possible!" Roughly 80,000 people signed up to attend the forum, including tens of thousands from outside Venezuela, organizers said.

"Bush invades countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, takes control of their natural resources and bleeds them dry, that's unacceptable," said Candido Gil, a 57-year-old member of Brazil's Communist Party.

Crowds flocked to a stage on the outskirts of a Caracas military base to hear a speech by American peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq.

"We need to bring our troops home immediately," Sheehan told the crowd to a rousing applause. "We need to hold someone responsible for all the death and destruction in the world. We need to see George Bush and the rest of them tried for crimes against humanity."

Sheehan, a 48-year-old from Berkeley, Calif., gained international attention when she set up a protest camp near President Bush's ranch in Texas last year.

Many of the activists lauded the leftist movement spreading across Latin America, while others called attention to some of the world's most pressing problems, including air pollution, widespread poverty and racism.

Juergen Schmidt, a 22-year-old German, twisted a few of his dangling dreadlocks while handing out pamphlets titled "Green Tomorrow" to fellow activists.

"The human race is threatened by the effects of global warming, and if action isn't taken soon it could be too late," said Schmidt, adding that he'd like to learn more about Chavez and "see what this revolution is all about" before leaving Venezuela.

Several marchers stretched out giant dove wings made from white sheets while others held banners focusing on indigenous rights, land reform and the evils of capitalism. One man dragged a dirty Coca-Cola banner behind him, yelling "The global giant will die!"

The World Social Forum was first held in Brazil in 2001 and coincides with the market-friendly World Economic Forum of political and business leaders, which begins Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland.

Nestor Petrola, who traveled to Venezuela by bus from Argentina, said Latin American leaders should look to Chavez as an example to follow.

"He has done more regarding land reform and stopping the privatization of basic services than the others, and that's why he's still in power," Petrola said.

Chavez, a leftist former paratrooper and ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, was expected to address activists at the closing ceremony of the forum Sunday.

Since first taking office in 1999, Chavez has funneled million of dollars from booming oil profits into programs for the poor, pushed through a new constitution granting new rights to indigenous peoples and established hundreds of state-run cooperatives.

Chavez, who is known as "El Comandante" among his supporters, has emerged as one of Latin America's strongest opponents of U.S.-backed free trade proposals and become an inspiration for like-minded activists throughout the region.

This year's social forum is being held in three countries, including a smaller gathering that ended Monday in Mali and another two months from now in Pakistan.

Some 2,000 events - including seminars, speeches and concerts - will be held across Caracas this week. Well-known speakers include Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, Argentine Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel and former French first lady Danielle Mitterrand.

Venezuela deployed 3,500 soldiers and police across Caracas to help keep security.

from the Daily Mail, 2006-Jan-25:

Galloway's pledge to Saddam's son

George Galloway is at the centre of fresh controversy today as pictures of the Respect MP apparently laughing and joking with Saddam Hussein's son Uday have emerged.

A video showing Galloway shaking Uday's hand and vowing to stick with him "until the end" has been passed to the Sun newspaper.

Uday is believed to have been responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of Iraqis before he was shot dead by US troops in 2003.

Pictures have previously been published of Galloway meeting Saddam Hussein in 1994, when he told the dictator: "Sir, allow me to salute your courage."

But the Sun says the new video of Galloway and Uday was made in 1999 during a visit by Galloway to an Iraqi palace.

The newspaper reports Galloway spent 20 minutes with Uday at the end of a tour to highlight Galloway's Mariam Appeal, a cause to raise money for an ill Iraqi girl.

During the meeting, Galloway reportedly joked with Uday about losing weight and going bald, ordering journalists not to publish parts of their conversation.

Eviction

The video emerges on the day Galloway faces eviction from reality TV show, Celebrity Big Brother.

Up for nomination with fellow housemates Chantelle Houghton and Dennis Rodman, Galloway is a dead cert to leave the house and has been warned to expect ridicule when he returns to Parliament.

MPs have been lining up to poke fun at Galloway over his appearance on the reality show.

The former Labour politician has dressed up in a skin-tight red catsuit and pretended to be a cat licking milk from Rula Lenska's lap.

Labour MP Steve Pound told Channel 4's Richard and Judy: "He's gone from imitating a cat to wearing a catsuit. Next he'll be advertising cat food. I actually feel sorry for him because that's the only future he's got.

"When he returns to the House of Commons there is going to be such a chorus of 'Meow'. He'll have a saucer of milk waiting for him and a litter tray."

But some good news awaits the MP. The Daily Telegraph newspaper has lost its appeal against a £150,000 libel award for an article claiming Galloway had received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Had the Telegraph won the appeal, Galloway could have faced a bill of up to £2million.

from the Times of London, 2006-Jan-25, by Lewis Smith:

Galloway may face charges over new Iraq documents

SERIOUS Fraud Office investigators are trying to determine whether George Galloway should face charges in connection with the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal, it was reported yesterday.

A four-strong team is said to have returned from the US having been given access to thousands of documents, including bank records, relating to the affair. Reports published in America have suggested that large payments, laundered through the Oil-for-Food programme, were made by Saddam Hussein to Mr Galloway's wife and to his political campaign organisation.

Mr Galloway, who was shut up in the Big Brother house yesterday and thus unable to comment on the involvement of the Fraud Office, has repeatedly denied accepting such payments and last year travelled to the US Senate to defend himself. He is predicted to be evicted from the house tonight.

During his time there Mr Galloway has been ridiculed for pretending to be a cat and for wearing a leotard. His housemates turned on him yesterday after he launched a tirade of insults at fellow contestants. He was seen sitting alone reading the Communist Manifesto.

The Fraud Office's involvement comes a month after the Charity Commission announ- ced that it had begun a new inquiry into the Miriam Appeal, a fund set up by Mr Galloway to help sick Iraqi children. Investigators, the commission said, had been told to establish if any of the money paid to the appeal originated from the Oil-for Food programme.

A commission spokesman said in December: “The inquiry will also establish what is the legal status of these funds and examine the extent to which the trustees discharged their duties and responsibilities in accepting them.

“This is a different focus from the original inquiries opened in 2003. These inquiries examined how funds donated to the appeal were expended and whether the Mariam Appeal should have been registered as a charity.”

The commission took its decision after reports by the US Senate and the UN Independent Inquiry Committee into Oil-for-Food. Both reports, and the evidence on which they are based, are expected to feature prominently in documents being examined by the Fraud Office.

Previously he has insisted: “How many times must I repeat this: I've never had a penny through oil deals and no one has produced a shred of evidence that I have.”

He was expected to miss the court judgment today of the appeal by the Daily Telegraph against the £150,000 libel award it was ordered to pay Mr Galloway, after a jury ruled that it was guilty of libel by claiming in 2003 that Mr Galloway had taken cash from Saddam.

from the Canadian Press via the Toronto Sun, 2005-Nov-21:

Hatred blinds U.S. to truth: Journalist

Four years after 9/11 and the 'crazy zeitgeist' that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says.

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.

'The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing,' Matthews said.

'If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil [emphasis is the AMPP editor's] -- they just have a different perspective.'

He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that have built up worldwide animosity against his administration. "

from the Canadian Press via Macleans.ca, 2005-Nov-29, by Colin Perkel:

Christian group blames kidnapping of Cdns in Iraq on U.S., British aggression

TORONTO - American and British aggression in Iraq is to blame for the hostage-taking of four pacifists, including two Canadians, who were paraded on international television through al-Jazeera video footage, the Christian Peacemaker Teams said Tuesday.

The four were snatched at gunpoint on Saturday in a dangerous part of Baghdad by a group calling itself the Swords of Righteousness Brigade, which said the hostages were spies working undercover as Christian peace activists.

"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people," Christian Peacemaker Teams said in a statement.

The organization identified the Canadians as Jim Loney, 41, a Toronto community worker, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, formerly a McGill University student in Montreal who has most recently been studying literature at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

The other hostages are Briton Norman Kember, 74, of London, and American Tom Fox, 54, of Clearbrook, Va.

"We were very saddened to see the images of our loved ones on Al-Jazeera television," the group said.

"Repeated showing of it will endanger the lives of our friends."

On the election trail in Ottawa, Prime Minister Paul Martin said the government of Canada was "reaching out" to the families of the hostages.

"I can assure Canadians that there is no more urgent priority than the safe return of our citizens," Martin said.

"I have instructed the minister of foreign affairs and the clerk of the Privy Council to make certain that the full resources of the government of Canada are made available to this end."

While a spokesman for Christian Peacemaker Teams expressed relief that the four seemed in good health, he strenuously rejected the kidnappers' claim that the hostages were spies and evangelicals.

The four were "absolutely" not in Iraq to spread the Christian faith, said Rob Holmes.

Holmes was not able to say whether there had been any contact with the kidnappers.

"Our team in Baghdad is working on that," he said.

Canadian terrorism expert Eric Margolis said negotiating the hostages' release is "a very delicate business" that would more likely succeed if the perpetrators were criminals rather than ideologically motivated, he said.

"The criminals would eventually approach whatever authorities they could find to ransom these people back so at least they could be brought back alive," Margolis said.

"If they've been kidnapped by one of the militant extremist resistance groups who are ideological, then these people are in bigger trouble because the kidnappers might want to kill them to set an example."

Dan McTeague, whose position as parliamentary secretary disappeared with Tuesday's election call, noted that Canadian Fadi Fadel was kidnapped in Iraq in April last year and accused of spying for Israel.

"Great efforts were made to prove that this was not the case and he was subsequently released."

Loney, who was the team leader in Baghdad, is a longtime advocate for the homeless.

"Just as soldiers are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the state, as a Christian who believes in non-violence, I am prepared to make the same sacrifice for my non-violent beliefs," Loney said in an interview before he first headed to Iraq three years ago.

"He's a deeply compassionate person," said Sarah Shepherd, a friend of Loney's for the past 10 years.

"He's got a real sense of how important it is to be in solidarity and support of everybody who is in need or is marginalized."

Standing outside Loney's west-end home in Toronto, a woman, who declined to give her name, said "all we can do is pray."

Sooden is said to be passionate about the plight of the underprivileged around the globe.

"That would not surprise me that he went to help somebody," said Allison Reay, manager of his school residence in Auckland.

"He seems to get on well with everybody that he comes across . . . I'm absolutely upset, floored."

Kember is a lifelong pacifist who taught medical students before his retirement. Fox is a Quaker who has worked with the peacemaker organization for the past two years.

The video on Al-Jazeera showed the four men and Kember's British passport. It had a date stamp indicating it was recorded Sunday.

The corner of the video showed two crossed black swords and the name of the insurgent group written in red Arabic script.

Christian Peacemaker Teams is an ecumenical pacifist group that has opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Based in Toronto and Chicago, the international group sends peacemakers to various hot spots in an effort to reduce violence.

The group currently has five projects around the world, with a team in Iraq since October 2002.

"We are some of the few internationals left in Iraq who are telling the truth about what is happening to the Iraqi people," the group said.

Its peacemakers know the risks, the group said, and "does not advocate the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a conflict situation."

Insurgents in Iraq have seized more than 225 people, killing at least 38 over the past two years.

from CNN.com, 2005-Dec-6:

Group makes another plea for hostages' release
Abductors say they will kill them Thursday if demands aren't met

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Hoping to dissuade the hostage takers from killing four peace activists on Thursday -- as they have reportedly threatened -- Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq issued another appeal Tuesday.

"It is our most sincere wish that you will immediately release them unharmed," the group said in its statement. "We are very concerned about our friends. We would very much like to know that they are in good condition."

American Tom Fox, Briton Norman Kember and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Sooden were kidnapped in Iraq on November 26. A video aired by Arabic-language news network Al-Jazeera shows the kidnappers threatening to kill the foursome unless all prisoners in U.S. and Iraqi detention centers are released.

The group, which has been stressing its opposition to "the invasion and occupation of Iraq," said in its statement that while it does not support kidnapping, it does not condemn the kidnappers for their actions.

"We recognize the humanity in each person, and respect it very much. This includes you, our colleagues, and all people," the statement said. "Perhaps you are men who only want to raise the issue of illegal detention. We don't know what you may have endured."

Saying "we also condemn our own governments for their actions in Iraq," the group said it wants to be a "force that counters all the resentment, the fear, the intimidation felt by the Iraqi people.

"Please, we appeal to your humanity to show mercy on our brothers and let them come back safely to us to continue our work. May God spare our friends, and all the people of Iraq any further suffering."

Another statement on the group's Web site, attributed to Fox's daughter, states, "I want to be able to communicate just how loved my father is, but more than that, I just want to hug him."

On Saturday, the Iraq Islamic Party, the country's main Sunni political group, joined Christian Peacemaker Teams in urging the abductors to release the activists.

from the Associated Press, 2006-Mar-23, by Bassem Mroue:

U.S., British Forces Rescue Iraq Hostages

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Without firing a shot, U.S. and British forces stormed a house Thursday and freed three Christian peace activists who were bound but unguarded, ending a four-month hostage ordeal that saw an American in the group killed and dumped along a railroad track.

The U.S. ambassador and the top American military spokesman held out hope the operation on the outskirts of Baghdad could lead to a break in the captivity of American reporter Jill Carroll, a freelance writer for The Christian Science Monitor who was abducted Jan. 7.

The military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, said the 8 a.m. rescue of the Briton and two Canadians from a "kidnapping cell" was based on information divulged by a man during interrogation only three hours earlier. The man was captured by U.S. forces on Wednesday night.

A senior Iraqi military officer told The Associated Press, however, that the operation had been under way for two days in the Abu Ghraib suburb west of Baghdad, site of the notorious prison. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position, said U.S. and British forces refused to give him other details.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canadian forces also took part in the rescue operation, although their precise role was unclear.

But the joyful news was tempered by violence that raged throughout Iraq as the day wore on. Fifty-eight people were killed in execution-style slayings, bombings and gun battles. For the third straight day, Sunni insurgents hit a major police and jail facility - this time with a suicide car bombing that killed 25 in central Baghdad.

Lynch claimed a reinforced U.S. and Iraqi security presence in the capital had prevented car bombings on five recent consecutive days, but acknowledged that attacks "surged today."

No kidnappers were present when the troops broke into the house where the peace activists were discovered with their hands tied.

"They were bound, they were together, there were no kidnappers in the areas," Lynch told a news briefing.

The freed men were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men - members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams - were kidnapped Nov. 26 along with an American colleague, Tom Fox, 54.

Fox's body was found this month, shot and dumped in western Baghdad.

"We remember with tears Tom Fox," group co-director Doug Pritchard said in Toronto. "We had longed for the day when all four men would be released together. Our gladness today is bittersweet by the fact that Tom is not alive to join his colleagues in the celebration."

The three freed members of Christian Peacemaker Teams were taken to a hospital for observation in Baghdad but were released in good condition, the organization said from the Iraqi capital.

British Embassy spokeswoman Lisa Glover said the men would be flown out of Baghdad in the next few days. She said Kember was in "reasonable condition" and spent the day "relaxing and talking to British authorities."

Kember's wife, Pat, said she had spoken with her husband on the phone.

"He was very, very pleased to be free, but he was very emotional in talking to me. I think he must be very worried about me and the family," she told New Zealand's Radio Live in an interview replayed by the British Broadcasting Corp.

Speaking from her north London home, she said his decision to go to Iraq was "a bit silly," but added "I knew that he felt he must do something and he's getting old, and if he (didn't) do something ... it would be too late."

Loney's brother, Ed, told CBC television that his mother had spoken with James on the phone and that he sounded "fantastic" though "he's lost quite a bit of weight."

"He's alert and he was asking how we were doing and said he was sorry for the whole situation," Ed Loney said. "My mom said, 'Don't worry about it - just get home and we'll talk about all that stuff when you get here.' "

He told CNN that he later spoke directly with his brother, who was "having a lovely chicken dinner with potatoes and a nice soup" and "told me about being rescued and seeing the light of day and smelling the outside air."

Ed Loney also said his brother told him he was well taken care of.

"He was always warm and always fed and things like that. He was more worried about boredom. ... I think that was probably the worst part of it, from what he said."

The Christian Peacemaker Teams volunteers have been in Iraq since October 2002, investigating allegations of abuse against Iraqi detainees by coalition forces. The group says its teams promote peaceful solutions in conflict zones.

Pritchard called for coalition forces to leave the country.

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq," he said.

The kidnapped men were shown as prisoners in several videos, the most recent a silent clip dated Feb. 28 in which Loney, Kember and Sooden appeared without Fox, whose body was found March 10.

The previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades claimed responsibility for the kidnappings.

"As we study who could conduct these kinds of operations there seems to be a kidnapping cell that has been robust over the last several months in conducting these kind of kidnappings," Lynch said.

While many insurgent groups and the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist organization have kidnapped and often killed foreigners in Iraq, there also is a heavy criminal element involved in such crimes. Thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped for ransom and some Westerners are believed to have been grabbed by those criminal gangs as well.

Often, it is believed, kidnappers take hostages only for the purposes of selling them into captivity to larger, more organized criminal gangs or insurgent organizations.

The last hostage to be freed in a military operation was Douglas Wood, an Australian rescued in west Baghdad by U.S. and Iraqi forces on June 15, 2005, after 47 days in captivity.

Lynch said there was no new information on Carroll that "I can discuss at this time." But, he said: "There are other operations that continue probably as a result of what we're finding at this time. So you've got to give us the opportunity to work through that."

Carroll has appeared in three videotapes delivered by her kidnappers to Arab television stations, and the deadline her captors set for killing her passed weeks ago without word about her fate.

"My expectation and hope is that the released hostages and the associated activities, in terms of information gathered, could help us bring about her release as well," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said in an interview with Fox News.

from Christian Peacemaker Teams, 2006-Mar-23. from http://www.cpt.org/iraq/response/06-23-03statement.htm:

CPT Statement: CPTers Freed

23 March 2006

Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been freed safely in Baghdad. Christian Peacemaker Teams rejoices with their families and friends at the expectation of their return to their loved ones and community. Together we have endured uncertainty, hope, fear, grief and now joy during the four months since they were abducted in Baghdad.

We rejoice in the return of Harmeet Sooden. He has been willing to put his life on the line to promote justice in Iraq and Palestine as a young man newly committed to active peacemaking.

We rejoice in the return of Jim Loney. He has cared for the marginalized and oppressed since childhood, and his gentle, passionate spirit has been an inspiration to people near and far.

We rejoice in the return of Norman Kember. He is a faithful man, an elder and mentor to many in his 50 years of peacemaking, a man prepared to pay the cost.

We remember with tears Tom Fox, whose body was found in Baghdad on March 9, 2006, after three months of captivity with his fellow peacemakers. We had longed for the day when all four men would be released together. Our gladness today is made bittersweet by the fact that Tom is not alive to join in the celebration. However, we are confident that his spirit is very much present in each reunion.

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families. In the spirit of the prophetic nonviolence that motivated Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom to go to Iraq, we refuse to yield to a spirit of vengeance. We give thanks for the compassionate God who granted our friends courage and who sustained their spirits over the past months. We pray for strength and courage for ourselves so that, together, we can continue the nonviolent struggle for justice and peace.

Throughout these difficult months, we have been heartened by messages of concern for our four colleagues from all over the world. We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day. We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq.

During these past months, we have tasted of the pain that has been the daily bread of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why have our loved ones been taken? Where are they being held? Under what conditions? How are they? Will they be released? When?

With Tom's death, we felt the grief of losing a beloved friend. Today, we rejoice that our friends Harmeet, Jim and Norman have been freed safely. We continue to pray for a swift and joyful homecoming for the many Iraqis and internationals who long to be reunited with their families. We renew our commitment to work for an end to the war and the occupation of Iraq as a way to continue the witness of Tom Fox. We trust in God's compassionate love to show us the way.

Living through the many emotions of this day, we remain committed to the words of Jim Loney, who wrote:

"With God's abiding kindness, we will love even our enemies.
With the love of Christ, we will resist all evil.
With God's unending faithfulness, we will work to build the beloved community."

from the Sunday Times of London via the Australian, 2006-Mar-27, by David Leppard:

Pacifist hostage thanks his rescuers, reluctantly

London -- FREED British hostage Norman Kember arrived home at the weekend, and tried to defuse a row over his response to the SAS mission that rescued him.

Speaking at Heathrow airport after being reunited with his wife Pat, the retired professor of medical physics issued a statement to address criticism that he had failed to thank his rescuers.

"I do not believe a lasting peace is achieved by armed force, but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my rescue," he said.

Mr Kember was responding to remarks by General Mike Jackson, chief of the British general staff, who suggested he had failed to thank the SAS and other troops for rescuing him and two other hostages after four months in captivity.

Before his capture, Mr Kember had said that if he were kidnapped he did not want to be rescued by the military. Thanking the people of many faiths who had prayed for his release, Mr Kember said the world should focus on the plight of the ordinary suffering Iraqis.

"It is the ordinary people of Iraq you should be talking to - the people who have suffered so much over many years and still await the stable and just society they deserve," said Mr Kember, 74. And the relatives of British soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq should not be forgotten.

But the brevity of his tribute to his rescuers fuelled the row over the attitude of his group, the pacifist Christian Peacemakers Teams, to the rescue mission.

Sources close to the SAS said the peace activists who sponsored Mr Kember's visit to Iraq repeatedly failed to co-operate with special forces trying to locate and rescue him. They said that after he was kidnapped last November, the religious group declined to provide information that could have helped find him.

Well-placed sources said members of the Canadian group in Baghdad failed to provide the SAS with the number of the mobile phone Mr Kember was using on the day he was kidnapped, which could have helped trace his last movements.

Doug Pritchard, co-director of the CPT worldwide, said the group had refused to meet any of the military rescue team, preferring to deal with diplomats.

"We said from the outset we didn't want a military raid and we wouldn't work with the military," he said. Relations with the British embassy became tense after members of the group told officials it was reluctant to enter the green zone, and declined to allow diplomats with military escorts to visit their offices outside the zone.

Mr Kember was freed last Thursday after 50 soldiers, led by the SAS, stormed a house in the outskirts of western Baghdad. He had been held for 119 days.

Two Canadians, Harmeet Sooden, 33, and Jim Loney, 41, were also rescued. The body of Tom Fox, 54, an American who was taken hostage with them, was found in Baghdad earlier this month. He had been shot.

The CPT is opposed to the US-led forces in Iraq and has accused them of illegally detaining thousands of Iraqis. Security sources claimed that when Mr Kember and the other two hostages were taken to the British embassy after their release, they refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them.

Mr Kember said in his statement: "I am not ready at this time to talk about my months of captivity except to say I am delighted to be free and reunited with my family. In reality it was my wife who was kidnapped last November. She suffered more than I, because while I knew I was alive and well, she did not.

"I thank all who supported Pat during this stressful time. I now need to reflect on my experience - was I foolhardy or rational? - and also to enjoy freedom in peace and quiet."

from Reuters, 2005-Dec-7:

Daughter of U.S. hostage in Iraq appeals for his life

WASHINGTON - The daughter of an American hostage in Iraq appealed for his life in an interview on Tuesday, telling his captors that killing him would not advance their cause.

Katherine Fox's father, Tom Fox of Clearbrook, Virginia, is one of four Western aid workers that a group calling itself "Swords of Truth" has threatened to kill unless Iraqi detainees are released by Thursday.

In a transcript of an interview with ABC's "Nightline" programme, Fox said her father was in Iraq working on behalf of Iraqi detainees and their families.

She said she wanted to remind her father's captors that he opposed the U.S. occupation of Iraq and had campaigned against it.

"And that the work that he is there to do is the same work that they would like to see done. And that I do not think a loss of his life benefits their cause," Fox said.

Fox rejected the view of conservative radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh that for her father to be in Iraq without protection was essentially asking for trouble.

"I don't think that he even saw it as asking for trouble. He saw a need." she said. "There is a need to help the Iraqi people, especially at a time when so many organisations are no longer able to be present because of the danger."

Tom Fox, 54, was kidnapped along with two Canadians and a Briton last month in Western Baghdad. The four worked for Christian Peacemaker Teams, one of the few remaining aid groups operating in Iraq.

The group that claimed responsibility kidnapping them posted a video last month of the four men and accused them of being "spies working for the occupying forces" under the guise of a Christian group.

Christian Peacemaker Teams identified the other three hostages as Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and Briton Norman Kember, a 74-year-old retired professor and peace activist.

Katherine Fox deplored the kidnapping but said she knew that her father does not support violence as a way of resolving the hostages' dilemma.

"Before he left, he wrote a very concise, precise statement of conscience and conviction that if he were ever to be taken hostage that he does not support violent means to come in and to potentially release, to rescue him," she said.

from the San Jose Mercury News, 2005-Nov-4, by Jack Chang (Knight Ridder):

Latin America's leading leftists rally in protest of Bush

MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - Latin America's radical left took to the streets Friday as populist figures such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez rallied thousands of faithful just before a meeting of the hemisphere's heads of state.

In a speech lasting more than two hours, Chavez unsparingly criticized President Bush and his policies in the region and said Latin America was uniting against the "imperialism of the north."

"We are creating a great political body in the south, and not only geographically," said the Venezuelan leader, whom U.S. officials have accused of subverting democracy in his country. "This is the great task of our region, to create a consensus of `the South' that will bring better lives to all our people."

Chavez repeated charges that the United States was planning to invade his oil-rich South American country and promised to defend it in a "war of 100 years." U.S. officials have denied making any such plans.

Chavez spoke in the city's sports stadium after more than 10,000 people held a peaceful anti-Bush march Friday morning through the seaside city of 600,000.

Confrontations between protesters and police erupted after Chavez's speech that afternoon just as the Organization of American States summit was getting under way.

Teargas fired by police filled several city blocks, and protesters set at least two properties on fire with Molotov cocktails.

About 10,000 security personnel were in the city protecting meeting spots in hotels and other facilities along the city's waterfront. Whole sections of the city were hidden behind rings of barricades and police.

Bush's presence appeared to be the target of much of the protest.

After arriving in Mar del Plata by train Friday morning, Argentine soccer legend Diego Maradona and Bolivian peasant leader Evo Morales wasted no time slamming the U.S. president.

Minutes after pulling into the train station, Maradona told the news media that Bush was "garbage," and he sported a T-shirt ridiculing him the rest of the day.

Morales, who's the front-runner in Bolivia's Dec. 18 presidential elections, said he found common cause with Chavez and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who are persistent critics of U.S. policies.

Morales walked at the front of Friday morning's 3.5-mile march down Avenida Independencia, flanked by other leftist figures such as Chilean presidential candidate Thomas Hirsch and Argentine federal Deputy Miguel Bonasso.

"Bush is not welcome in Latin America or anywhere in the world," Morales said. "His neoliberal (pro free market) policies are hurting our people, and countries all over Latin America are embarking in a new direction."

Chavez took the stage around 1 p.m. in the full stadium, which had a capacity of 38,000, organizers said. Cuban singer Silvio Rodriguez warmed up the crowd, while a cold, steady rain fell.

A giant banner of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary and Argentine native, hung from the roof.

Chavez said he'd talked to Castro shortly before speaking and received emotional words of encouragement from the 79-year-old leader.

In the crosshairs of Chavez and many protesters was the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the hemisphere-wide trade pact that the Bush administration is pushing over the objections of Argentina, Brazil and other regional countries.

Chavez said the proposed free-trade area would open countries to exploitation by foreign companies, and he promised to help kill the plan at the meeting.

"Here in Mar del Plata is the tomb of FTAA," Chavez said. "The people of Latin America will be the ones who bury FTAA."

Chavez also pledged to launch a Latin America-wide campaign to end hunger in a decade and promised to invest $10 billion of public Venezuelan funds.

Brash rhetoric has made Chavez a potent symbol in Latin America for resistance to U.S. policies such as the war in Iraq and open markets, said Chilean singer Francisco Villa, who attended Chavez's speech.

"He is about a cult of personality," Villa said. "But he is also popular because he represents an idea."

from the Associated Press, 2005-Oct-17, by Ariel David:

Mugabe, Chavez slam U.S. at U.N. event
Zimbabwe leader compares Bush, Blair to Hitler, Mussolini

ROME, Italy -- The leaders of Zimbabwe and Venezuela on Monday denounced President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "unholy men," and blamed the United States and other developed countries for world hunger, pollution and war.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez turned their speeches at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization into tirades, with the African leader describing Blair and Bush as "two unholy men of our millennium."

Chavez accused what he called "the North American empire" of threatening "all life on the planet," while Mugabe compared Bush and Blair, for their alliance in the war in Iraq, to Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini, who were World War II allies.

U.S. representatives at the U.N. organization's gathering in Rome said Mugabe and Chavez made "a mockery" of the occasion with their scathing remarks.

The gathering, a day after the United Nations marked World Food Day, commemorated the organization's 60th anniversary.

The verbal attacks by Chavez and Mugabe drew cheers and applause from many of the delegates. The organization has 188 members.

"These leaders chose to politicize an event that was meant to be about feeding the hungry people of the world," Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to U.N. food agencies, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

"Mugabe, especially, should not have been invited," Hall said. "He would be the last person, I think, an organization should invite to talk about hunger."

A defiant Mugabe defended the land reforms blamed for ruining the country's agriculture-based economy and contributing to widespread famine there. Agreement avoids restrictions

The European Union has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe's political elite that include travel restrictions. But an agreement between Italy and the U.N. agency allows all delegations to go to the organization's headquarters, FAO spokesman Nick Parsons said.

Despite the restrictions, Mugabe has been allowed to do some travel in the countries that imposed the sanctions, including U.N. General Assembly sessions in New York.

The seizure of white-owned commercial farms in the past five years and prolonged drought have crippled Zimbabwe's agriculture-based economy. About 4 million Zimbabweans are in urgent need of food aid in what was once a regional breadbasket, according to U.N. estimates.

Recent constitutional changes in Zimbabwe will prevent white owners of confiscated farms from recovering their land and could be used to strip critics of their passports and the right to travel.

Mugabe defended the land reforms as "redressing the past gross imbalances in land ownership which were institutionalized by British colonialism."

"Countries such as the U.S. and Britain have taken it upon themselves to decide for us in the developing world, even to interfere in our domestic affairs and to bring about what they call regime change," he said.

Chavez praised Mugabe's land reform, saying the African leader had been "demonized" and that similar reforms were being enacted in his own country.

The Venezuelan leader used his speech to rail against woes that he blamed on rich countries -- including climate change, agricultural trade barriers and debt interest payments by developing nations. He called for wealthy nations to cancel debt, or give poor countries a grace period of at least a year on the interest payments. Brazilian president focuses on hunger

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva appealed to rich countries to put hunger on their political agendas. He also suggested poor countries should stamp out the corruption that often diverts aid.

"The poor countries must give an example of honesty, of ethics, so that we truly deserve the solidarity from millions and millions of people who would like to contribute but sometimes are not sure their money will go where it should go," the Brazilian leader said.

The U.N. agency said it had signed a deal with Brazil to run food programs for schoolchildren in developing countries around the world.

from Powerline Blog, 2005-Aug-29, by Curt Loftis:

From the Belly of the Beast

Reader Curt Loftis spent two days in Crawford, Texas, carrying out a first-hand reconnaissance of the anti-American forces assembled there. He writes:

I arrived at the original Camp Casey at 2:30 in the afternoon. It was hot and dry and the assembled demonstrators were in a melancholy state. I quickly made friends, stressing “cocktail” conversation, not political discussion. My goal was not confrontation, but a desire to understand what was actually happening here in Crawford…and being incognito was the only way this would happen.
After bonding with several nice ladies from the central coast of California, I drove with these new buddies to the larger, tented camp where Ms. Sheehan and Company was to be found. There I found a well funded, well orchestrated public relations campaign, run by media professionals complete with the highest quality electronic equipment available. From Satellite trucks and cell phone to wireless computer access, every modern convenience to enhance the “message” was there…and being used by left wing, socialist and Marxist (self-described) media representatives and Bloggers.

Most of the Sheehan protesters were either professional (paid staff of Fenton Communications or the radical organization Code Pink or the like), or were long time protesters, some admitting to beginning vigils against the government as early as 1965. I had conversations with approximately 50 of these people over 48 hours, and all seemed like interesting and engaging people. We talked sports, and cars and how wonderful California is, and just about everything that could be discussed without my divulging that I am a conservative. But when “scratched” just a little with some mild political talk, they all responded the same way…”it is America's fault”. No matter what the issue, each and every one of them had the same default…”bad things are America’s fault”.

Toward the end of my time there, I decided to innocently toss into the conversation different issues just to elicit a response. One issue I politely deposited into our talks was of the peasant unrest in rural China, and the brutality shown to the peasants by the government and their hired thugs. There response to this problem was…”well, look how we treated the blacks in America”, or, “gays are being beaten every day in America”.

So the cliché of the “hate America” crowd is indeed true. It is as if the protesters were intellectually bulimic, and having ingested all of the hate America bile, they looked forward to regurgitating it as a show of their steadfastness to their cause of peace and love.

Cindy Sheehan spent most of her time huddled with VIPS in and air-conditioned trailer. When she ventured out it was for a scripted and often televised moment. She was always trailed by her media people, and they were quick to keep her on point. During one conversation I had with her I tried to ask her a pointed question about how much time she would actually be on the bus tour to Washington (I had discovered she would only be on the tour for two days, and would be away giving speeches during the rest of the trip…and I wondered if she were being paid for these speeches) Her media person grabbed her arm and led her back to the trailer, and away from me. The message was protected. I was left standing there…alone, and feeling a little less secure about my status at Camp Casey.

But just a few minutes later, she emerged from the trailer, smiling, and performing for the cameras. Like the chicken at the local carnival that plays tic tac toe, she eagerly performs for any microphone. She is relentless, and professional, well financed and on message.

And the message is “All things bad are America’s fault."

from NewsMax, 2005-Sep-27, by Steve Malzberg:

Laura Bush and Hitler's Dog

Three Fridays ago I did what I had considered to be my professional responsibility. I watched and rolled tape on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." I believe that someone in my capacity as conservative talk show host, pundit and talking head should keep an eye on folks who are generally obnoxious yet tame in their remarks when confined to over-the-air TV appearances, to document how they oftentimes cannot resist the urge to reveal their true selves while experiencing the freedoms presented by cable TV.

After all, how many people with my job description could be watching this pathetic hate-fest on HBO in the middle of the night, I wondered.

This past Friday I did the same thing for the third consecutive week. But by now I have come to view this as less of a responsibility and more of a choice as to how I wish to spend my leisure time.

You see, during the first week the thought occurred to me that I might have to make use of the facilities in a way that I haven't had to do since high school. But in the ensuing weeks that thought has not entered my mind. Nor have I had to take any medication for a reflexive rise in blood pressure.

For I have now come to view the hateful, obscene rantings and ravings of Maher and his leftist guests as words of desperation from those who are destroying themselves and their political goals through their own anger and hatred, and I'm actually finding it fascinating.

On Friday's show, Bill Maher compared Laura Bush to Hitler's dog and the president to Hitler. Of course, this occurred only after Maher showed his viewers phony pictures which he said indicate that President Bush is drinking again.

One picture showed Mr. Bush's face with the words "pussy" and "pussy lightweight" written over it with a marker. A second picture showed model Kate Moss, who was recently snapped while snorting cocaine, doing just that off of what appears to be the naked buttocks of George Bush.

Yet another "photo" designed to show that the president may be drinking again showed first lady Laura Bush with a black eye and a bandage above her eyebrow. (A week earlier on the same show, the lovely and talented Joy Behar of "The View" said that George Bush is like a guy who beats the sh** out of his wife and then shows up with a flower to say he's sorry.)

The final photo had the president's face superimposed onto the well-known mug shot of actor Nick Nolte.

After the photo display, the host was taken to task by guest Christopher Hitchens, who decided he was going to make an attempt to defend the president: "It must be to his credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman."

But Hitchens was interrupted by Maher who blurted out: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason. ..."

At that point Hitchens jumped in: "I think tomorrow you might be sorry you said that. Laura Bush is very gentle and talented." (Folks, don't count on the mainstream media telling anyone about this. Maher will have no reason to be sorry he said it.)

Maher then said, "That's not what I'm saying, of course she is, but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous."

Hitchens then said of Laura: "She got him to give up the booze, and he owes her for that. I think it's nasty to be mean to Laura Bush."

Of course Maher denied that he was. Instead he claimed that he was directing his meanness in the direction of the president. But Hitchens wasn't amused: "You're being ungallant about Laura Bush, you've compared her to Hitler's dog. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that."

Then Hitchens added this closing shot on the issue: "Hitler was everything you want. Hitler was a teetotaler, a vegetarian and a non-smoker." Go get him, Chris!

What I have found is that Maher's show has become THE place to show just how far off the left end you have fallen. Three Fridays ago, George Carlin, who used to be a comic, was one of the guests. This was his gratuitous shot at our president:

"Governor Bush, and I call him that because it's really the last thing he was elected to ... when he reaches his Christian heaven I think he will have a lot to answer for." As for the president's mother, Carlin told Maher, "The silver douche bag I call her."

Needless to say, that was enough to elicit a hearty roar from the audience, a broad grin and chuckle from fellow guest Cynthia Tucker, columnist from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a good laugh from the host himself.

In bringing up the subject of Barbara Bush and some controversial comments she made about the Katrina refugees who had made their way to Texas, Maher, referring to the president, announced, "The moron doesn't fall too far from the tree."

Where does it end? It doesn't, not on this show. So why not bring on author Kurt Vonnegut to put in his two loony cents? Sure, let's.

Maher starts off the Bush-bashing with "As a writer, when you see President Bush, is there something tragic there, is that a story that appeals to a writer because here's a guy like most tragic figures who's trying very hard to avoid the fate of his father and then he's undone by a war in Iraq and a hurricane?"

"It's a tragedy for me that he's the president of my country," Vonnegut said. "When I show my passport in Spain or Italy or Germany or France or even communist China, what it would say about me is that I'm not only from the richest country in the world but the dumbest country in the world.

"Our president is a tragic figure, perhaps, but he doesn't know diddlysquat about economics, history or science, even how to speak well."

And Kurt did his best to make Al Gore proud. "We are killing the planet as a life support system. We may have gone so far already that there's no recovery from it. The game may be over. ... I think the earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us. And it's high time they did. We are a disease on the face of this planet ... it's time we got out of here. We are a disease on the planet, and I think we ought to become syphilis with a conscience and stop reproducing."

Do I need to go any further here? I think not. Have I made the point that the left is crumbling right before our eyes? I think so. Oh, one bit of good news to leave you with. Maher told Vonnegut that he will do his part and not reproduce.

from the New York Times via the International Herald Tribune, 2001-May-8, by Roger Cohen:

Arrogant or Humble? Bush Encounters Europeans' Hostility

BERLIN Before becoming president, George W. Bush seemed acutely aware of the need for a country as powerful as the United States to show restraint.

"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us," he said. "If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

The words appear to have been forgotten. A torrent of hostile articles in Europe has greeted Mr. Bush's first three months in office. Their chief theme has been the arrogance of what the German weekly Der Spiegel recently called "the snarling, ugly Americans."

On its Web site, the prestigious Munich daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung lists seven articles summing up the themes of Mr. Bush's first 100 days.

They are not unrepresentative of widespread European views. The headlines include:

"Selling Weapons to Taiwan: Bush Throws His Weight Around in the Pacific."

"North Korea: Bush Irritates the Asians."

"World Court: No Support From United States."

"Iraq: Bombing Instead of Diplomacy."

"Climate Agreement: The United States Abandons the Kyoto Protocol."

There can be little doubt that it was irritation over these and other issues that lay behind the vote last week that ousted the United States from the UN Human Rights Commission for the first time, while leaving countries like Algeria and Libya as elected members.

Speaking in Berlin on Sunday, Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. chief delegate to the United Nations, described the administration's foreign policy as "unsmooth" and its handling of environmental issues as "disastrous." But he noted that the Bush team was still taking shape and that transitions always involve difficulties.

Certainly, Mr. Bush's predecessor had problems. In their current irritation, European officials appear to have forgotten that the president whose absence they now seem to rue - Bill Clinton - infuriated them in his first year in office by appearing to pay scant attention to the Continent, dithering over Bosnia, and long delaying his first visit.

These officials, and particularly the French, also seem inclined to overlook the fact that discomfort or irritation with the extent of post-Cold-War American power - military, political, economic and cultural - has been running high for some time.

Well before Mr. Bush's arrival in office, France began referring to the United States as a "hyperpower."

Other countries, from Russia to China, have also made much of the need for "counterbalances" to U.S. power. In this sense, any missteps by the Republican administration have provided ammunition for a gun already partly loaded.

But Mr. Bush's apparent insensitivity to European concerns on a broad range of issues - he has never visited London or Paris or Berlin - has clearly opened the way for a season of America-bashing.

Celebrating the record number of votes - 52 out of a possible 53 - that were won by France in the election that ousted the United States from the UN Human Rights Commission, Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to the United Nations, attributed his country's success to a French foreign policy that was "founded on dialogue and respect."

The message was clear: The embarrassing snub to the United States could be attributed to a seeming absence of "dialogue and respect" in the Bush administration's approach to the outside world.

In their glee at U.S. discomfort over the vote, the Chinese used language similar to that of the French. The ousting, for China, showed that the United States had "undermined the atmosphere for dialogue."

The time has arrived for the United States "to enter into dialogue on equal footing with other countries, rich or poor, strong or weak" and to stop using "human rights issues as a tool to pursue its power politics and hegemonism," China said.

Instructions from China on human rights seem certain to raise as many eyebrows in Washington as do tips from France on diplomacy.

But there is little doubt that Mr. Bush's generally more confrontational stance on Russia and China, his apparently slow learning curve on how much the environment matters to Europeans and his lukewarm support for South Korea's so-called "sunshine" policy for improving relations with the North have reinforced a European sense that the United States is a power more inclined than before to ride roughshod over its allies.

When Michael Steiner, the chief diplomatic aide to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, visited Washington earlier this year, he was surprised to find Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, telling him that he must be aware that the only way to get results from the Russians was to be tough with them.

This was one small example of the ways in which the Bush administration seems to be out of step in its thinking with a European Union disinclined to reopen divisions on the Continent and generally more concerned about the quality of food and the environment than possible security threats from Moscow or North Korea.

But Karl Kaiser, a German foreign policy analyst, said he thought awareness of these differences was growing in the Bush administration, and he questioned whether there was any deep justification for European anxieties.

He noted that Mr. Bush's recent policy speech on a possible missile defense shield was marked by extreme sensitivity to allied and Russian concerns.

The anti-missile project, Mr. Kaiser went on, is no longer "national" but intended to help all friendly countries; it will be built only after thorough consultation.

"Through this speech, Bush clearly differentiated himself from the Republican right wing and marked a return to the mainstream of multilateralism," Mr. Kaiser said.

How far such a "return" will go remains to be seen; currents of unilateralism seem far stronger in this administration than in any for some time. But it does seem clear that the speech reflected the concern of Colin Powell's State Department - the one office of the Bush administration that has been spared the harsh criticism reserved in Europe for the Pentagon and the White House.

One particular target of European criticism has been Mr. Bush's policy toward China, and particularly his strong expressions of support for Taiwan that have been widely viewed as unnecessarily provocative. Europe, like Russia, has been concerned that the United States is throwing its weight around in a reckless manner.

But Jim Lilley, a former U.S. ambassador to China, said that while it was fair to say, "Until you get your act together, you are going to cause some concern," the Europeans had overstated the dangers.

"The fact is China and Taiwan are moving together economically," he said. In the end, it may be style as much as substance that is causing the growing hostility to the United States.

The revival of some Cold War language under Mr. Bush and the emergence into clearer view of another America more concerned with itself and quite at ease with the death penalty has come as a shock to many outside the country.

In Britain the other day, The Guardian described the United States' position on the death penalty as "morally untenable." Of course, this position may be many things, but it is scarcely "untenable," just as the United States' human rights record may have blemishes but is hardly comparable to that of Algeria.

But that is not the point. The fact is that Mr. Bush has contrived to prove his own theory that arrogance provokes resentment for a country that, long before his arrival, was already the world's most conspicuous and convenient target.

from Investors Business Daily, 2005-Sep-14:

Euro-Gloaters

Media: Far and wide, but mostly in Europe, the world's media see Katrina's devastation as a sign of America's cultural inferiority and social backwardness. But let's look at the facts.

'The Shaming Of America," reads The Economist's headline. French left-wing daily Le Monde's headlines speak of "fractures" in American society. Spain's and Germany's newspapers take turns gleefully blaming President Bush.

No question, people suffered unnecessarily following Katrina. The federal government and state and local officials deserve their share of the blame. We're all for rational, measured criticism from all quarters.

But many among Europe's media and intellectual classes have used a horrible disaster to score cheap debating points against U.S. culture and its way of life. This strikes us not only as false and misguided, but seriously lacking in insight.

After all, wasn't it just two summers ago that Europe let an estimated 40,000 people die during a heat wave -- nearly 15,000 in France alone -- in part because many people couldn't be bothered to return from their August vacations on the Riviera to help Grandmere and Grandpere leave their sweltering apartments?

Despite such shocking failures of the "European model," the region's chattering classes babble on about the "fractures" in American society -- between black and white, rich and poor. This is particularly galling, given Europe's economic failure in recent years.

OK, you want fractures? Europe's fast-growing Muslim population -- now 20 million and growing, unlike the population of the rest of Europe -- is spawning a generation of West-hating terror bombers, like the ones who murdered dozens of innocent Londoners on July 7. France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Spain all share this growing problem.

You want shame? How about Europe ignoring the slaughter of civilians in the Balkans during the 1990s, until the U.S. sent troops and bombers -- without U.N. approval, of course -- to halt the killing? Or German and French complicity in Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein's odious regime? "Shame" isn't strong enough a word.

Even the fixation of Europeans on what they call America's "endemic" poverty strikes a false note. After all, "poor" is itself a relative term. And in recent years, Europe, with its lumbering welfare state, ridiculous taxation, double-digit unemployment and cumbersome rules, has by U.S. standards become increasingly poor.

That's right. Poor. The image of the well-to-do European, driving a luxury sports car, sipping red wine, working short days and enjoying eight weeks of vacation a year will soon be a thing of the past -- if it ever existed in reality. Europe is slipping into genteel poverty.

A study last year by the Swedish think tank Timbro noted this: The EU's 15 main nations, on average, have greater incomes than just four U.S. states. And Americans, on average, consume twice as much in dollar terms than citizens in Europe.

This gap, Timbro noted, isn't narrowing. It's widening.

Europeans have invented a word for the kind of socioeconomic gloating we've seen in recent weeks: "schadenfreude," or joy in the misfortunes of others. Well, here's another word they might want to put into their English-language vocabulary: humility.

from NewsMax.com, 2005-Sep-16, by Carl Limbacher et al.:

Air America Hosts: Farrakhan Not Wrong on Levees

Two hosts at the liberal radio network Air America are defending Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan - saying he's not wrong to suspect that white people deliberately blew up the levees in New Orleans.

"You cannot blame people for coming up with conspiracy theories," Air America host Chuck D. said, after he was asked Thursday about the paranoid pronouncement by MSNBC's Tucker Carlson.

"They look on television and see that the government is four days late in saving people [who are] supposed to be their citizens," Chuck D. explained.

Carlson gave him a second chance to denounce Farrakhan's lunatic declaration, saying, "You're a smart guy. You know that white people didn't blow up the levees to kill black people. You've gotta know that didn't happen."

But the Air America host refused to budge, insisting instead that there was a chance Farrakhan could be right.

"I can't say unless I know for sure what's the actual facts and what's actually false," the rapper-turned-talk host said.

Carlson tried a third time, telling Chuck D.: "Look, I can say for certain that it was not a white conspiracy. White people did not blow up the levee to kill black people."

Still, the radio lefty wouldn't denounce Farrakhan's poisonous rant, saying only, "I don't think it's a person at fault but I think the system needs revamping."

After failing to persuade Chuck D., the MSNBC host turned to panelist Rachel Maddow, who also hosts a show on Air America.

Asked if she believed that white people deliberately destroyed the levees, Maddow declined to render a personal judgment - and instead defended the sentiment behind the toxic hypothesis.

"Conspiracy theories don't necessarily help but you have to understand where they come from," she told Carlson. "They come from people feeling like this disaster had a real racial component. I mean, it was a majority-black city that was absolutely abandoned by the country."

On Monday, Farrakhan uncorked his ugly theory, telling a North Carolina audience: "I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry."

from the Los Angeles Times, 2005-Dec-18, by Nicholas Riccardi, Doug Smith and David Zucchino:

Katrina Killed Across Class Lines

The well-to-do died along with the poor, an analysis of data shows. The findings counter common beliefs that disadvantaged blacks bore the brunt.

The bodies of New Orleans residents killed by Hurricane Katrina were almost as likely to be recovered from middle-class neighborhoods as from the city's poorer districts, such as the Lower 9th Ward, according to a Times analysis of data released by the state of Louisiana.

The analysis contradicts what swiftly became conventional wisdom in the days after the storm hit — that it was the city's poorest African American residents who bore the brunt of the hurricane. Slightly more than half of the bodies were found in the city's poorer neighborhoods, with the remainder scattered throughout middle-class and even some richer districts.

"The fascinating thing is that it's so spread out," said Joachim Singelmann, director of the Louisiana Population Data Center at Louisiana State University. "It's not just the Lower 9th Ward or New Orleans East, which everybody has heard about. It's across the board, including some well-to-do neighborhoods."

Because New Orleans was one of the nation's poorest cities, where more than one in four residents lives below the poverty level, many of the victims were still found in neighborhoods that were impoverished by national standards. But by the standards of New Orleans, those neighborhoods were economically stable, and deaths citywide were distributed with only a slight bias for economic status.

Of the 828 bodies found in New Orleans after the storm, 300 were either recovered from medical facilities or shelters that offer no data on the victim's socioeconomic status, or from locations that the state cannot fully identify. Of the 528 bodies recovered from identifiable addresses in city neighborhoods, 230 came from areas that had household incomes above the citywide median of $27,133. The poorer areas accounted for 298 bodies.

The state official in charge of identifying Katrina's victims, Dr. Louis Cataldie, said he was not surprised by the findings. "We went into $1-million and $2-million homes trying to retrieve people," he said.

The information used in The Times analysis was incomplete, due to difficulties in gathering data in the days after Katrina struck and to bureaucratic problems that followed.

The private company that was contracted to collect bodies was supposed to mark the GPS coordinates of each recovery, but state officials said they soon determined that data was "worthless." They had to reconstruct the locations where bodies were found but in some cases could provide information no more specific than "Canal Street." Although it is the most comprehensive data they have released on storm fatalities, state officials acknowledge that the information is still riddled with errors and probably will be corrected constantly in coming months.

The state data also include locations such as the interchange of I-10 and I-610 where rescuers in motorboats were directed to deposit bodies they found floating in the floodwaters. There is no way to determine where some of those 19 bodies came from, and all have been excluded from The Times analysis.

"The data you have leaves a lot to be desired," Cataldie said in an interview Friday. "I don't know if it'll ever be 100%."

Of the 1,095 people killed by Katrina in Louisiana, the state has formally identified and released demographic data on 535. Many other victims are tentatively identified, though 93 remain unidentifiable. A couple of bodies are recovered every week, and officials say other victims may have been swept into the Gulf of Mexico, never to be found.

Medical and dental records were destroyed by the storm, and many corpses are so severely decomposed that traditional identification methods such as fingerprints are useless.

Even with the majority of the bodies identified, the state is unable to determine when most died, or how. Many death certificates bear the date of Katrina's landfall — Aug. 29 — even though the victim could have died days later. Given the severity of damage suffered by bodies in the floodwaters, cause of death is also extremely difficult to determine and will never be known for many victims, Cataldie said.

New Orleans was the site of most of Katrina's fatalities; the state reported that 76% of storm deaths statewide occurred in the city. Of the 380 bodies from New Orleans that have been formally identified, a moderately disproportionate number are white. New Orleans' population was 28% white, yet 33% of the identified victims in the city are white and 67% black.

"The affected population is more multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural than one might discern from national media reports," said Richard Campanella, a Tulane University geographer who has studied which parts of the city were hit the worst by flooding. His research showed that predominantly white districts in the city were almost as likely to flood as predominantly black ones.

Campanella said he was not surprised at the even distribution of bodies between the city's poorer and more affluent neighborhoods. He noted that 70% of the identified Katrina victims in New Orleans were older than 60, frequently lifelong residents who had ridden out other hurricanes and refused to evacuate. Elderly people are more likely to be wealthier and to live in wealthier neighborhoods.

Many of the city's wealthier neighborhoods sit on Lake Pontchartrain in the lowest-lying sector of town, Campanella said. For example, Lakeview, a predominately white neighborhood that contains mansions valued at more than $1 million in addition to crowded streets studded with modest bungalows, fronts the lake and is adjacent to the 17th Street Canal. When the levee collapsed, the neighborhood was destroyed. The only neighborhood with comparable destruction, the Lower 9th Ward, sits on higher ground but was unluckily flanked by two broken levees.

Katrina "really knew no bounds," said Ashley Casey, an aide to Lakeview Councilman John Batt. "I don't think it's over yet in any neighborhood."

Singelmann, of the Louisiana Population Data Center, said New Orleans was unique among American cities because, despite pockets of poverty in places such as the Lower 9th Ward, the city was remarkable for its integration of blacks and whites of different incomes living in close proximity.

He cited Read Boulevard East, a neighborhood of expensive new homes clustered around a 36-acre lake, as well as streets of more modest homes owned by middle-class whites and blacks. The data indicate a high concentration of recovered bodies from the neighborhood.

On the other hand, Singelmann said, poor African American neighborhoods that straddle the prosperous Garden District show a much higher concentration of recovered bodies than the Garden District itself. One reason, he said, may be that low-income residents lacked cars to flee in or the resources to pay for a safe refuge outside the city. And the Garden District sits on some of the city's highest land.

Not all white residents who died in the storm were well-to-do; not all African American victims were poor.

William S. Porter Jr., a 75-year-old African American, for instance, worked as an embalmer and funeral director for a New Orleans funeral home.

He died at a home in the rapidly gentrifying Gentilly neighborhood during the storm — not because he lacked the means to flee but because he refused to leave, his son said.

Porter, who called himself "the Bishop," owned a home in the Lower 9th Ward but was moving into a second home in Gentilly.

Porter earned about $40,000 a year, said his boss, Cal Johnson of Littlejohn's Funeral Home. He also earned rental income from two homes he owned in the Lower 9th Ward, his son said.

"He was not a pauper by any means," Johnson said of Porter. "He lived quite well."

Times staff researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

from WorldNetDaily, 2006-Feb-2:

NAACP chairman compares GOP to Nazis
Bond delivers blistering partisan speech in North Carolina

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as tokens.

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.

"We now find ourselves refighting old battles we thought we had already won," he said. "We have to fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head."

He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.

The talk so infuriated at least one black family in attendance among the 900 in the auditorium that they got up and walked out in protest.

"He went on and on name calling," said Leon Delaine. "I walked out in the middle of his speech with my wife and three kids"

The harsh partisan rhetoric from Bond should not have surprised anyone who has followed him in recent years.

In July 2001, Bond said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

from CNSNews.com, 2004-Jun-3, by Robert B. Bluey:

NAACP Chairman Compares Republicans to Terrorists

Washington - In remarks to hundreds of cheering liberal activists Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond singled out Republicans as enemies of black Americans and compared conservatives to the terrorist Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

Bond's remarks came at an opening of the liberal Take Back America conference, a three-day event that has drawn more than 2,000 liberals from across the country to the nation's capital. Bond spoke moments after MoveOn.org founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd received a rousing ovation from the partisan crowd.

Bond called the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 two of America's greatest achievement. He then went on to attack Republicans.

"The passage of these two laws in 1964 and 1965 marked the beginning of the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power," Bond said. "By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to that dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach racial neutrality and they practice racial division."

Even though Bond said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People remains a non-partisan organization, he reserved some of his harshest criticism for President Bush. Bond, who has been chairman of the NAACP since 1998, accused Bush of trying to starve the government of money through tax cuts. He said social programs aimed at minorities have suffered as a result.

"We have a president who talks like a populist and governs for the privileged," Bond said. "We were promised compassionate conservatism; instead, we got crummy capitalism."

Blades and Boyd delivered tempered speeches compared to Bond's blistering address. Both of the MoveOn founders used a computer slide show to accompany their speeches. Blades declared "right-wing extremism" a dead end for America, while Boyd told the audience that he believes MoveOn members speak for a majority of Americans.

At an awards gala Wednesday evening, the 15-member staff of MoveOn and its political action committee accepted an award for leadership. MoveOn claims to have more than 2 million members, many who have helped raise money for television and print ads attacking Bush.

One of MoveOn's biggest supporters, philanthropist and financier George Soros, is scheduled to speak at the conference on Thursday. A last-minute announcement Wednesday revealed that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will introduce Soros.

The liberal billionaire has given $2.5 million to MoveOn, a fraction of the nearly $15 million he's contributed to defeat Bush.

from the Associated Press via the Los Angeles Times, 2005-Aug-21, by Vanessa Arrington:

Chavez Criticizes U.S. From Castro's Side

HAVANA -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticized the United States for recent remarks about his role in Latin America, saying in a Sunday broadcast from Cuba that it is the policies of the U.S. government that are harming the world, not his own.

Chavez spoke alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro during his weekly television and radio show from the western tip of the island, flaunting the close ties between the two leftist leaders that U.S. leaders say are threatening democracy in the region.

"The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism," Chavez said.

Chavez was responding to remarks Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made on his way home from visits to Paraguay and Peru last week. Referring to social uprisings in Bolivia that have pushed out two presidents in less than two years, Rumsfeld told reporters that Venezuela and Cuba have been influencing the Andean nation "in unhelpful ways."

Uneasy about the close relationship between Castro and Chavez, Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials have repeatedly said the two men are fomenting instability in Latin America. Both leaders have consistently denied the accusations.

Chavez gave a new vote of confidence to Castro's communist government Sunday, calling it a "revolutionary democracy" in which the Cuban people rule.

People "have asked me how I can support Fidel if he's a dictator," Castro said. "But Cuba doesn't have a dictatorship -- it's a revolutionary democracy."

Television footage showed Chavez and Castro together in the streets of Pinar del Rio earlier in the day, standing on the back of a jeep wearing olive green military uniforms and saluting hundreds of shouting residents waving Cuban and Venezuelan flags.

During the nearly six-hour show, Castro and Chavez talked mainly about their joint social ventures, particularly in the health sector. Cuba has sent a fifth of its doctors to work in poor communities in Venezuela, in gratitude for massive shipments of Venezuelan oil under preferential terms.

The leaders praised each other throughout the show and took phone calls and messages from supporters in both countries. They also received praise from the audience, which included Castro's Cabinet members, the ex-Salvadoran guerrilla leader Shafick Handal and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

"It is a great privilege for all of us to see you here together," said Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, dressed like the other officials in a bright red shirt. "We feel like we are living a special moment, and that, in Latin America, Cuba is not alone."

The visit marked Chavez's fourth to Cuba in the last nine months. He arrived Saturday to attend the first graduation of the Latin American School of Medicine, a regional initiative launched in 1998 after two hurricanes devastated Caribbean and Central American nations.

Chavez announced he would create a second such school in Venezuela.

from New York Newsday, 2005-Sep-30, by Carol Eisenberg:

Incoming FDNY chaplain questions 9/11 story

An imam slated to be sworn in Friday as the second Muslim chaplain in Fire Department history said he questioned whether 19 hijackers were responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and suggested a broader conspiracy may have brought down the Twin Towers and killed more than 2,700 people.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Imam Intikab Habib, 30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi Arabia, said he doubted the United States government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden.

"I as an individual don't know who did the attacks," said Habib, 30, a soft-spoken man who immigrated to New York in July 2000 after spending six years in Saudi Arabia getting a degree in Islamic theology and law. "There are so many conflicting reports about it. I don't believe it was 19 ... hijackers who did those attacks."

Asked to elaborate on his reasons for doubting that story, he talked about video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community.

"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he said. "It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"

Questioned about who he believed was responsible for the attacks, Habib said he didn't know. He said, however, that he did not expect to raise his doubts with rank-and-file firefighters -- nor did he share them two weeks ago when he participated in several Sept. 11 memorials on behalf of the Fire Department.

"My position as a chaplain is that whoever did it, it's a tragic incident," he said. "I feel sorrow for the families who lost loved ones and for the firefighters who died in it. Whoever did it, it was a very wrong thing. It's always wrong to take an innocent human life."

A spokesman for the Fire Department, Frank Gribbon, said that Habib was recommended by the department's Islamic Society and was hired "based on his credentials as a religious person. We don't ask new employees about their political views before we hire them."

Stephen Cassidy, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, could not be reached for comment.

Habib's remarks about the attacks came in response to questions about whether he thought firefighters would accept a chaplain who had been educated in Saudi Arabia.

He said he did not expect that to be an issue because "I come from a country where you're accustomed to living with people of different ethnic, religious and racial backgrounds."

When pressed further about whether the hijackers' backgrounds -- 15 of whom were Saudi -- might make his training an issue for still-grieving firefighters, he went on to express his own doubts about the hijacker story.

Habib was one of several imams recommended for the chaplain's job by the Islamic Society for the Fire Department, as a result of his work teaching junior high students at Al-Ihsan Academy in Ozone Park, a private Islamic school, where he worked for about five years.

"He's a good man," said Hakim Braxton, president of the Islamic Society. "Any statements he's made, he's responsible for ... But I would ask that the citizens of this city give him a chance and judge him on his actions."

Braxton also stressed that neither he nor anyone in the Islamic Society would agree with anyone who tried to justify the terror attack in any way. "I lost friends, family, co-workers," he said.

Braxton described Habib as a "humble, grounded and family man, which is a good thing in this job, because he's trying to help everyone and he's representing a very diverse community."

Habib himself said he saw his role as ministering to every member of the Fire Department, not just to Muslims.

"Being a chaplain in the Fire Department, I serve the whole Fire Department," he said.

from the Associated Press via New York Newsday, 2005-Sep-30, by Michael Weissenstein:

FDNY chaplain resigns after remarks about 9/11 conspiracy theory

NEW YORK -- The fire department's Muslim chaplain abruptly resigned Friday after saying in a published interview that a conspiracy, not 19 al-Qaida hijackers, may have been responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"It became clear to him that he would have difficulty functioning as an FDNY chaplain," Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta told reporters an hour before Imam Intikab Habib was to be officially sworn in. "There has been no prior indication that he held those views."

Habib told Newsday that he was skeptical of the official version of the attack on the World Trade Center, which killed 343 members of the Fire Department of New York. The newspaper published the interview hours before the swearing-in ceremony Friday.

"It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours," Habib told the newspaper. "Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"

The 30-year-old Guyana native joined the department as chaplain on Aug. 15 after the FDNY's Islamic Society recommended him for the part-time position, which pays $18,000 a year.

Scoppetta said Habib, who was educated in Islamic law in Saudi Arabia and preaches at a New York mosque, had appeared qualified and passed a background check.

"It's sad," said Kevin James, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel. "We had no idea those were his views. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not the right person for the chaplain."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he welcomed Habib's resignation.

"The remarks were offensive and the mayor is satisfied that the chaplain has resigned," mayoral spokesman Ed Skyler said.

Newsday said Habib immigrated to New York in 2000 after six years in Saudi Arabia and teaches junior high-school students at an Islamic school in Queens.

The newspaper said that Habib expressed doubts about the culpability of the 19 hijackers when it asked him whether he thought firefighters would object to a chaplain trained in Saudia Arabia, the home of 15 of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Habib said his doubts grew from widely circulated video and news reports skeptical of the official narrative of the Sept. 11 attacks. Many reports attribute the destruction of the trade center to a United States or Israeli plot designed to whip up support for attacks on Muslim countries.

"There are so many conflicting reports about it," the newspaper quoted Habib as saying. "I don't believe it was 19 ... hijackers who did those attacks."

(The cancellation of the plans for the museum discussed below was announced on 2005-Sep-28.)

from the New York Times, 2005-Jun-21, by Janon Fisher:

Relatives Protest Plan for Museum at 9/11 Memorial Site

Chanting, "9/11 memorial only," about 200 relatives of those who died in the terrorist attack gathered at ground zero yesterday to express anger over a proposed museum at the site. They said a museum would dilute the purpose of the memorial and dishonor the memory of their relatives.

Although plans for the museum, the International Freedom Center, have yet to be completed, its Web site (ifcwtc.org) said it would include an educational and cultural center "that will nurture a global conversation on freedom in our world today."

Relatives said they feared that the museum would shift the focus from the victims of the terror attack toward political harangues against United States foreign and domestic policy.

Debra Burlingame, whose opinion piece on June 8 in The Wall Street Journal ignited a movement to remove the museum, has focused her anger on the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, who is an adviser to the museum.

"Do we really want to entrust the meaning of Sept. 11 to a man who is calling our secretary of defense, in a time of war, dishonorable and dishonest?" asked Ms. Burlingame, whose brother, Charles F. Burlingame III, was a pilot of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77.

But project coordinators vowed to press forward and held a quickly organized news conference to address the family members' concerns.

"It's important what we have here is not a place for political polemics, but a place to memorialize the history of man's march toward freedom and to remember the role that Sept. 11 plays in that important march," said John P. Cahill, appointed by Gov. George E. Pataki in May to lead the rebuilding effort in Lower Manhattan.

But relatives at the protest said there should be no political slants at ground zero.

"The organizers of the International Freedom Center say that in order to understand 9/11, we must see exhibits about slavery, segregation and genocide and its impact around the world," said Michael Burke, whose brother, Capt. William F. Burke Jr. of the Fire Department, died in the World Trade Center collapse. "This is history that all should know and learn, but not here - not on sacred ground."

He added: "Nobody is coming to this place to learn about Ukraine democracy or to be inspired by the courage of Tibetan monks. They're coming for Sept. 11."

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg also defended the idea of the freedom center yesterday and vowed to move forward with plans for it on that site.

"You are never going to please everybody," he said. "I don't think any memorial is going to do what they would really like to have; clearly it's not going to bring back their loved ones. But we're trying to remember those who have passed and at the same time build for the future."

The relatives vowed to continue the fight against the center. All day long, signatures poured in on an Internet petition on the Web site takebackthememorial.com.

"Three thousand people died on their way to work," said Rita Riches, holding a photograph of her son, Firefighter Jimmy Riches. "That's what this is about, nothing else. Absolutely nothing else."

from the New York Daily News, 2005-Jun-23:

Get the picture, Governor?

We have nothing against silly, self-important, half-baked pieces of "political art" per se. If someone of the "political artist" persuasion chooses to believe that a drawing of a jetliner dive-bombing a naked, spread-legged woman constitutes a sagacious 9/11 statement - "Homeland Security," this specimen is titled - then fine, draw away, and let the product freely hang in whatever private gallery chooses to display the thing, and let all who would admire it come around and do so all they please.

But not at Ground Zero.

Works such as "Homeland Security" belong nowhere near the sobering pit where the twin towers stood, but the prospect of such a sacrilege arises because Gov. Pataki and his lower Manhattan minions have given space there to a SoHo art gallery called The Drawing Center. What were they thinking? Did they even take two minutes to glance through The Drawing Center's catalogue, which, besides "Homeland Security," also features such artistic creations as:

* The infamous hooded Abu Ghraib figure, the wires falling from his wrists to arrange themselves into the word "Liberty."

* A connect-the-dots organizational chart fancifully linking George W. Bush to Osama Bin Laden and former Texas Gov. John Connally and some oilman here and some financier there.

And so on and so forth. In short, it's plain as day that The Drawing Center does not bring to the downtown planning a single-minded respect for the memories of the dead - which is, after all, the point of a Ground Zero memorial, we would think.

Need more evidence? Try this on, Governor. The following wackobabble, co-authored by The Drawing Center's executive director, is from an introduction to an exhibit staged two years ago:

"Mobilizing the nation by portraying it as a guardian of family and home, the U.S. government has embarked on a campaign to protect the innocent through the benevolent 'liberation' of 'evil' nations."

And: "Governmental crusades, such as the recent 'Patriot Act,' that impinge on our private lives through increased surveillance underscore that the threat lies within as well."

And: "Global capitalism levels out difference, effectively eliminating barriers while producing abstract space. It works similarly to the paradigm of the nation-stage, which demands an assimilation of difference, suggestive of a death of otherness in some current circles of thought."

There's a place in the world for informed political dissent. For that matter, there's a place for uninformed dissent. There's even a place for deep thinkers who can say things like "a death of otherness" with straight faces. But Ground Zero isn't that place. And The Drawing Center doesn't belong there.

The group is one of four cultural organizations that were designated for places on the 16-acre site in the thinking that they would bring life to the area. The plans put The Drawing Center at the heart of the site, in a building that would also be occupied by the International Freedom Center, a museum designed to commemorate man's march toward liberty.

Some 9/11 families are urging Pataki to remove the Freedom Center from Ground Zero, arguing that it's destined to become a venue for contentious political debate. We have pressed the Freedom Center's organizers to quickly clarify how they intend to fulfill the mission of creating inspirational, appropriate exhibitions. Pending further information, and hopeful that they succeed, we've withheld judgment on whether that museum belongs in the memorial.

We need no further information to reach a conclusion regarding The Drawing Center. The works it displays are already a matter of record. You've made a mistake, Governor. Fix it, please. Show these people the door.

from the New York Daily News, 2005-Jun-23, by Douglas Feiden:

'Violated ...again'
Kin slap art center's 9/11 pieces

A museum that is set to rise above the hallowed soil of Ground Zero has showcased art that the families of 9/11 victims are denouncing as offensive, anti-American - and a slap in the face of nearly 3,000 dead innocents.

The Drawing Center, a little-known cultural group in SoHo, has mounted works linking President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and showing a hooded victim of U.S. abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The storefront museum currently features a "pseudo-didactic PowerPoint presentation on the Axis of Evil" that appears to mock Bush's famous description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Previous exhibits include a drawing of four airplanes swooping menacingly out of the sky - one of which is flying directly at a naked woman lying on her back, legs spread-eagled. The acrylic image is titled "Homeland Security."

"It's truly the most vulgar thing I have ever seen in my entire life," said Jennie Farrell, whose brother James, 26, an electrician, died on the 105th floor of the south tower.

"To call it art is reprehensible, and to place it at Ground Zero is committing a second criminal act against our dead," she added.

"It's offensive, it's America-bashing, it's a despicable insult to the families of people defending us in Iraq, and I'm sick and tired of it," said Jack Lynch, who helped carry the body of his firefighter son Michael, 30, out of the rubble.

"On 9/11, the families were violated by terrorists. Now we're being violated all over again, and it brings 9/11 right back home to each of us."

The center, founded in 1977, has displayed more than 10,000 works in 28 years, and supporters say only a tiny number have been overtly political.

Asked if the museum would display different kinds of works when it moves from SoHo to Ground Zero, spokeswoman Rebecca Herman said only, "Our mission is not changing."

But Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for Gov. Pataki, said: "The governor's first priority at the World Trade Center site is to build a lasting memorial that honors those we lost. That priority cannot be compromised."

And Joanna Rose, a Lower Manhattan Development Corp. spokeswoman, said: "We expect that the cultural institutions in the memorial area will be respectful of this hallowed ground."

Pataki controls the LMDC, which has ultimate authority over the cultural complex at Ground Zero.

The Drawing Center was largely unknown until it was tapped in 2004 as one of four cultural institutions for the World Trade Center site, out of 113 that had originally expressed interest.

It will vacate its cramped, 10,000-square-foot space at 35 Wooster St. to share a showcase Greenwich St. building with the WTC Memorial Visitor's Center and the controversial International Freedom Center. Groundbreaking is set for 2007, completion in 2009.

The IFC has sparked a firestorm of protests from victims' families who fear it will focus on U.S. wrongdoing throughout history, like the treatment of American Indians.

By contrast, the low-profile Drawing Center, which will occupy 36,000 square feet, has attracted scant attention.

But a News review of dozens of its catalogues since Sept. 11, 2001, revealed numerous politically charged works.

Among those recently featured:

* "A Glimpse of What Life in a Free Country Can Be Like," by Amy Wilson, was displayed in fall 2004.

A hood on his head and electrodes bearing the word "Liberty" connected to his arms, the iconic image of Abu Ghraib stands above a field peopled with dancing skeletons.

* "Global Networks: George W. Bush, Harken Energy and Jackson Stephens," by the late Mark Lombardi, was displayed in fall 2003.

A favorite of conspiracy theorists, this line drawing uses arrows and circles to link politicians, oil tycoons and international terrorists. Then-Texas Gov. George Bush and ex-President George H.W. Bush are linked to Bin Laden, indirectly, via another Saudi sheik and a business baron.

"There's more than 100 people in a 10-foot-long drawing, and it's a simplification to pick out two people and connect them like that," said Herman, the center's spokeswoman.

from Der Spiegel, 2005-Apr-11:

Trans-Atlantic Conspiracy Theory Du Jour

Germany's highest ranking female member of parliament has a new theory: the US government set the Catholic pedophilia scandal in motion because it wanted to weaken an already frail pope. That's also why it made Poland its chief partner in the Iraq war: to make the Vatican look bad. Yeah right.

She may not be the country's most powerful politician, but as the vice-president of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, Antje Vollmer of the Green Party is one of its highest-ranking women in political office. When she talks, people listen. But last week we were a little baffled when we saw her shameless contribution to the growing canon of anti-American conspiracy theories and baseless analogies circulating in Germany.

First, in Sept. 2002, then-Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Then came Andreas von Buelow, the former federal education and research minister whose 2003 conspiracy theory alleging the CIA and Israeli intelligence were responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington made for a best-selling book. Now Vollmer comes along, implying that the US government chose to draw attention to the Catholic pedophilia scandal not because of the crimes in and of themselves, but because Washington wanted to weaken the pope.

As a guest on the weekly talk show "Berlin Mitte" on Wednesday, Vollmer seemed to be starting off with the right intentions. She spoke of the "wonderful image" of President George Bush, his son President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton before the body of the pope in St. Peter's Basilica. But then, out of nowhere, she veered straight off a cliff.

Her theory? It seems the U.S. had to do something to weaken the influence of the pope, who was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. Vollmer finds it all very suspicious that after the war, "Poland was made a top occupying power in Iraq, naturally to weaken the pope's hinterland. Or how then, of all times, the campaign against the Catholic Church and the pedophilia was started, which was, of course, totally justified, but at this point in time was definitely a tit-for-tat response." Vollmer found it somehow strange that the US presidents traveled to the Vatican despite the "tough power struggles."

Like a good conspiracy theorist, she doesn't point fingers directly, but lets her comments hang in the air so that others can piece together the message. In essence, with her bizarre ramblings she was saying that the US tried to undercut John Paul II's political influence in Poland by giving his countrymen an important role in occupying Iraq and instigating a pedophile scandal against the church as a sort of smear campaign against the Catholic leader.

In an editorial, DER SPIEGEL's Henryk M. Broder remarks: "Statements like this aren't even commented on these days, just like the popular opinions that that terrorism is the result of poverty and SUVs are responsible for climate change. None of the guests (on the show) attempted to contradict these statements in any way." He points out that, in truth, "the Poles didn't need to be forced to send troops to Iraq, because they trust Washington more than Brussels, Paris or Berlin. The Catholic Church has a recurring history of pedophile scandals in the US as in Europe -- even before the Iraq war. "But all this is meaningless compared to the rage of a Green politician trying to impose her conspiratorial views on a complex reality until everything fits together seamlessly. Whatever the deceased pope had longed for and meant: He does not deserve Antje Vollmer as the executor of his will."

from Foreign Affairs, 2002-Nov/Dec, by Barry Rubin:

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest books are The Tragedy of the Middle East and Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East.

DAMN YANKEES

Since last year's attacks on New York and Washington, the conventional wisdom about the motivation behind such deadly terrorism has gelled. The violence, we are often told, was a reaction to misguided U.S. policies. For years, certain American actions -- such as the country's support for Israel and for unpopular, oppressive Arab regimes -- had supposedly produced profound grievances throughout the Middle East. Those grievances came to a boil over time, and finally spilled over on September 11. The result was more than 3,000 American deaths.

Although anti-Americanism is genuinely widespread among Arab governments and peoples, however, there is something seriously misleading in this account. Arab and Muslim hatred of the United States is not just, or even mainly, a response to actual U.S. policies -- policies that, if anything, have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim over the years. Rather, such animus is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies.

This distinction should have a profound impact on American policymakers. If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded in domestic maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing Washington's policies will affect it. In fact, if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse. New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

THE BLAME GAME

For years now, anti-Americanism has served as a means of last resort by which failed political systems and movements in the Middle East try to improve their standing. The United States is blamed for much that is bad in the Arab world, and it is used as an excuse for political and social oppression and economic stagnation. By assigning responsibility for their own shortcomings to Washington, Arab leaders distract their subjects' attention from the internal weaknesses that are their real problems. And thus rather than pushing for greater privatization, equality for women, democracy, civil society, freedom of speech, due process of law, or other similar developments sorely needed in the Arab world, the public focuses instead on hating the United States.

What makes this strategy remarkable, however, is the reality of past U.S. policy toward the region. Obviously, the United States, like all countries, has tried to pursue a foreign policy that accords with its own interests. But the fact remains that these interests have generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and peoples. For example, the United States may have had its own reasons for saving Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictatorship in 1991 -- mainly to preserve cheap oil. But U.S. policy was still, in effect, pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim, and pro-Arab. After all, Washington could have used the war as a pretext to seize Kuwait's oil fields for itself or demand lower prices or political concessions in exchange for fighting off Iraq. Instead, U.S. leaders did none of these things and sought the widest possible support for their actions among Arabs and Muslims.

When the United States has involved itself in conflicts in the region, furthermore, it has usually been during fights pitting moderates against either secular Arab forces or radical Islamist groups that even most Muslims consider deviant, if not heretical. And in such conflicts, the United States has generally backed parties with a strong claim to Arab or Islamic legitimacy. This trend can be traced back to the 1950s, when Egypt, Syria, and later Iraq became dictatorships friendly to Moscow and menaced Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Even then, the United States, hoping to demonstrate its sympathy for Arab nationalism, sought good relations with Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and prevented his overthrow by the United Kingdom, France, and Israel in the 1956 Suez war.

Washington maintained its pro-Arab policy throughout the Cold War, worried that if it antagonized Arab regimes they would side with the Soviet Union. For this reason, the United States wooed Egypt, accepted Syria's hegemony over Lebanon, and did little to punish states that sponsored terrorism. The United States also became Islam's political patron in the region, since traditionalist Islam, then threatened by radical Arab nationalism, was seen as a bulwark against avowedly secular communism.

Nonetheless, during the Cold War it became popular to portray U.S. policy as anti-Arab -- despite the evidence to the contrary. Such rhetoric became a convenient way for radical regimes to establish their own legitimacy and to brand their moderate opponents as Western puppets. Radical Arab regimes (whether nationalist or Islamist) also accused U.S.-backed moderate governments of being antidemocratic or of ignoring human rights, even though the radical regimes -- such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and revolutionary Iran -- had far worse records themselves.

Indeed, internal conflicts in the Arab world have posed impossible dilemmas for U.S. policymakers. When the United States helps friendly governments such as Egypt's or Saudi Arabia's, it is accused of sabotaging revolutionary movements against them. As soon as Washington starts to pressure Arab governments into improving their positions on democracy or human rights, however, it is accused of acting in an imperialist manner -- as happened this summer, when the White House threatened to block any increase in aid to Cairo after Egypt jailed Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent human rights advocate. If Washington did nothing and friendly regimes were overthrown, the radical conquerors would be unlikely to show any gratitude for U.S. neutrality.

All the same, when conflicts in the region did erupt during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s pitting Islamists against more moderate governments, the United States avoided taking sides. During Iran's 1979 revolution, for example, although Washington clearly wanted the shah to survive, it nonetheless restrained him from taking tougher actions to save his throne. And once the revolution had succeeded, President Jimmy Carter then sought to conciliate the new Islamist government. (It was American contact with moderates in the new regime, in fact, that provoked the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979.) Although the United States did not want Iran to spread its radical Islamism throughout the Muslim world, it nonetheless sought the best possible relations with Tehran in order to minimize its cooperation with Moscow. And even though relations subsequently soured, Washington has never seriously tried to overthrow the Islamic government; on the contrary, it has periodically sought detente with Tehran.

In fact, the only time the United States has ever become directly involved in a dispute between a government and Islamist revolutionaries was in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation -- and in that case, Washington backed the rebels.

A brief survey of U.S. policy toward the Middle East, furthermore, reveals just how hard Washington has tried to win the support of Arabs in particular and Muslims in general. Consider the following:

In 1973, the United States rescued Egypt at the end of the Arab-Israeli War by forcing a cease-fire on Israel. Washington then became Cairo's patron in the 1980s, providing it with massive arms supplies and aid while asking for little in return.

The United States also saved Yasir Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982, when Washington arranged safe passage for the Palestinian leader and pressed Tunisia to give him sanctuary. Washington's support for Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization overlooked a history of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Americanism as well as the plo's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, moreover, despite the Palestinians' backing of Iraq during the Gulf War, the United States became the Palestinians' sponsor in the peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would create a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.

Over the years, the United States has also spent blood and treasure saving Muslims in Afghanistan from the Soviets; in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq; and in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. It has supported Muslim Pakistan against India and Muslim Turkey against Greece. Washington has courted Damascus, even tacitly accepting Syria's control over Lebanon. The United States supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and also refrained from overthrowing Saddam Hussein after pushing him out of Kuwait in 1991.

For decades, the United States kept its forces out of the Persian Gulf to avoid offending Arabs and Muslims there. They entered, in fact, only when invited in to protect Arab oil tankers against Iran and to save Kuwait from Iraq. In Somalia, where no vital U.S. interests were at stake, the United States engaged in a humanitarian effort to help a Muslim people suffering from anarchy and murderous warlords.

The United States showed moderation when U.S. oil companies' holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other countries, and prices rose steeply after 1973; Washington did not try to overthrow the offending regimes or force them to lower prices. Nor did it take advantage of the Soviet Union's demise to dominate the Levant or take revenge against former Soviet allies there. Similarly, it did not use its overwhelming military strength to dominate the Persian Gulf region after 1990 or to force any local regime to change its policies. And when al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in eastern Africa in 1998, causing an immense loss of life, Washington responded with only very limited retaliation. Finally, since September 11, American leaders have taken pains to remind the world (and the American public) that Islam and Arabs are not U.S. enemies.

The overall tally, in fact, is staggering: during the last half-century, in 11 of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group.¹ U.S. backing for Israel has been the sole significant exception to this rule. Yet what credit has Washington received for its aid? Arab anti-American radicals have distorted the record, ignoring all the positive examples and focusing only on U.S. support for Israel. Even Arab moderates, direct beneficiaries of U.S. aid, virtually never express gratitude for benign American measures -- or even mention them at all.

AN ENEMY OF CONVENIENCE

Why has the real record been so disregarded in the Middle East? There are several explanations. First, whatever the extent of Americans' failure to understand the region, Middle Easterners' inability to understand the United States has been greater. Throughout the region, leaders and movements have always expected Washington to try to conquer them and wipe out its enemies -- since, after all, this is what the locals would do if they controlled the world's most powerful country.

Second, it is important to remember how tightly information is controlled in the Middle East. It is hardly surprising that the masses, shut off from accurate data and constantly fed antagonistic views, have grown hostile to the United States. Those who could present a more accurate picture of America are discouraged from doing so by peer pressure, censorship, and fear of being labeled U.S. agents.

Third, Washington's real record is constantly distorted. The United States, for example, is blamed for the suffering of Muslims whom it protected in Kosovo and Bosnia. U.S. humanitarian efforts in Somalia are portrayed as part of an imperialistic, anti-Muslim campaign defeated by heroic local resistance.

Fourth, the real nature of the threats from which the United States protected Arabs is downplayed. Take, for example, Saddam Hussein, who has started two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Arabs, looted and vandalized Kuwait, threatened his neighbors, tortured and repressed his own people, used chemical weapons against opponents and civilians, fired missiles against population centers, and tried to develop nuclear arms so as to dominate the region. Despite his record, Arabs throughout the Middle East are constantly told by their leaders that the United States is the party responsible for Iraq's problems, and that Washington is the one seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf.

Finally, there is the attempt to reduce all American policy to a single issue: U.S. support for Israel. Israel's true nature and policies are also distorted as part of this picture. This latter element is critical to the salience of the first in anti-American rhetoric, for if one believes that Israel is an evil force seeking to dominate the Middle East, kill Arabs, and destroy Islam, it would follow that one would view American aid to Israel as a supreme evil. The truth, however, is that the United States has merely helped Israel survive efforts from Arab neighbors to remove it from the map. The U.S.-Israel relationship was in fact quite ambivalent for most of Israel's first quarter-century of existence, with the United States generally refusing to supply arms or other aid. The link only intensified in the face of hostile actions by Arab states, which aligned themselves with the Soviet Union and sponsored anti-American terrorism. And despite such hostility, the U.S. goal has always remained a mutually acceptable peace agreement between the Arabs and Israel that would ensure good American relations with both sides.

Radical forces in the Arab world have always rejected a peaceful solution, however, because they do not want Israel to survive or the region to become more stable. Such a result, after all, would undermine the radicals' chances of seizing power.

As this point suggests, Middle Eastern radicals have opposed the United States not because it has not worked hard enough to bring about a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but for the opposite reason: because the radicals want to ensure that Washington fails to do so. This is why terrorism has always increased whenever it seemed that the diplomatic pursuit of peace might succeed. Hence Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, urged by the United States, was greeted in the region not as a step toward ending occupation or achieving peace, but as a sign of weakness and a signal that Israel's enemies should escalate violence against it. The September 11 attacks, meanwhile, were planned at a time when the peace process seemed closest to success. It is no accident that Middle Eastern anti-Americanism peaked at the very moment when the United States was proposing to support the creation of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.

THE ENEMY YOU LOVE TO HATE

The basic reason for the prevalence of Arab anti-Americanism, then, is that it has been such a useful tool for radical rulers, revolutionary movements, and even moderate regimes to build domestic support and pursue regional goals with no significant costs. Indeed, as a strategy, anti-Americanism seems to offer something for everyone. For radical Islamists, anti-Americanism has been a way to muster popular favor despite the fact that all attempts (other than in Iran) to stage a theocratic revolution have been rejected by the masses and hence failed. The Islamists have turned instead to fostering xenophobia, transforming their battle from one among Muslims into a struggle between Muslims as a whole and heathens who purportedly hate Islam and seek to destroy Muslims.

As mentioned before, anti-Americanism is equally useful to oppressive Arab regimes, since it allows them to deflect attention from their own many failings. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, human rights, higher living standards, less corruption and incompetence, or new leadership, rulers blame America for their own societies' ills and refocus popular anger against it. Regimes can demand national unity and shut up reformers in the face of the supposed American "threat." And by seizing the anti-Americanism card, Arab governments make sure their opponents will not use it against them.

Hence Egypt and Saudi Arabia have obtained American weapons and protection over the years but promoted popular anti-Americanism through government policies and their state-controlled media. Iraq has used anti-Americanism as a weapon in its battle to reenter the Arab world, escape sanctions, and rebuild its military might. If America can be blamed for murdering Iraqis through sanctions, who will remember Iraq's seizure of Kuwait?

Iran, meanwhile, uses anti-Americanism to push for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf and to draw attention from Iran's own major handicaps in the Arab world: the fact that it is a Shi`a, not Sunni, regime, and ethnically Persian, not Arab. Anti-Americanism is also a convenient way for Iranian hard-liners to delegitimize domestic reformers (by portraying them as U.S. agents). And Syria, for its part, has used anti-Americanism to distract its population from the reforms that President Bashar al-Assad promised but then quickly abandoned.

For Palestinian leaders, anti-Americanism has functioned as a smoke screen to cover up for their own rejection of compromise peace offers from Israel and as a way to mobilize Arab backing. By claiming that U.S. support for Israel is the cause of anti-Americanism among their populations, furthermore, Palestinian leaders, along with other Arab politicians, seek to obtain more U.S. concessions. This strategy also gives these leaders an excuse for rejecting American policies they disagree with; Arab leaders can claim their hands are tied by the passions of their masses (although public sentiment never stops them from tough action when such leaders feel their own interests are truly at stake).

Finally, Arab anti-Americanism has proved useful for others in the Middle East besides politicians. It allows intellectuals and journalists to vent their anger against a government-approved target (namely, Washington) rather than risk criticizing injustices or failures at home. And anti-Americanism even proves useful for the public itself. Holding the United States responsible for everything wrong in their lives helps explain how the world works and why life never seems to improve for them.

SATANIC REVERSES

There are, of course, legitimate Arab and Muslim grievances against the United States. But put into accurate perspective -- and compared to the legitimate anti-American complaints of people in other regions, not to mention American grievances with Arab states -- the level of violence or hatred such grievances provoke in the Middle East seems grossly disproportionate. In fact, Arabs and Muslims have suffered far less from U.S. policies than many other groups or peoples. Yet virtually none of these other peoples evinces anything like the level of anti-American sentiment that exists in the Middle East or commits acts of terrorism against the United States.

Arabs have particularly little to complain about when it comes to economic exploitation. Oil-producing states have reaped great wealth from their product, and U.S. influence over their economies is limited. It is therefore hard to argue that Arabs are poor because Americans are rich, nor can it be claimed that Arab raw materials are sold at low prices in exchange for high-priced Western industrial goods -- a frequent complaint from countries with only cacao or tin to sell.

Another grievance that has little or no reality in the Middle East compared to other areas is the complaint that the United States makes or breaks governments there. Since the pro-shah Iranian coup of 1953, there has not been a single case of U.S. covert intervention to change a Middle Eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the United States made an attempt to overthrow a government -- and so far, not very effectively.

The fact is that most other countries in the world -- including many in Europe -- have an equal or better case for being angry at the United States than do those in the Middle East. Yet only there does this hatred take on such an intensive and popular form. Nowhere else, for example, can one find popular and governmental support for terrorist attacks against the United States.

This fact points to one other explanation for Arab anti-Americanism. Such sentiment is a useful way to disparage a set of attractive ideas linked to America -- such as political freedom or modernization -- that might otherwise take hold in the region. In this sense, anti-Americanism becomes a response to globalization and Westernization.

OF MOUSE OR MAN?

One final point about Arab anti-Americanism should be mentioned. At its heart, such rage invokes a contradictory vision of its target. To justify outrage against the United States, the enemy must be portrayed as a bully. But to encourage challenges against it, the United States must also be depicted as a weakling. Revolutionaries and radical states are frustrated by the fact that too many Arabs and Muslims already fear the United States or even see its friendship as desirable. If America is so powerful, why fight it or those it protects?

To be effective, anti-Americanism must therefore persuade masses and leaders that the United States is simultaneously horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked, ridiculed, or disregarded. Powerless against their own dictators and dysfunctional polities and dissatisfied with their societies, every Arab or Muslim may at least feel it possible to spit on the United States and get away with it.

Consequently, anti-Americanism is most encouraged not by a belief that the United States is too tough but that it is weak, meek, and defeatable. Far from attacking the United States because it is really a big bully, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others have urged attacks to prove that the United States was a paper tiger. Unsurprisingly, these same leaders have made it clear that, in their view, power -- not popularity -- is the most important factor for political success. As Syria's late president, Hafiz al-Assad, once noted, "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden has agreed, commenting that people always back the side that looks strongest. Western weakness in confronting Hitler, wrote Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Nizar Hamdoon, encouraged Nazi aggression (as well, presumably, as Saddam Hussein's).

As these comments suggest, it has been the United States' perceived softness in recent years, rather than its bullying behavior, that has encouraged the anti-Americans to act on their beliefs. After the United States failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its citizens, stood by while Americans were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon, let Saddam Hussein remain in power while letting the shah fall, pressured its friends and courted its enemies, and allowed its prized Arab-Israeli peace process be destroyed, why should anyone have respected its interests or fear its wrath?

Astute Middle Eastern observers have made much of the United States' post-Vietnam loathing for foreign adventures. In the 1970s, when many Iranians worried that Washington would destroy their revolution if it went too far, Khomeini told them not to worry, saying America "cannot do a damn thing." And as recently as 1998, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor, insisted there was no need to negotiate with the United States since Tehran had shown that Washington was too weak to be feared or heeded.

Saddam Hussein has similarly tried to persuade Arabs and Muslims of U.S. weakness. He has interpreted U.S. efforts at conciliation as proof that Washington fears confronting him. By evincing no strong reaction to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, threats against Israel, outspoken anti-Americanism, or ultimatum to Kuwait, U.S. policy helped precipitate a much bigger crisis in August 1990.

In a February 24, 1990, speech to an Arab summit, Saddam told Arabs that they had three options. They could give up, wait until Europe was stronger and play it off against America, or unite behind a strong leader who could defeat the United States. Americans, he insisted, feared military confrontations and losses. It had shown "signs of fatigue, frustration, and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon "when some marines were killed" by suicide bombers in 1983. Experience had shown, he concluded, that if Iraq acted boldly, the United States would do nothing.

These declarations were a way to make the Arab world forget all the unpleasant lessons of history and follow a new leader into another dangerous adventure. Saddam got the result he wanted: the Arab masses cheered, their leaders jumped on his bandwagon, and the United States stayed out of his way, at least for the moment. Of course, Saddam was wrong in thinking he could take over Kuwait and that America would stand by and do nothing. But he was right enough about the United States to still be in power today, many years after making that miscalculation.

Radical Islamists, including bin Laden, spoke in remarkably similar terms in the 1990s, arguing that direct strikes against U.S. interests or territory would be met by American cowardice and trigger Islamist revolution. The quick U.S. defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan may have silenced much of the sympathy for bin Laden in the months since. But anti-Americanism seems to be at an all-time high.

The final question seems a simple one, but is perhaps the most difficult to answer: What should Washington do in the face of this most difficult problem? Given the practical political benefits that anti-Americanism can provide in the Arab world, the United States will never persuade its adversaries and critics that they are simply mistaken in their hatred. Even if the United States were to pressure Israel, end sanctions on Iraq, or pull its troops out of the Persian Gulf, Arab journalists and politicians will not start praising America as a wonderful friend and noble example. Instead, further concessions will only encourage even more contempt for the United States and make the anti-American campaign more attractive.

What, then, should Washington do? U.S. policymakers should understand that various public relations efforts, apologies, acts of appeasement, or policy shifts will not by themselves do away with anti-Americanism. Only when the systems that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fail will popular opinion also change. In the interim, the most Washington can do is show the world that the United States is steadfast in support of its interests and allies. This approach should include both standing by Israel and maintaining good relations with moderate Arab states -- which should be urged to do more publicly to justify U.S. support. Steadfastness and bravery remain the best way to undermine the practical impact of Arab anti-Americanism.

¹ Muslim versus non-Muslim states: Turkey vs. Greece, Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia, Kosovo vs. Yugoslavia, Pakistan vs. India, Afghans vs. Soviets, and Azerbaijan vs. Armenia. Arab versus non-Arab states: Iraq vs. Iran. Muslim states versus secular forces: Saudi Arabia and other monarchies vs. Egypt, Jordan and other regimes vs. Syria and Iraq, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia vs. Iraq.

from The Age, 2005-Jan-21, by Steve Holland and Ewen MacAskill:

World doubts President's peace vision

Washington -- George Bush was due to be sworn in for a second term early today in a lavish Washington ceremony, amid mounting international concern that his new Administration will make the world a more dangerous place.

A poll of 21 countries published yesterday - including Australia - showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years. Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected President Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26 per cent who considered him a positive force.

The survey also indicated for the first time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in general.

Mr Bush's inauguration is taking place amid unprecedented security in Washington as luminaries from across the country converge on the capital.

The President spent the eve of the ceremony shuttling between a series of events: from three candlelit dinners to thank his biggest campaign donors through to a "Celebration of Freedom" fireworks concert.

He described the elections in Afghanistan last year and those in Iraq next week as "landmark events in the history of liberty". Mr Bush also proclaimed his inauguration as "a sign of hope for freedom-loving people everywhere".

"I have a responsibility to try to unite this country to achieve big things for all Americans," he told US television network ABC.

On Wednesday Mr Bush prepared for his speech by touring the National Archives to view George Washington's handwritten 1789 inaugural address and original versions of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution and Bill of Rights. His inauguration address, expected to last 17 minutes, reached its 21st draft as the President and his speechwriters prepared it for delivery at midday on Thursday (US time).

Iraq, which is struggling to hold its own January 30 elections despite a deadly insurgency, will provide a touchstone for the speech. "He will talk about his hopeful vision for America and the world," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"The President will talk about the power of freedom. Peace is secured by advancing freedom."

Officials said Mr Bush would outline a "philosophically ambitious" belief in America's obligation to help nurture democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world, and empower people back home.

A White House strategist said the speech would strive to remind Americans they were living in a "history-shaping moment". The speech will stick largely to broad themes designed to set the stage for a more detailed delineation of Mr Bush's second-term agenda in the February 2 State of the Union address.

Traditional US allies in western Europe are among those expressing the most negative feelings about Mr Bush's re-election. In Britain, 64 per cent of those polled said they disagreed with the proposition that the US would have a mainly positive impact on the world. The numbers were even higher in France (75 per cent) and Germany (77 per cent).

Mr Bush's victory was viewed positively in only three of the 21 countries: the Philippines, Poland and India.

- Guardian, Reuters, Washington Post

from NewsMax.com, 2005-Mar-3:

Soros: Bush Democracy Push 'Dangerous'

The Democratic Party's largest financial backer called President Bush's efforts to spread democracy throughout the Middle East "very dangerous" at an economic forum last week in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"We are not in a position to determine which country is democratic and what form of democracy a country should take," insisted billionaire currency speculator George Soros, in quotes picked up by the Financial Times.

"There is a sort of fundamental misconception in President Bush's mind," Soros told the 3,000 delegates at the forum. "When Bush says freedom will prevail, he means the American will shall prevail."

Soros went on: "We may be wrong, this is something that he just doesn't seem to admit."

"He seems to think that we ought to be right, we are the dominant power in the world, therefore we must be right," he told the panel in Jeddah -- which just happens to be Osama bin Laden's hometown.

"That is very dangerous because that comes very close to saying that might is right."

Soros poured nearly $30 million into various Democratic Party groups in a bid to defeat Bush in last year's election.

from Pravda, 2005-Jan-21, by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey:

We don't want your freedom

President Bush: Keep your freedom and democracy to yourself

The international community does not want George W. Bush's Freedom and Democracy neither does it want its Hearts and Minds won over by Shock and Awe tactics, thank you very much. If George Bush was elected President of the United States of America, why does he address himself to the rest of the world?

Let's face it, if there was an election in the international community, George W. Bush might get elected as a member of a freak show, or perhaps a kitchen hand, handing out plastic turkeys in tents but for the leadership of a country? Perhaps, in a handful of countries like Albania, for instance, which might think first about the bank account rather than any notion of political leadership but in the international community as a whole, the NO vote would be far in excess of 80%, as is patently evident in numerous opinion polls.

If President Bush is an example to go by, we do not want his freedom and democracy. We do not want a model of freedom and democracy which sees the President of a country slink into his office in an armoured car which resembles a tank, guarded by 13.000 bodyguards plus countless other security personnel, creeping along a route lined by thousands of protesters.

We do not want his freedom and democracy which saw him slip out the back door of Number 10 Downing Street on his visit to London, the first such escape route used by any international leader any time in history, and during whose visit for the first time ever a statue of the President of the United States of America was toppled, to the cheers of thousands of lookers-on. Jimmy carter got out of his car and walked to the White House. Why can't Bush? The answer is simple: people do not like his Freedom and Democracy.

We do not want his freedom and democracy which is so popular that even in London, the capital city of the country and government closest to Washington, his state visit was restricted to three streets and a hurried trip to Tony Blair's constituency in a heavily guarded motorcade.

We do not want his freedom and democracy, which saw the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, a country invaded upon a pretext which did not exist. We do not want a freedom and democracy based upon barefaced lies.

We do not want a freedom and democracy based on the US model, where the electoral system can be rigged so easily, in this, one of the few countries which still has the death penalty. We do not want a freedom and democracy based on Washington's flawed model, controlled by a clique of corporate elitists who gravitate around the White House, making a mockery of their people and a mockery of democracy and which practise a policy of freedom of the press which makes the Gestapo look like fairy godmothers.

The international community is made up of hundreds of sovereign nations with models of government which reflect in some cases thousands of years of history and culture, which is to be respected, not obliterated in a wave of blind arrogance fuelled by the greed of Washington's invisible masters.

The international community does not want, nor does it need, the model imposed by a country barely 200 years old, with serious human rights problems, whose history is associated with ethnic cleansing of its native population, whose history is based upon the illegal deportation of races, a country whose military forces even today practise torture and which has concentration camps in more than one continent where the terms of the Geneva Convention are broken.

George Bush can keep his freedom and democracy to himself and to his own country. Nobody asked for his opinion abroad and nobody is interested in his opinion abroad. Each and every movement of the US regime outside its territory will be seen as belligerence, interference, and arrogance and is bound to produce an exponential reaction of hatred in the four corners of the Earth.

The very notion that George Bush can make a speech to begin his second and last term as president of the USA, referring to the international community, gives rise to the notion that he has a self-opinionated and inflated sense of his own importance.

Who asked for his opinion outside the USA and basically, who gives a two penny damn about what he believes in? It is his problem and that of the people he claims elected him. As for the rest, take a look at Iraq to see how very successful his foreign policy can be. Two years on, his forces are on the defensive, have lost control of the situation and there are now more Resistance Fighters than US troops.

Washington's Freedom and Democracy, anyone? No thanks. Let George Bush sort his own problems out and leave the rest of the world alone. Nobody called him and nobody wants him and judging by his inauguration "party", neither do a substantial proportion of American citizens.

Here's some home-grown America-hatred:

from the Boston Globe, 2005-Feb-1, by James Carroll:

Train wreck of an election

IN THINKING about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week's train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now.

Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced -- those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?

Tomorrow night, like a boy in a bubble, George W. Bush will tell the world it was for "freedom." He will claim the Iraqi election as a stamp of legitimacy for his policy, and many people will affirm it as such. Even critics of the war will mute their objections in response to the image of millions of Iraqis going to polling places, as if that act undoes the Bush catastrophe.

There is only one way in which the grand claims made by Washington for the weekend voting will be true -- and that is if the elections empower an Iraqi government that moves quickly to repudiate Washington. The only meaning "freedom" can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation, which is the ground of disorder. But such an outcome of the elections is not likely. The chaos of a destroyed society leaves every new instrument of governance dependent on the American force, even as the American force shows itself incapable of defending against, much less defeating, the suicide legions. The irony is exquisite. The worse the violence gets, the longer the Americans will claim the right to stay. In that way, the ever more emboldened -- and brutal -- "insurgents" do Bush's work for him by making it extremely difficult for an authentic Iraqi source of order to emerge. Likewise the elections, which, as universally predicted, have now ratified the country's deadly factionalism.

Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray. In such extremity, America's occupation of Iraq will be declared legitimate. America's city-smashing tactics, already displayed in Fallujah, will seem necessary. Further "regime change" will follow. America's ad hoc Middle East bases, meanwhile, will have become permanent. Iraq will have become America's client state in the world's great oil preserve. Bush's disastrous and immoral war policy will have "succeeded," even though no war will have been won. The region's war will be eternal, forever justifying America's presence. Bush's callow hubris will be celebrated as genius. Congress will give the military machine everything it needs to roll on to more "elections." These outcomes, of course, presume the ongoing deaths of tens of thousands more men, women, and children. And American soldiers.

Something else about that California train wreck strikes me. As news reports suggested, so many passengers were killed and injured because the locomotive was pushing the train from behind, which put the lightweight passenger coaches vulnerably in front. If, instead, the heavy, track-clearing locomotive had been leading and had hit the Jeep, it could have pushed the vehicle aside. The jack-knifing and derailment would not have occurred. The American war machine is like a train running in "push-mode," with the engineer safely back away from danger. In the train wreck of Iraq, it is passengers who have borne the brunt. The man with his hand on the throttle couldn't be more securely removed from the terrible consequences of his locomotion. Thus, Bush is like the man who caused the wreck, and like the man who was protected from it. Deranged. Detached. Alive and well in the bubble he calls "freedom," receiving applause.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

Here's what really happened:

from the Associated Press via the Guardian (UK), 2005-Feb-2, by Nick Wadhams:

U.N. Expert Calls Iraq Election Moving

UNITED NATIONS - Abandoning diplomatic circumspection, the top U.N. electoral expert on Tuesday praised the vote in Iraq as one of the most moving she had ever seen.

Carina Perelli, who has helped advise on dozens of elections from East Timor to the Palestinian territories, called the Jan. 30 election a ``dignified, peaceful demonstration'' of Iraqis' will.

About 40 people were killed but she told a news conference it had been a feat that no polling station was closed for the day because of security fears.

``I have participated in many elections in my life and I usually say that the day you lose your ability to be moved by people going to vote, you should change your career,'' said Perelli, who had insisted for months that U.N. advisers would leave pronouncements on the election to Iraq's electoral commission. ``This was probably one of the most moving elections I have ever seen.''

Perelli said she knew the process was going well when she was given a report on election day that there were long lines at polling stations in Mosul, a city that has seen some of the worst violence in Iraq recently.

``It is, I think, a m

Hating America

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama A foreign policy of penance has won America no friends.

Decline Is a Choice The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.

Marx Without the Realism The intellectual roots of America-bashing.

Is Columbus Day Sailing Off the Calendar? Parades Get Dumped, the Holiday Renamed; Brown's 'Fall Weekend'

Political scientists report drop in US standing

Who Is Rooting Against America?

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Fidel Castro lauds Nobel prize for Obama

The Nobel Hope Prize An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

Blame the Victim The Nobel Peace Prize is partly Obama's fault.

Most Embarrassing Moment The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes President Obama look ridiculous.

All About Obama

[Krauthammer on Obama's 2009-Sep-23 speech to the UN General Assembly] [excerpted from a transcript of Fox News Sunday 2009-Sep-27]

President of Planet Earth Why Obama's Nobel was inevitable.

Obama, Europe and the Inevitable

Obama, Dictators and democrats

At U.N., Chavez compliments Obama sort of

Obama and the Politics of Concession Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice.

Obama's Missile Offense It's better these days to be a U.S. adversary than its friend.

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

Obama Rewrites the Cold War The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit Considering the late senator's complete record requires digging into the USSR's archives.

Gore Vidal: `We'll have a dictatorship soon in the US' The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is `rotting away' — and don't expect Barack Obama to save it

Obama Blames America Demonizing Harry Truman may not play well with voters.

Olympic vote deals U.S. another humiliating defeat as Chicago gets bounced early

'Green Jobs' Adviser's Past Could Stir Trouble for White House at Critical Time

It's a Good Time to Be George W. Bush

House Reverses Decision to Drop Patriotic Songs From On-Hold Music

The ACLU's Photo Shoot Another misguided attempt at 'moral superiority.'

Obama Among the Dictators

The Idiot's Bible

Hugo Chavez and Oliver Stone walk red carpet at Venice Film Festival

Americas Summit: Missed Opportunity

Africa MPs cheer Lockerbie bomber

Carefully orchestrated

Gadhafi Shows His True Colors Libya's dictator has contempt for democracy. Surprise, surprise.

Analysis: Obama gores foreign policy ox

European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment

Just Another Bush The financial crisis is ending the new president's German honeymoon.

Yankee go home Commentary: Group of 20 summit will be stage for Wall Street bashing

'At least America won't be in power'

Is it fair?

Outreach, Yes. Apology, No. America Isn't Islam's Enemy

Deepak Blames America The media look within to explain the sick delusions of the Mumbai killers.

No We Can’t

The Real 'Torture' Disgrace The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

Betrayal and the True Believer

Still No. 1

As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010

Victory Is an Orphan in Iraq

Shoe-Hurler Raises Up Iraq's Reputation Abroad

Bush ducks shoes thrown at him in Iraq

Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at George Bush hailed a hero The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W Bush was hailed a hero in the Middle East yesterday as thousands of people took to the streets to support him and demand his release.

Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Becomes a Folk Hero

Iraqi parliament in turmoil over shoe tosser

Wright 101 Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright's anti-Americanism

Cynthia McKinney Drops a Load

Russian nationalist advocates Eurasian alliance against the U.S.

Moscow's moves in Georgia track a script by right-wing prophet Is Alexander Dugin really the new sage of the Kremlin?

Why They Hate Us It's because of our freedom.

Ahmadinejad to dinner? Furor ensues over religious groups' event.

Anti-Americanism Is Mostly Hype

"It's Embarrassing" to Speak Only English, Says Obama

America's Days Aren't Numbered

Re-examining the guilty party in WWII

Still a necessary war

Iraq's Oil Surge

IPT: Ex-Presidential Candidate Advocates Stalking Prosecutor

Commentary: T-shirt depicts 'pathetic and brutal legacy'

NZ students recall Rice's arrest bounty

'America the Ugly' Six years after 9/11, it's notable how little the politics of the left have changed.

Why I'm Not Patriotic

A not-so-glorious Fourth U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

Happy Oil Dependence Day

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'

Anti-Americanism, Ever with Us Reflecting on a stubborn ideology

HEIDEGGER'S `MONSTROUSNESS'

CHARM WITHOUT IMPORTANCE

Propaganda Redux Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
A foreign policy of penance has won America no friends.

Decline Is a Choice
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.

Marx Without the Realism
The intellectual roots of America-bashing.

Is Columbus Day Sailing Off the Calendar?
Parades Get Dumped, the Holiday Renamed; Brown's 'Fall Weekend'

The Nobel Hope Prize
An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

Blame the Victim
The Nobel Peace Prize is partly Obama's fault.

Most Embarrassing Moment
The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes President Obama look ridiculous.

[Krauthammer on Obama's 2009-Sep-23 speech to the UN General Assembly]
[excerpted from a transcript of Fox News Sunday 2009-Sep-27]

President of Planet Earth
Why Obama's Nobel was inevitable.

Obama and the Politics of Concession
Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice.

Obama's Missile Offense
It's better these days to be a U.S. adversary than its friend.

Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
Considering the late senator's complete record requires digging into the USSR's archives.

Gore Vidal: `We'll have a dictatorship soon in the US'
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is `rotting away' — and don't expect Barack Obama to save it

Obama Blames America
Demonizing Harry Truman may not play well with voters.

The ACLU's Photo Shoot
Another misguided attempt at 'moral superiority.'

Gadhafi Shows His True Colors
Libya's dictator has contempt for democracy. Surprise, surprise.

Just Another Bush
The financial crisis is ending the new president's German honeymoon.

Yankee go home
Commentary: Group of 20 summit will be stage for Wall Street bashing

Outreach, Yes. Apology, No.
America Isn't Islam's Enemy

Deepak Blames America
The media look within to explain the sick delusions of the Mumbai killers.

The Real 'Torture' Disgrace
The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010

Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at George Bush hailed a hero
The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W Bush was hailed a hero in the Middle East yesterday as thousands of people took to the streets to support him and demand his release.

Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright's anti-Americanism

Moscow's moves in Georgia track a script by right-wing prophet
Is Alexander Dugin really the new sage of the Kremlin?

Why They Hate Us
It's because of our freedom.

'America the Ugly'
Six years after 9/11, it's notable how little the politics of the left have changed.

A not-so-glorious Fourth
U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'

Anti-Americanism, Ever with Us
Reflecting on a stubborn ideology

Propaganda Redux
Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

South Africa's Betrayal
Postapartheid Pretoria has become the free world's leading coddler of dictators.

Who Is Noam Chomsky?
Someone who should have stuck to syntax.

Venezuelan Leader Demonizes Bush
Chavez Calls President a Racist 'Devil'

Sy Hersh Says It’s Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print)
The runaway mouth of America's premier investigative journalist.

The Disbelievers
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Are Building Their Case Against the Government From Ground Zero

The Power of the Pentagon
An erstwhile priest says American power is "disastrous."

'Death of a President' Comes to Britain
The controversial film that depicts the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush will air on British cable.