A couple of weeks old, but still relevant.
From the desk of Paul Belien
The Belgian trade unions are going on strike next week against the plan of the government to raise the minimum retirement age to 58 (at present one can retire at 55). In Belgium fewer than 30% of the population between 55 and 64 years of age are in work. The EU average (2003) is 40.2%, with only Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Portugal above 50%.
Last month the German voters made a center-right coalition of the Christian-Democrats and the free-market Liberals impossible, thereby thwarting plans to reform the welfare system and make it less generous. In France Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, a dandy without convictions who has never been elected to public office, is becoming popular by depicting his rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a dangerous reformer who wants to cut back the welfare state. Like the Belgians and the Germans, the French do not want to give up the âsocial rightsâ to which they feel they are entitled.
One and a half centuries ago, John Stuart Mill warned that in a democracy everyone receiving government benefits ought to be disenfranchised, because otherwise people would start abusing their franchise to vote for prolonging and expanding these benefits. It is easy for governments, Mill said, to start distributing free milk in periods of prosperity, but nearly impossible to abolish this free milk distribution when economic circumstances no longer allow it. When Margaret Thatcher did exactly this as Secretary of Education in the early 1970s she was called âThatcher the milk snatcherâ and became highly unpopular. The British electoral system, however, allowed her to come to power a few years later and break the trade unions. With a system of proportional representation as in Belgium, Germany and France it would probably not have been possible.
Today Western European politicians are confronted with a generation that has been the most prosperous in history. At the same time they have been the most selfish generation in history. They have consumed the wealth that the previous generation left them, but they have also consumed the resources of the future generation, leaving it a burden of debt. Today the welfare systems are on the brink of collapse, but the selfish generation flatly refuses to give up any of its âsocial rightsâ and wants to continue milking the welfare state, forcing those who come after them to foot the bill.
The situation would not have been so bad if the selfish generation had at least replaced itself, but these people have also refused to procreate. The result is an ever growing electorate of elderly men and women versus an ever smaller electorate of young people. Some German and Austrian conservatives have proposed to give parents with young children multiple voting rights, where parents get an additional vote for each child, in order to restore the electoral balance. These proposals have been rejected by the selfish generation. The red socialists of yesteryear have been replaced by the grey socialists of today.
#1
I don't buy the argument that by not procreating you are hurting the next generation. There are so many flaws in this logic that it should be called Swiss logic.
I don't buy it for lots of reasons, mostly because it always seems to be peddled by the idiot loons of the right, like Buchanan [do they have kids?], the KKK and others who are attempting to increase the numbers of their own followers... but I digress.
So you are telling me...that in an article saying that the biggest problem Europe faces is that the people consume too many benefits that solution is to create more "workers" to satisfy their needs. Ok. You call them workers if you like, but the reality is that they are just more consumers. Do you see the flaw? Is it really that hard to see?
Reminds me of the ol' joke:
You lose $1.00 on every sale, how do you make any profit?
#2
Socialism is a pyramid scheme and you need lots of new members to ensure the early adopters are paid off. Its as simple as that.
Europe has been replacing the lower levels of the pyramid with immigrants from North Africa and it doesn't seem to be working out as well as planned (see the post on Riots in Paris above) for details.
You lose $1.00 on every sale, how do you make any profit?
Volume.
That was an Lucy Ricardo joke, lucy and Ethel sold "Homemade Salad Dressing" that they bought at the store for 69 cents, and sold for 49 cents, and planned to make up the difference in volume.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/31/2005 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
One need not travel to Europe to see the results of population decline of the west. Do you think those folks slipping across the Mexican border are coming here because we've already got too many able bodied laborers? Do you also believe our gov't is looking the other way because we enjoy a budget surplus and the national debt is headed downward? Big gov't is a huge ponzi scheme.
The shadow of Ronald Reagan hovers over the conservative Republican revolt against President Bush, with hard-core conservatives saying Bush does not measure up to the standard set by their hero. ... But, if you study the records of these two presidents, you have to wonder what the hubbub is about. Looking with a "Reagan-esque" eye at basic issues of taxes, spending and the size of government, you would conclude Bush is no worse than Reagan and in some ways a lot better.
If I remember correctly, Reagan was not idolized (by many)until long after he left office. History judges presidents, not pollsters, and NOT the MSM. Topics included:
Taxes
Spending
Defense
Entitlements
Vetoes
Budget deficit
Lawrence J. Haas was communications director to the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton. Which is interesting, considering his subjects!
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/31/2005 12:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I think however, that the internet has only intensified politics, rather than redefine it.
Here is the closing of the article:
"The moral hazard of the new media is clear," says columnist Jim Pinkerton, an aide to President George H.W. Bush. "They can turn any discussion into a donnybrook, and any nomination into Armageddon." Such a development isn't inevitable--witness the civilized debate over John Roberts's appointment. But President Bush will have to consider that risk in picking a new nominee for the high court, just as Democratic senators will have to weigh how much they respond to Internet sites pressuring them to mount a filibuster against that nominee.
Some folks don't get it. Meirs failed as an appointee precisely because she was a bad nominee, not the type of justice conservatives wanted. And I didn't see a donnybrook: what I saw was debate and a little tiny invective such as the "sexism" thing (whatever the f*ck that is ) and that was it. In the end cooler heads did in fact prevail and a new justice designee is to be announced Monday. Bush has dodged a severe split in the right, and so has his base.
#1
Mr. Fund must read different blogs than I. The debate was pretty darn civil and concerned Ms. Meirs qualifications (or lack therof) for the position. I saw no ad hominem attacks (at least on the right) against her.
#2
Both of you underestimate the damage done by the method and tone of the anti-Miers tantrum.
I know you'd LIKE to think it didn't really make any lasting difference.
You're wrong, tho. It has.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 7:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
how so?
Good article. The bottom line is that the MSM and lobbyists can use lies and distortion to frame the discussion. Bloggers can shoot down their lies so quickly that they don't know what hit them. They aren't used to it and they don't like it. Too bad.
Good article. The bottom line is that the MSM and lobbyists can no longer use lies and distortion to frame the only discussion that will be considered. Bloggers can shoot down their lies so quickly that they don't know what hit them. They aren't used to it and they don't like it. Too bad.
Apart from the problems with Miers, the real problem is how the MSM and politicians still believe that they are all-powerful and can pull fast ones on the American public. Not so anymore.
This is a constitutional republic, and blogs are helping make sure it remains so. We're also helping the MSM cockroaches self-destroy by shining a bit of light on their habitual dishonesty.
I don't care about any particular politician or party. But I care deeply about our country's future and the Bush administration has been deftly handling massive challenges overseas.
The vitriolic sniping from the right, the clear precedent that the hard right doesn't really care about minimalism on the court -- they have their own litmus test and want to impose it on the rest of us, starting with Roe v. Wade repeal - the public humiliation aimed at Bush and Miers from prominent pundits and the off-the-charts hysteria from the bloggers ....
that has undercut us abroad at a time when Bush was making serious progress at reining in Euro trade subsidies and barriers, putting pressure on Syria and undermining Iran's stature. Now that the right has publicly had their little destructive tantrum over Miers, a whole lot of people outside this country figure they can wait out Bush and get a more amenable president in 08.
And they're probably right on that, because the hard right is more interested in ideological purity tests than in governing --- and especially than in governing during difficult, challenging times.
Pfeh.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Everyone, everywhere has a litmus test. Mine is that a nominee for the court is qualified, and make decisions based on the law as written. Not make shit up on the fly. Miers, did not have any track record and the few interviews did not inspire confidence in her. She was dropped and never should have been nominated. Now we have someone who meets the above requirements.
The MSM and libbies have their panties in knots because now they don't have a judge who will make shit up on the fly and push their agenda.
If Bush had put someone up that was a religious nut and put the bible before the constitution, I would be howling too. Fortunately, he didn't.
#8
well said, too true. And I share your disgust with the ideological purists who stamp their feet and say that a government of the people means me, me, me!
However, I don't think held Meirs held sufficient moral high ground worthy of battle. The charges of cronyism were simply true and she seemed to me to be a lazy choice. Consultation and consensus is a hassle and too often those in charge get tired of going through the process. Bush IMHO made that mistake with Meirs in that he just made a lazy choice. It may suck to have to go through the process of consensus, but as a leader, it's his job.
#10
I wasn't impressed with Miers either (although I think I know why Bush nominated her).
But I was deeply UNimpressed by the behavior of many on the hard right well before she had a chance to stumble. It made clear the fact that the hard right is no better than the hard left WRT acting on principle.
Competance isn't a litmus test. But wanting an upfront guarantee re: overturning Roe v. Wade etc. is.
Asking questions isn't out of line. The rabid snark that hit the fan as SOON as it wasn't one of the pre-ordained acceptable choices of the NRO / Coulter crowd was IMO. Out of line and very damaging in ways that some aren't seeing yet.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
The day before Miers withdrew, I still wasn't sure what I thought of her nomination. I had no problem with nominating a non-Ivy League person (I'm not Ivy League and have managed not to drool on myself in public), and I had no problem with having a justice with strong corporate and business law experience and little con law. But if you're going to put someone like that up, he/she had better be razor-sharp, and Ms. Miers, unfortunately, didn't rise to that challenge.
Alito is going to provoke the war the hard right has been praying for. I'm just not sure the 'Gang of 14' will hold, and I'm not sure what that weasel McCain is going to do.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/31/2005 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The vitriolic sniping from the right, the clear precedent that the hard right doesn't really care about minimalism on the court...
Wow.
Did you ever bother to read any of the critiques of Meiers? The biggest beef was she had no history of being a minimalist, that she was probably more of a weather vane.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/31/2005 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Yes - and what is available of what she has written.
She's mediocre at best -- but the vitriol started well before there was ANY conclusive evidence of that. Orin Judd is right: there is now a right wing to the inside-the-deltway mentality and it kicked into play as soon as a not-one-of-us was nominated.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
deltway, beltway .... sigh.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Orin Judd is right: there is now a right wing to the inside-the-deltway mentality and it kicked into play as soon as a not-one-of-us was nominated.
Ah. The "elitist" charge.
What a load.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/31/2005 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#18
No - not elitist, justthe insider syndrome. Insider groups aren't necessarily elitist, just exclusive.
Posted by: too true ||
10/31/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#19
You're ALL missing the point! This is ALL part of the Karl's Secret Plan to ... um, ... to ...
Well, we'll find out! By the first of the year, we'll all be marveling that Karl has pulled off another Rovian feat!
Hey, it could be.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/31/2005 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
Last weekend, the number of United States service members killed in Iraq climbed past 2,000, marking an unfortunate milestone since the initial U.S. invasion in March of 2003. Any loss of life - especially on the field of battle - is tragic. But while the 2,000th death in Iraq is meaningful, it's also an arbitrary milestone: The 2,000th death is every bit as tragic as the second and the 200th.
We should use the occasion to reflect on the high cost of freedom, but those who are using the 2,000th death to make the case for a pullout from Iraq are misguided. Foreign policy should not pivot around arbitrary casualty milestones. Although we should always pause and give thanks for the courage of these fallen individuals, we should also keep sight of what it was they died trying to accomplish.
Casualties are the most devastating proof of the harsh reality and nature of war. But there is still a conflict to be won and failure and/or immediate withdrawal are not wise options. All Americans no doubt wish for the swift return of our soldiers from overseas, but we should also hope that before they do, they accomplish the goals they have set out to achieve.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/31/2005 12:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
[Excerpts from Dr. Trifkovicâs new book, Defeating Jihad, which will be published by Regina Orthodox Press later this year.]
Members of the West European and North American elite class approach the war on terrorism in a schizophrenic manner. Their world view rejects any possibility that religious faith can be a prime motivating factor in human affairs. Having reduced religion, literature and art to ânarrativesâ and âmetaphorsâ which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class treats the jihadist mindset as a pathology that should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself.
The result is a plethora of proposed âcuresâ that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia. Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized and threatened by the war on terror. The failure of such âcuresâ leads to ever more pathological self-examination and morbid self doubt. If the spread of jihad is not due to the ideology of jihad itself, which it cannot be, then it must be our own fault.
Already with the Rushdie affair 17 years ago an ominous pattern was set. It has been replicated on both sides of the Atlantic ever since. It has three key ingredients:
1. The Muslim diaspora in the Western world, while formally denouncing âterrorism,â will accept and condone religious justification for acts that effectively challenge the monopoly on violence of the non-Muslim host-state.
2. The Muslim diaspora will use a highly developed infrastructure of organized religion in the host-stateâa network of mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizationsâand deploy it either as a tool of direct political pressure in support of terrorist goals (e.g., British Muslims vis-Ã -vis Rushdie), or else as a means of deception and manipulation in order to diminish the ability of the host-society to defend itself (e.g., CAIR vis-Ã -vis post-9-11 America).
3. The non-Muslim establishmentâpublic figures, politicians, journalists, academic analystsâwill seek to appease the Muslim diaspora, or else it will shy away from confronting the problem of the immigrantsâ attitudes and impact by pretending that it does not exist.
The issues of immigration, identity, loyalty, and common culture are accordingly not treated as an area of legitimate concern in the debate on terrorism. The result is a cloud-cuckoo land in which much of what is said or written about terrorism is not about relevant information that helps us know the enemy but about domestic political agendas, ideology, and psychology.
The New America Foundation Conference on Terrorism, Security, and Americaâs Purpose, which was held in Washington D.C. on September 6-7, 2005, provided an excellent illustration of the above mindset. It gathered over 70 politicians, top bureaucrats, policy analysts, nationally known journalists and top-tier academics. It was scary.
There was the billionaire âphilanthropistâ George Soros, insisting that the War on Terror has âdone more harm than good.â It has alienated Muslims and diverted our attention from other vital missions, such as fostering âdemocratic development in order to provide legitimate avenues for dealing with grievances that otherwise might be exploited by terrorist movements.â
Francis Fukuyama saw the root problem in the Muslimsâ âalienation from modernity.â The solution would be for young Muslims to learn how to choose a personal identity just like everybody else, rather than accept Osamaâs prefabricated one.
Madeleine Albright, of all people, declared that it is âimportant to listen to what others are telling youâ and to distinguish friends from foes. James Steinberg of Brookings urged America to ask itself how she can help provide better governance, better economic lives, better political contexts. Senator Joe Biden argued for debt relief and funding of education programs in Muslim countries. GOP ex-Senator Warren Rudman argued that âAmerica and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and underdevelopment in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner.â General Wesley Clark (he who helped make Kosovo safe for the KLA) now wants a new global security framework based on the United Nations. Charles Kupchan, former Director of European Affairs on the National Security Council, headed a working group on strategy that focused on âstepped up efforts to secure fissile materials in the former Soviet Union . . . and vigilant efforts to contain and shut down nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.â
On the key issue of the identity of the enemy, on the scriptural message and historical record of Islam, the conference had nothing to say. On the role of the Muslim disapora in the West the conferenceâs Summary Report was brief and to the point: âThe government must rebuild vital relationships with Muslim and Arab communities in the U.S. and around the world, that have been so severely strained by actions and policies undertaken in the name of homeland security.â Furthermore, âchanges in visa policy and passport reform . . . have made America less attractive to students and visitorsâ from the Muslim world, which is allegedly detrimental to U.S. interests. Furthermore, privacy and due process must be protected so as to avoid âdisproportionate law enforcement efforts against Muslim Americans.â
Are these people merely deluded, or malevolent, or perhaps both? It is worth examining the record of one of them, multibillionaire George Soros. A year before addressing the Washington conference Soros had already made his contribution of sorts to the war on terror by bankrolling Northeastern Universityâs project known as the Promising Practices Guide: Developing Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and American Muslim, Arab, and Sikh Communities. This self-styled âbasic curriculum for future law enforcement and community training activitiesâ claimed to offer ways to take advantage of the unique âlinguistic skills, information, and cultural insightsâ of Arabs and Muslims in America (forget the Sikhs, they were added for diversityâs sake) in the war against terrorism.
The Guideâs three authors (one of them a Muslim) have an eccentric view of what are âmost dangerous threats in this war.â They are to be found not in the ideology of jihad but âin the successful propagation of anger and fear directed at unfamiliar cultures and peopleâ among us Americans. The problem is not with the Muslims who perpetrate terrorist crimes but in the bias against Muslims that is supposedly rampant in todayâs America. Anti-terrorist measures therefore must not focus on religion or national origin, as âthis creates an impression of unjust, religious, and/or national origin-based targeting.â The refusal of the Muslim diaspora to cooperate with our law enforcement agencies is explained by the immigrantsâ mistrust of âunjust legislation from the highest levels of government and the American publicâs acceptance of racial profiling.â Far from developing a counter-terrorism initiative, the guide helps terrorists in the United States avoid arrest. By funding the âGuideâ Soros has confirmed yet again that he is a visionary who sees immigration as an essential tool of revolutionary change. His metaphysical concept of Muslimsâ victimhood based on their exclusion from the society demands the change of the society, not of the Muslim mindset. That is the meaning of his claim that the War on Terror âcreates innocent victims and that helps the terrorists.â By encouraging the emergence of a subculture of hostile aliens within America, he promotes the growth of an alternative social and political structure of which the potential for further growth of Islamic terrorism is but one consequence.
In Great Britain this pathology has reached a fully mature form. The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone reacted to the bomb attacks on his city of July 7, 2005, by blaming Britainâs participation in the war in Iraq for the outrage. Two months later he compared an outspoken Muslim scholar who backs suicide bombings, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to the late Pope John XXIII, because both believed that their faiths âmust engage with the world.â While giving evidence to a House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the terrorist attacks in London, Livingston said that Sheik Qaradawi is âvery similar to the position of Pope John XXIII. An absolutely sane Islamist . . . Of all the Muslim thinkers in the world today he is the most positive force for change.â
Al-Qaradawiâs âabsolute sanityâ is reflected in his reference to suicide bombings as âmartyrdom operationsâ: indeed, no true âIslamistâ could do otherwise. Far from being a moderate, however, the sheikh is a mainstream member of the Muslim Brotherhood. His Ikhwani affiliations led to his imprisonment in Egypt in 1949, then in 1954-1956, and again in 1962. And yet in 2004 he came to Britainâs capital and spoke at the âEuropean Council of Fatwa and Researchâ in Londonâs City Hall, hosted by none other than the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.
The assumptions behind the âNew America Foundation Conference on Terrorism, Security and Americaâs Purposeâ and the activities of people like Soros and Livingstone have contributed to the fact that we are losing the war on terrorism. Bin Ladenâs network may have been damaged and disrupted since 2001 and his cause may in many places be in the hands of self-starters and amateurs, but he could never have dreamed that the world, more than four years after 9-11, would look so favorable to his objectives.
A new strategy is needed to make it less so, the one that may give America and the West a clear edge in this war. It can never be âwonâ in the sense of eliminating the phenomenon of terrorism altogether, but it can be successfully pursued to the point where America (and the rest of the West, i.e. Europe, if it follows) can be made significantly safer than they are today by adopting measuresâpredominantly defensive measuresâthat would reduce the danger to as near zero as possible. The victory will come, to put it in simply, not by conquering Mecca for America but by disengaging America from Mecca and by excluding Mecca from America; not by eliminating the risk but by managing it wisely, resolutely, and permanently.
It is essential to define and understand the enemy. Are Muslim terroristsâthe only variety that seriously threatens the United States and the Western worldâtrue or false to the tenets of their faith? That they are indeed a minority of all one-billion-plus Muslims in the world is not disputable, but do they belong to the doctrinal and moral mainstream of their creed? The answer has to be based on the facts of Islamâs history and dogma, and not on an a priori judgment imposed by the inviolable blinkers of political correctitude. The straightjacket has to be discarded because it yields false results and because it serves an agenda inimical to the survival of our culture and civilization. It is essential to establish whether, and to what extent, the sacred texts of Islam, its record of interaction with other societies, and the behavior of its founder, Muhammad, provide the clue to the ambitions and methods of modern terrorists. The notion that terrorism is an aberration of Islamâs âpeaceâ and âtolerance,â and not a predictable consequence of the ideology of Jihad, reflects an elite consensus that is ideological in nature and dogmatic in application. That consensus needs to be tested against evidence, not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.
Better informed about the adversary, we may proceed with the second task: to develop more effective homeland defenses. Much has been done already but not nearly enough, because the focus has been on the institutional failures of the intelligence community and government agencies rather than the culture that makes failure inevitable. The impact of ongoing Muslim migratory influx onto the developed world is inseparable from the phenomenon of Islam itself, and in particular from Islamâs impact on its adherents as a political ideology and as a program of practical action. Controlling the borders should be only the first step in neutralizing this impact. The application of clearly defined criteria related to terrorism in deciding who will be admitted into the country, and in determining who should be allowed to stay from among those who are already here, is essential. To put it bluntly, carefully evaluating the profile of all prospective visitors to America and systematically re-examining the behavior of resident aliens and the bona-fides of naturalized citizens, is an essential ingredient of a serious anti-terrorist strategy. To that end Islamic activism needs to be treated as an eminently political, rather than âreligiousâ activity. Swift and irreversible deportation needs to become a routine tool for dealing with the offenders.
An effective defense against terrorism demands a re-think of our foreign and military policies. American soldiers should patrol the border with Mexico, not the streets of Falluja. In an ever more globalized world that will also gradually become less Westernized, the United States may remain single most powerful actor economically, technologically, and militarily for many years, even decades. The shape and nature of international alignments are in a state of flux, however. Continued attempts by an America that will grow progressively weaker vis-Ã -vis its global competitors to continue projecting its power offensivelyâespecially in the Middle Eastâwill have the same reward reaped by the Soviet Union after Afghanistan. Pursuing the path of âbenevolent global hegemonyâ is certain to take us the same way. That would be the greatest favor the terrorists could hope for.
Rediscovering who we are is the essential prerequisite for all of the above. The victory in the war on terror ultimately has to be won in the domain of morals and culture. It can be won only by an America (and Britain, and France, and Italy . . . ) that has regained its awareness of its moral, spiritual, and civilizational roots.
Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.
This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.
The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support.
Either way, it seems to me that everyone involved with planning the Wilson mission should be fired. And it's obvious that the CIA, one way or another, needs a lot of work.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/31/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And now you know why the Lefties will criticize America and Dubya, AGAIN, for any US-led invasion against Iran andor the Norkies, as based on MSM-verified faulty or defective, imperfect "Intel"!? It does NOT matter to the Left whether Iran = North Korea, etc. has one nuke, 100, or 1000.
#2
Joe Wilson is as pure as the wind driven snow.
And the CIA has not been on a covert operation to undermine the conservative US President for breaking down their wall of separation.
According to Mark Steyn Joe Wilson went to Africa for 8 days to sip tea with his old African buddies on a US dime to return and report he did not hear or see anything.
The fact that Joe Wilson was concealing his wife's and the CIA's motives in sending him is the real crime that the MSM won't dare to question.
Good Republicans will not complain either because they know that Porter Goss is cleaning up the CIA in the background (Which is just the way it must be in order not to give the MSM an opportunity to attack and to destroy the CIA which can only work covertly.).
In the mean time Valerie gets all the media tear jerking consolation (and later lawsuits settlements) while Joe gets a new book advertised on 60 minutes.
The Liberal brats always have to win or they will retaliate and destroy the nation we conservatives cherish by feeding us to Islamo terrorists.
#4
if it's a setup, its the most inept setup in history. I could do better--and my training in covert intelligence operations consists entirely of reading John Le Carre and Tom Clancy novels.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/31/2005 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The indictment didn't include the "outing" of Ms. Plame issue, primarily because there was nothing to "out." Dark glasses and head scarf aside, it is most difficult to sustain a deployable 'clandestine' identify and also mainain a high profile life as a person and diplomatic community couple, slipping from embassy party to foreign residence functions in D.C., driving to and from work at the building. It just ain't done that'r way. Plame married Wilson in 1998. She allegedly, has not been overseas in over 5 years. You do the math. The reason her employer wasn't concerned is because her marriage to Wilson raised an unacceptable deployment profile, if she ever had one. Read that... home office desk jockey employee job change, with pillow-talk diplomatic connections. It was no big deal for the employer, in fact it probably suited them. It should be no big deal to anyone else. Just much to do about nothing. Her book will be out in time for Christmas, 2006. No worries.
Leon seeks inquiry into SAâs role in UN oil-for-food scandal
Karima Brown
DEMOCRATIC Alliance (DA) leader Tony Leon has called on President Thabo Mbeki to appoint a judicial inquiry into allegations made in a United Nations (UN) report on its oil-for-food programme. âIt is essential that South Africans learn the truth about the oil for food scandal,â Leon said. His call has been met by silence from government and the African National Congress (ANC) since the findings of the report became public on Friday. Mbeki is also under pressure to âcome cleanâ and explain his role in how controversial businessman and known ANC benefactor Sandi Majali secured crude oil from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The UN devised the scheme so Saddam could sell oil to buy food while sanctions were in force. The DA will today ask Mbeki about his role in the affairs uncovered by the UN report. It accuses Majali of manipulation, and details how he used the names of ANC high-ups, including Mbeki and party secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe, to obtain crude oil from Iraq through his oil trading company, Imvume. âPresident Thabo Mbeki did the right thing when he fired a deputy president (Jacob Zuma). The DA strongly supported the move. âWe now equally strongly urge Mbeki to come clean with SA about the ANCâs involvement in the Oilgate and oil-for-food scandals,â Leon said. He said the UN report made the âseriousâ allegations of âdishonesty and illegal conductâ by South African companies. It had previously been disclosed that Imvume was âestablished as an (ANC) frontâ and was used to enter into the oil trade as a means of collecting money for the ANCâs election coffers, Leon said. The report comes amid attempts by Mbeki to act against graft, but the continued silence from government and the ANC on the scandal is likely to dent the presidentâs credibility as a corruption buster According to the report, throughout the programme SA and Iraq were âactively developing business and political tiesâ.
âAt the time government claimed its only objective was to avoid war, yet it can now be credibly argued that it was actually a desperate attempt to protect a close friend as well as lucrative business contracts,â Leon said. The report details business trips between SA and Iraq involving Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad and Iraqâs then-foreign affairs minister Tariq Aziz. The Freedom Front Plus also called for an inquiry to the matter.
It is comforting to pretend it's going to be another joyous Diwali. Since the bombs exploded last Saturday, killing 65 ordinary citizens- we still don't know the final count- and leaving another 210 seriously injured, the Capital has been subjected to some dreary sermons.
The custodians of national conscience have coupled their generous overuse of hoary adjectives like "heinous" and "dastardly" to appeal for calm, to praise our collective restraint and to assure us that India will not buckle under terrorism. There is no need, the UPA Chairperson has gratuitously informed us, to be either unduly perturbed or point an accusing finger at anyone. Terrorism, after all, is a "global phenomenon".
The mood of forgiveness resonates throughout Lutyens' Delhi. Even as the Police speak of the terrorists' links across the Radcliffe Line, a decision is taken to declare Pakistan a non-issue. Nothing, absolutely nothing, must be done to derail the "peace process".
The Defence Minister may have spoken earlier about the persisting "infrastructure of terror" and the Army may have aired its concern about the onrush of infiltration across the Line of Control in the aftermath of the earthquake, but these are apparent trivialities. In a spirit of devastated magnanimity, India will not be seen to be shirking from its obligation to make Pervez Musharraf's bluster about a disappearing LoC a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Government is in denial. It doesn't want to accept that what happened in Delhi on Saturday was no freak show. The terrorists wilfully targeted the crowded pre-Diwali bazaars as a gesture of defiance, to show that they are still in business.
They had attempted a similar dhamaka in Ayodhya last August, which narrowly failed. On both occasions, the response of the Government has been mealy-mouthed, as if the nation is embarrassed rather than outraged. It is as if a robust response to terrorism violates secular camaraderie!
Perhaps it would have been reassuring if the evidence suggested that a serial explosion of LPG cylinders rather than timer bombs were responsible for the killing. The reality, unfortunately, is different. India is once again under attack from an old enemy and the Government hopes the problem will just go away.
It is certainly time to be phlegmatic but it is also a time to be angry. For the narrowest of political compulsions, the Government has conveyed the impression that terrorism is a trivial act of deviancy and that the killers must be indulged and treated with kid gloves.
The "soft state" is not merely a helpless Prime Minister, an inept Home Minister and a compromised External Affairs Minister. It is a mindset of squeamish appeasement guaranteed to ensure the victims of last Saturday's massacre won't be the last.
Diwali commemorates Lord Ram's triumphant return to Ayodhya. This year we will be observing a collective delusion that evil is just an abstraction, maya. We are celebrating survival by pretending there is no war.
Posted by: john ||
10/31/2005 16:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The tone in the Indian press is decidely harsher. The Indian government will pay a heavy political price if it doesn't show some backbone soon.
Posted by: john ||
10/31/2005 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Backlash from the Indian public as well...
Pakistani onions get dropped like hot potatoes in Navi Mumbai
Chittaranjan Tembhekar
Sunday, October 30, 2005 22:45 IST
More than essential commodities, patriotism seems to be flooding the wholesale market in Navi Mumbai.
In protest against Saturdayâs bomb explosions by terrorist outfits in New Delhi, consumers and retailers at the Maharashtra Agriculture Farming Corporation (MAFCO) and Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) and the community at large have refused to buy onions imported from Pakistan.
âItâs a silent protest. Retailers and consumers just check the Pak variety out, but buy Indian dry onions saying they donât want either Pak or Chinese ones,â said stockist Datta Sayaji Pawale (shop no 145) at MAFCO market. Of the 19 wholesalers at MAFCO only two have bought the Pak variety from APMC commission agents. Mast, like Narayan Botre, Kamlesh Kand, and Vitthal Atkari, have not bought it because âconsumers refuse to purchase itâ.
âLook at the bombings. We donât want produce from that country,â said retailer Sakharam Shinde. He said his earlier stock of Pak onions and Chinese garlic had gone waste. Businessmen and Vashi residents Prabuddha Raje and Usha Kamath said Pakistan always made âour people cry by shielding terroristsâ.
Others like Deepak Salunke and Rajaram Gautam said Pakistani onions consumed more oil while cooking as there were not dry. âIt also weighs more,â Salunke said.
The protest has come as another jolt for importers of Pakistani onions, who have already suffered a huge loss as the variety got heavily damaged due to delay in offloading consignments owing to custom clearance at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). Besides, the onions, which were imported for Rs 14 per kg, were being sold for Rs 12 per kg.
Moreover, the onion crisis seems to have blown over, as consignments from Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, besides from Nashik, Dhule and western parts of Maharashtra are flooding the market, thus bringing down the price of the vegetable. âWhy would we need Pakistani onions now?â quipped a retailer.
Posted by: john ||
10/31/2005 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Fill in the blank test:
France is to USA as _________ is to India.
I guess Pakistan just lost itself a market.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
10/31/2005 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The geriatrics that rule India fondly remember their youth in Lahore and Karachi and yearn for brotherhood.
The PM Manmohan Singh was born in what is now Pakistan. Even the BJP hawk LK Advani (born in Karachi) wistfully recalls his boyhood and hopes for some economic union with Pakistan.
The youth of India have no such fondness. They know nothing of the time before partition. Pakistan to them is simply a terrorist neighbor.
A rage is building. The political system may yet throw up someone who will wage war on Pakistan.
Posted by: john ||
10/31/2005 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Shep UK ||
10/31/2005 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
GREAT ARTICLE! Some good background and information in this. I had always thought that any compact nuke would be very hard to carry by one person. Hauling aound 150 pounds aint as easy as you think.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.
