Hi there, !
Today Sat 05/03/2008 Fri 05/02/2008 Thu 05/01/2008 Wed 04/30/2008 Tue 04/29/2008 Mon 04/28/2008 Sun 04/27/2008 Archives
Rantburg
533473 articles and 1861283 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 70 articles and 326 comments as of 16:55.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Hamas steals Gaza fuel
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
1 00:00 JosephMendiola [3] 
13 00:00 Frank G [5] 
0 [2] 
2 00:00 Broadhead6 [1] 
0 [1] 
0 [2] 
13 00:00 Sninert Black9312 [3] 
1 00:00 john frum [7] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
3 00:00 Jack is Back! [4]
1 00:00 RD [2]
0 [3]
5 00:00 Chuck Simmins [6]
7 00:00 Snakes Shomolet8015 [5]
34 00:00 JosephMendiola [10]
0 [5]
6 00:00 Mike [5]
1 00:00 trailing wife [4]
0 [6]
0 [8]
0 [4]
0 [3]
0 [3]
1 00:00 SteveS [6]
1 00:00 trailing wife [6]
2 00:00 Frank G [2]
7 00:00 mhw [6]
Page 2: WoT Background
3 00:00 Frank G [6]
2 00:00 ed [1]
1 00:00 Sninert Black9312 [4]
7 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
17 00:00 Sninert Black9312 [6]
3 00:00 SteveS [9]
0 [3]
7 00:00 Pappy [1]
14 00:00 twobyfour [10]
8 00:00 Frank G [3]
1 00:00 tu3031 [5]
12 00:00 Woozle Elmeter 2700 [2]
0 [4]
0 [1]
0 [3]
1 00:00 trailing wife [7]
2 00:00 Formerly Dan [6]
7 00:00 RD [7]
0 [1]
Page 3: Non-WoT
3 00:00 eltoroverde [7]
6 00:00 Angie Schultz [5]
4 00:00 OregonGuy [5]
3 00:00 Nimble Spemble [3]
11 00:00 JosephMendiola [4]
7 00:00 DepotGuy [1]
11 00:00 JosephMendiola [2]
3 00:00 Pappy [6]
0 [2]
2 00:00 Abu Uluque [3]
9 00:00 Raj [1]
12 00:00 JosephMendiola [7]
1 00:00 Sninert Black9312 [2]
2 00:00 crosspatch [1]
3 00:00 tu3031 [1]
17 00:00 RD [1]
9 00:00 Broadhead6 [3]
0 [1]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
0 [3]
8 00:00 John F. Kennedy [2]
4 00:00 DMFD [2]
6 00:00 Anonymoose [2]
10 00:00 sinse [1]
5 00:00 Omemble Wittlesbach5601 [1]
7 00:00 Rambler in California [1]
Home Front: Politix
Democrat Fratricide: ". . . her ovaries were screaming at me."
Blogger "Gryphen" @ "The Immoral Minority"

Okay so the other day I was thinking to myself, "I wonder how people are still able to support Hillary after all that we have learned about her?" . . .

So I went over and asked if the things that bothered me about Hillary was making any of them second guess their support. I mentioned her use of Rovian political tactics, her lack of charisma, that much of her popularity was reflected from her husbands popularity, and talked about her creepy-ass laugh. I thought that would open a dialogue where we could logically discuss the pro and cons of both candidates and then I could convince them of the error of their ways with my superior grasp of the facts. (Okay I may have come off as a little condescending.)

But what greeted my comments was completely unexpected and left little room for compromise or discussion. They took my comments as anti-feminist and anti-woman. WTF?

I am a guy who held a sign supporting ERA in the seventies. Most of the jobs I have had have been in workplaces that were predominantly female, elementary schools, child care centers, summer camps etc.. I have never treated any woman as an object even when I worked as a bouncer in a strip club. (It is a long story but I was desperate for a job.)

One woman went so far as to say that her ovaries were screaming at me.

I did not even know that was possible!

. . .
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 15:46 || Comments || Link || [5 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Welcome to the feminazi reality. You must put women above you at all times while telling what trash you are. Any deviation from admitting that you are scum because you are male will result in you being labeled a "chauvinist".
Posted by: DarthVader || 04/30/2008 16:05 Comments || Top||

#2  Anybody here read Dr. Helen on the male "marriage strike?" Every time she writes an article talking about how men get the dirty end of the stick in male-female relationships she gets HUGE numbers of comments, most of which tell her even she doesn't know how bad it really is. If women think men treat them badly, they need to look at the feelings on the other side of the fence. I'm sure they'd get a big wake-up call. There are one heck of a lot of American men who are damned unhappy with American women.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 || 04/30/2008 16:17 Comments || Top||

#3  They took my comments as anti-feminist and anti-woman. WTF?

Maybe because it never was about fairness or justice or equality Dimwit - it was and still is about POWER. By your own writing you still, this late in the movie, haven't achieved your Col. Nicholson* moment,"What have I done?"

*Bridge on the River Kwai
Posted by: Procopius2k || 04/30/2008 16:22 Comments || Top||

#4  Col. Nicholson* moment

"You can't handle the truth!"?
Posted by: ed || 04/30/2008 16:37 Comments || Top||

#5  Just had a Dave Barry moment. Come to think of it, "The Screaming Ovaries" would be a great name for a feminist punk band.
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 16:44 Comments || Top||

#6  In my world its refered to as their "come to Jesus moment"
Posted by: Blackbeard Sleremble8892 || 04/30/2008 16:53 Comments || Top||

#7  If women think men treat them badly, they need to look at the feelings on the other side of the fence. I'm sure they'd get a big wake-up call. There are one heck of a lot of American men who are damned unhappy with American women.

TS,
Funny you should put it that way. I have it on very good authority that my ex made the decision to divorce me after one particularly unpleasant fight that ended quite abruptly after I told her that in the future, I would treat her just as badly as she thought I did. She got very quiet and didn't say a word for three days.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski || 04/30/2008 17:44 Comments || Top||

#8  :: chocolate for Mike ::

remember, it's better to have loved and lost than to be stuck with a jerk.

Works for either gender of jerk.
Posted by: Querent || 04/30/2008 18:12 Comments || Top||

#9  come on now - this was never about feminists or male chauvinists or black or white oppressed or oppressor. This has always been about the kind of individuals who look for an edge (any available edge will do) to smack others off their life's ladder. These are mean spirited people who, back in the old days would have screamed witch or heretic at innocent people simply to achieve a selfish goal.
Posted by: Sninert Black9312 || 04/30/2008 19:50 Comments || Top||

#10  I am a guy who held a sign supporting ERA in the seventies. Most of the jobs I have had have been in workplaces that were predominantly female, elementary schools, child care centers, summer camps etc.. I have never treated any woman as an object even when I worked as a bouncer in a strip club. (It is a long story but I was desperate for a job.)

One woman went so far as to say that her ovaries were screaming at me.

I did not even know that was possible!


Damn Dude, too much personal info! Mike some things should stay private.. >;)
Posted by: RD || 04/30/2008 20:05 Comments || Top||

#11  One woman went so far as to say that her ovaries were screaming at me.

Quick response: "Quit flappin' your lips!"
Posted by: Frank G || 04/30/2008 20:14 Comments || Top||

#12  Just which lips are we refering to here?
Posted by: SteveS || 04/30/2008 21:11 Comments || Top||

#13  ;-) dunno what you're referring to?
Posted by: Frank G || 04/30/2008 21:15 Comments || Top||


More Wright stuff
Jim Geraghty, National Review's "Campaign Spot"

Two additional thoughts on the political landscape after Obama' denunciation of Wright:

1) Most, but perhaps not quite all, of the damage from Jeremiah Wright has been done. He's dominated news cycles, Americans have seen many of the worst of his sermons, he's made a jaw-dropping appearance at the National Press Club, he has made Obama's Philadelphia speech, suggesting that Wright was being unfairly judged on "snippets" look foolish, etc. ... But there's one more shoe left to drop. How does Wright react to Obama's press conference yesterday? Does he start accusing Obama of lying? Does he begin saying that he shared his controversial opinions with Obama many times? Does he begin saying that in private, Obama indicated he agreed with Wright's theories? Or does he stay away from reporters?

The story really goes away when Wright decides he's had enough of the public spotlight.

2. As we've seen, the McCain campaign may be hesitant to swing away at Obama when the topic is Jeremiah Wright, but they'll hold nothing back when the topic is William Ayers or kind words from Hamas. Pretty clearly, John McCain would rather he never had to address a racially-charged issue, and he probably instinctively knows that almost any comment will bring reflexive accusations of racism or racial insensitivity from Democrats.

If and when the Wright issue no longer dominates the news cycle, those other issues will come to the foreground. And then, McCain and his surrogates will have no incentive to hold back.

For example, if you want to know how William Ayers can stay in the news, check out this must-read New York Daily News op-ed:

Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs.

John McCain and his campaign held back on the issue of Wright; nothing will be held back on Ayers.
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 12:35 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:


Dear Senator Obama, . . .
Dear Senator Obama,

I’m writing this letter because I know this has been a rough 48 hours for you. I can’t imagine the shock of finding out that your pastor for 20 years, the man who married you, who baptized your children, who brought you to Jesus… has been hoodwinking you for the past two decades. . . .

Well, if it makes you feel any better Senator… this whole episode has been tough for me too.

You see, two of my five kids are actually my stepkids. We don’t make a big deal out of it. In fact, they’ve always called me “Dad”. Just like your father, who wasn’t around when you were growing up, my two oldest kids haven’t seen their biological father in years. And like you, they’re the offspring of a white mother and a black father. Our other three kids are as pale as milk, so we’ve gotten our share of odd comments over the years. I’m sure you remember similar comments when you were a kid and were out with your grandparents.

But as a parent, you try to deal with it the best you can. You tell your kids that most people are just ignorant, and that skin color doesn’t make you any different. You thank God that the civil rights movement has been as successful as it has, and that the comments you do get are few and far between. You teach your children that people should be judged on the contents of their character, not the color of their skin.

Then Jeremiah Wright becomes the story of the day and now you’re trying to figure out what to tell your 7-year old when he asks if it’s true that he’s different than his older brother and sister, and if we love him more or less than we love them. You wonder if your 17-year old son and your 21-year old daughter have bought into what Rev. Wright is peddling, and if the bond of family is stronger than race-based rhetoric. And yes, you wonder why it took Senator Barack Obama twenty years to figure out Jeremiah Wright when most of the rest of us figured it out in about five minutes.

Sorry Senator, but I’m starting to wonder if your comments distancing yourself from Reverend Wright are really sincere. I’m also wondering if you were really that close with him to begin with. I’m wondering a lot of things about you, but it boils down to one concern: are you lying to us now, or were you lying to us all along about Reverend Wright? Either way, it would make you the worst kind of politician. You know the stereotype: slimy, oozing with contempt for the voters, willing to say anything to get elected. The exact opposite of how you present yourself, basically.

And I don’t know how you get beyond that Senator. You’re either A) the worst judge in character the world has ever seen or B) another lying politician who just wants to get elected and thinks Americans have the intelligence of tree stumps. Either way, when it comes to the content of your character… you fail. You could have walked out of that church at any point over the past twenty years. You could have used your big speech in Philadelphia to put to rest this issue, not claim the Reverend Wright as a member of your family. Because of your failure of character, you’re now merely following the conventional political wisdom instead of exhibiting true leadership and principle.

But don’t worry Senator. If you’re right about the American people, we’ll be too distracted by American Idol and the price of gasoline to remember any of this come November.

Sincerely,

Cam Edwards
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 09:23 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Ooooh, that'll leave a mark!
Posted by: Scooter McGruder || 04/30/2008 11:53 Comments || Top||

#2  perfect summation of empty suit al'obama...heck, his crazy-ass wife michele is more honest then he is...
Posted by: Broadhead6 || 04/30/2008 13:47 Comments || Top||


God bless the Rev. Jeremiah Wright!
Jonah Goldberg

For six weeks, Obama’s supporters have diligently argued that to so much as mention Wright is, in effect, racist. When Hillary Clinton said that Wright wouldn’t have been her pastor, Andrew Sullivan gasped on his Atlantic blog that this was “a new low” in the election. When Lanny J. Davis, Clinton’s consummate spinner, defended her on CNN by describing what Wright actually said, Anderson Cooper lambasted Davis for daring to repeat Wright’s comments. Time’s Joe Klein chimed in, “You’re spreading the poison right now.”

Obama and his defenders have insisted that the bits from Wright’s sermons that got wide circulation last month had been taken out of context. His infamous sound bites were grounded in concrete theological or factual foundations, they claim. He was quoting other people. He’s done good things. Nothing to see here, folks.

And so God bless Wright because he’s left all of these folks holding a giant, steaming bag of ... well, let’s just call it a bag of “context.”

Let’s start with the news out of his speeches Sunday and Monday . . . Sunday in Detroit, Wright explained to 10,000 people at the Fight for Freedom Fund dinner of the NAACP — an organization adept at taking offense to far less racist comments from non-blacks — that black and white brains are simply wired differently. Whites are “left-brain cognitive” while blacks are “right-brain” oriented. Each has “different ways of learning.” One wonders why Wright opposes separate-but-equal education.

CNN carried the speech live, and anchor Soledad O’Brien reported from the scene that it was “a home run.”

Then, Monday morning at the National Press Club, Wright attempted to clear the air about all of the supposedly deceptive sound bites he’s been reduced to.

So, does he stand by his “God damn America” statement? Well, yeah. He explained that until American leaders apologize to Japan for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to black Americans for slavery and racism, we will remain a damnable nation.

What about that bit about America’s chickens coming home to roost on 9/11? Yep, we heard him right. “You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you; those are biblical principles,” he explained.

Asked whether he stood by his assertion that the U.S. government created HIV as part of a genocidal program to wipe out the black race, Wright mostly dodged but ultimately offered this nondenial denial: “I believe our government is capable of doing anything.” He also offered a zesty defense of Louis Farrakhan — “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century” — and dismissed criticism of Farrakhan as an anti-Semite.

To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff “politicians say.” They “do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” So much for Obama’s new politics. . . .
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 09:09 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
Errol Louis
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted. Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).
Reynolds News Service? Glenn should sue.
It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter. On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."
The more I look at Thulsa Doom the less black he looks. He's got the dialect down pretty good, but he looks more Armenian or Arab or something. Is he a Ward Churchill black man?
I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.
It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.

Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong - and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite. But Wright should have known - and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew - that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama.

I hope that wasn't their goal.
Posted by: Fred || 04/30/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Don't talk bout his mama then; don't start none, won't be none!
Posted by: smn || 04/30/2008 1:55 Comments || Top||

#2  Still, the GOP leaders prefer to go against Hillary.
Posted by: McZoid || 04/30/2008 4:15 Comments || Top||

#3  This kind of maneuver worked for Hillary. She was taking lots of heat going in to the South Carolina primary. She didn't have a prayer of winning that election. So, Bill went in and made some incredibly stupid remarks in the hopes that it would take the harsh glaring media attention off her and on to good old Bill. It worked very nicely for her. She lost South Carolina as expected but was able to restart her engine in later state primaries. Could Rev. Wright be attempting the same sort of manipulation for Obama? If he is, it doesn't seem to be working as well. Too much of the critical attention is staying stuck on Obama. Nobody has a teflon suit like Bill.
Posted by: Jack Slineger4174 || 04/30/2008 4:28 Comments || Top||

#4  I read it here. It's all part of a plan Karl Rove would admire. rev. Wrong goes over the top, B.O. sez "We're finished", and he looks more like a heroic, principled, unifier again.
Posted by: Bobby || 04/30/2008 6:19 Comments || Top||

#5  Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable

And the Hitler Youth had great outreach programs for German children.
Posted by: Excalibur || 04/30/2008 6:20 Comments || Top||

#6  I'm sure Strength through Joy had a lot to commend it.
Posted by: Fred || 04/30/2008 7:28 Comments || Top||

#7  It's all relative, Excalibur, all relative! [snicker]
Posted by: Bobby || 04/30/2008 7:42 Comments || Top||

#8  Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Poop is way Sticky and is Klinging to BO.

I don't think even Karl could Scrub the Stink Off BO in Time....
Posted by: RD || 04/30/2008 7:48 Comments || Top||

#9  Thanks to Rev. Wright Mr. Obama's CHICKENS are comin' HOME to ROOST.
Posted by: MarkZ || 04/30/2008 7:52 Comments || Top||

#10  The first sentence is misleading: he couldn't have done more damage to Obama because he did as much damage as he possibly could.
Posted by: Grunter || 04/30/2008 8:48 Comments || Top||

#11  The Obama train has derailed.
Posted by: DarthVader || 04/30/2008 10:01 Comments || Top||

#12  Don't talk bout his mama then; don't start none, won't be none!

Grape jello today - with fruit bits. After that, you can play shuffleboard.
Posted by: Pappy || 04/30/2008 16:22 Comments || Top||

#13  if it was a press trick, it was a pretty impressive smoke and mirrors to deflect from the revelation that hillary is such a psychotic, compulsive liar that she actually believed that she could lie about landing in sniper fire and that no one would think that was just too creepy to eliminate you for the most powerful position in the world.
Posted by: Sninert Black9312 || 04/30/2008 20:00 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
The Bush Method
One of the prisms through which those of a certain age view the Middle East is the events of June 7, 1981, when a squadron of Israeli F-16 warplanes wheeled out of the afternoon skies over Baghdad and destroyed the atomic-bomb-making facility at Osirak. The event is widely remembered for Israel's daring and skill, for removing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq from the world stage, and for the howls of diplomatic outrage that greeted the event, egged on by an editorial in the New York Times that derided Prime Minister Begin for making a "sneak attack" and called the raid "an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression." Even President Reagan, though privately he stood with Israel, was forced to tut-tut publicly.

For those who came up during this period, it has been extraordinarily satisfying to watch the adroitness with which President Bush has dealt with Israel's decision to send a new generation of warplanes to destroy a new enemy reactor under construction, this time one that was being constructed with North Korean help in Syria. Mr. Bush had kept famously silent after that attack; at one press conference, he had fairly glared at a reporter who'd asked him about it, issuing an exceptionally terse no comment. Only last week did the administration let share with the Congress that it had detailed intelligence showing North Korean agents inside the reactor compound. And what a remarkable performance it was yesterday to watch Mr. Bush explain, for the first time, his thinking.

Why did the White House wait? In turns out there were four reasons. On Tuesday, the president explained that a public confirmation of Israel's attack, which was deep in Syrian territory, could have provoked a counter-attack at the least and a regional war at worst. And he gave three other reasons: Iran, North Korea and Syria. In the negotiations with North Korea on its disclosure of its plutonium based weapons program, Mr. Bush wanted to pressure Pyongyang to disclose fully its other enrichment activities and its illicit trade in nuclear technology. This means that the deal many of us worried was in the offing, one that would loosen sanctions and decrease pressure on the Hermit Kingdom, is likely to be delayed until Kim Jong Il comes clean about all of his rogue atomic proliferation.

In respect of Iran, the president said he believed the disclosure last week would again emphasize the urgency with which the world must come behind the largely financial sanctions aimed at pressuring the mullahs to end their uranium enrichment, an activity now in defiance of three resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. In respect of Syria, the president Bush allayed some fears that he would be going along with the State Department's push for a Golan negotiation between Damascus and Israel. He spoke of wanting to make clear to Syria and the world the consequences of Syrian "intransigence."

"So," said the president, "that's why we made the decision we made." No doubt his decision to wait to explain himself can be argued, but it can't be argued that he failed to act with purpose and sagacity. He limited briefings to only 22 top leaders in Congress, a decision that divided the administration's remaining hawks from the Gates-Hadley-Rice faction that favors a policy of counterinsurgency in Iraq but accommodation in the rest of the region. Our Eli Lake's reported that even such conservatives as John Bolton and the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence fumed at the decision to keep the details of the Syrian-North Korean program secret for so long.

Now the president is in control of the table, so to speak. His critics may have had a field day, but following the disclosures of what the administration knew, some of them have egg on their faces. Seymour Hersh, who wrote in February that he "was repeatedly told by current and former intelligence, diplomatic, and congressional officials that they were not aware of any solid evidence of ongoing nuclear-weapons programs in Syriak," will want to call his office. No wet hen was ever madder than the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei, who has been denouncing Israel. Mr. Bush clearly appreciates that logic of Israel's decision to act against the atomic-bomb-building facility took years to come into full relief. Mr. Bush understood all that, signaled his support in a discrete way, and shared his thinking on a schedule he saw fit, knowing that a full assessment of his presidency will be made by historians operating well into the future.
Posted by: ryuge || 04/30/2008 05:35 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:


India-Pakistan
How can TAPI and IPI save Pakistan?
Pakistan, Afghanistan and India have signed a “Government Framework Agreement” in Islamabad to initiate the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project to supply gas to the three “downstream” countries. India has formally joined a project that was earlier called TAP without India. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is pushing the project whose feasibility was already approved in 2003. Later, it was discovered that the project would be profitable to Turkmenistan only if India joined to take 60 percent of the supply. India wanted to join the project but was sitting on a see-saw about actually formalising its entry into the deal.

Are we out of the wilderness on a plan that was set on foot in the early 1990s and got snagged in global politics? The Taliban decided to take on the world instead of taking the American bait on the Turkmen pipeline, and the project was laid off after a “hopeful” American company left Kabul. An alternative emerged in the shape of the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, but once again got snagged in international politics. Iran decided to take on the world on its nuclear programme, which scared India off and left Pakistan alone carrying the bag while Tehran played tough on price-fixing. Fear of American sanctions scared off prospective financiers like the ADB and suddenly IPI began to slip and TAP came on line again as TAPI.

The TAPI pipeline will run from the Daulatabad gasfield to Afghanistan, from there it will go alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan to India. The final destination will be the Indian town of Fazilka. It will supply 33 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas annually, its major customer being India. There will be six compressor stations along the entire length of the pipeline and it will have to be guarded by the states they pass through, apart from the pipeline. The largest stretch will fall to the share of Pakistan, between Quetta and Multan and the Indian border. The cost of the project was just over $3 billion in 2003; today it is $7.6 billion. The supply is to begin in 2015 if TAPI too is not sabotaged.

The Indian press says that IPI is as good as dead and that TAPI is on. Most officials get riled at the idea that the states have backed off because of the American threat to apply sanctions to whosoever helps in building the IPI, but the ADB is clear in its mind that the IPI is not feasible in the current circumstances. And it is feasible only if India joins it. This applies to TAPI as well. After India dilly-dallied, Pakistan tried to revive the IPI by getting China in on the pipeline at the cost of creating an eighth wonder of the world in the shape of a high-altitude pipeline into Sinkiang, once called High Asia.

India and Pakistan need gas to survive. India is actually more desperate because of its steady high growth rate but its efforts to get gas from the east from Bangladesh and Burma have not brought fruit. When it glanced towards the West it saw Pakistan sitting athwart a geo-strategic terrain demanding a solution to Kashmir as a pre-condition. So it decided to build a fleet of carrier ships for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from Iran and Central Asia via Iran. But developments inside Pakistan have damaged Pakistan’s geopolitical importance. And both Iran (on price) and India (on transit fee) have pointedly negated Pakistan’s geopolitical advantage of being in the middle. The military textbooks on geopolitics therefore need to be revised.

The IPI has also become subject to non-credibility because of the depredations of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) which blows up pipelines that already exist in the province. The last time the federal government talked to the political parties in Balochistan through two senate committees, the consensus was that there should be no new cantonments built in the province, a prospect without which the IPI would have been jeopardised. Now the new chief minister of Balochistan wants his province to be given sovereignty under the 1940 Lahore Resolution which means he wants the “sovereign” right to decide the IPI and the not the federation. This is easier said than done.

The TAPI pipeline too will come from Kandahar and enter Balochistan to reach Quetta from where it will proceed towards Multan. So once again the BLA will target it, and without proper military supervision, the pipeline will not be safe. The fact to be kept in mind is that both Afghanistan and Pakistan are domains of disorder lying between two economically upward-mobile regions. Both are “proud”, which means inclined to isolationism and deaf to pragmatic advice from outside. Afghanistan is only reluctantly better controlled because of foreign occupation, but Pakistan is fractured in opinion and the writ of the state. Therefore one conclusion is inescapable: unless both IPI and TAPI become good devices of leverage on, and self-realisation in, Pakistan to set its house in order and become a normal state, the projects are doomed
Posted by: john frum || 04/30/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [7 views] Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1  Wait till the Bugtis and the Mazaris learn about these planned pipelines through their lands...
Posted by: john frum || 04/30/2008 7:06 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Greens have creepy fascination with eugenics
Fred Pearce, New Scientist "Environment" Blog

Here is something all right-thinking liberals can agree on. Saving the planet is good; manipulating humanity through eugenics is bad. The trouble is that these two ethical opposites come together when we talk about population control as a means of protecting the environment.

Most of us breed. And those of us who do have one ecological footprint in common: our offspring. Me included. So all greens have to ask: is having babies bad for the planet?

Fair enough. But there is another question that I find increasingly being asked. Should we be trying to stop others having babies, especially people in poor countries with fast-growing populations? . . . They were, it was often held, polluting the human gene pool as well as the planet. Such thinking was not fringe: it involved some of the great names of the environment movement.

So the American academic Garrett Hardin said in his classic and still-revered environment text Tragedy of the Commons in 1968, "Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all." It must be "relinquished to preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms." Lest we have any doubt who should do the relinquishing, he wrote elsewhere about how college students should have more children than those with low IQs. . . .

And this is not ancient history. Only recently, US groups opposed to all migration tried to get their policies adopted by the blue-chip environment group, the Sierra Club. To many they sounded like a fringe group. Actually they were an echo of the earlier mainstream.

And the echo is becoming louder. We hear it in the climate change debate. No matter that the average European or North American has carbon emissions 10 times greater than the average Indian or African, somehow it is those pesky breeding foreigners who are really to blame.

And now food shortages are growing and we will get more. Ehrlich, we are bound to be told, was right after all. You have been warned: green fascism could soon be on the march.
Posted by: Mike || 04/30/2008 16:17 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  FREEREPUBLIC > SCIENTISTS: GLOBAL WARMING HAS "STOPPED", at least thru 2015.

READ - Need to study and scrutize SOLAR/SUNSPOT CYCLE 24 AS TO SOLAR REASONS FOR DELAY + EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING???
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 04/30/2008 20:51 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
47[untagged]
5Taliban
2Hamas
2al-Qaeda
2Govt of Pakistan
2Mahdi Army
1Abu Sayyaf
1Govt of Syria
1al-Qaeda in Europe
1Iraqi Baath Party
1Islamic Courts
1Thai Insurgency
1Palestinian Authority
1Takfir wal-Hijra
1Global Jihad
1Govt of Iran

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2008-04-30
  Hamas steals Gaza fuel
Tue 2008-04-29
  Pak Talibs quit peace talks
Mon 2008-04-28
  U.S. Marines join Brits fighting Taliban in Helmand
Sun 2008-04-27
  Karzai survives another assassination attempt
Sat 2008-04-26
  Tater loses nerve, tells fighters to observe truce
Fri 2008-04-25
  Basra in govt hands
Thu 2008-04-24
  Baitullah orders Talibs not to attack Pak forces
Wed 2008-04-23
  Petraeus to Head Central Command
Tue 2008-04-22
  Paks free Sufi Muhammad
Mon 2008-04-21
  Pak government halts operation in Tribal Areas
Sun 2008-04-20
  Tater threatens 'open war' on Iraq government
Sat 2008-04-19
  UK police arrest terror suspect, conduct controlled boom
Fri 2008-04-18
  Nimroz mosque kaboom kills two dozen
Thu 2008-04-17
  Boomer kills 50 at Iraq funeral
Wed 2008-04-16
  60 die in AQI car booms


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.
3.142.124.252
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (18)    WoT Background (19)    Non-WoT (18)    Local News (7)    (0)