The Independent thinks they got it solved. American ineptitude in a botched raid and snatch of Iranian spies. Yea, yea, yea. Truth be told, it makes little difference at this time. Britain under the pusillanimous leadership of Tony Blair is prepared to sacrifice vulgar national interests to sentimentality. But before we fall into the Iranian trap of having a go at Blair and the British, we need to give the real credit to the most deserving. There was a botched US raid, but it was under the botched presidency of the very botched Jimmy Carter. The Iranians won that round and they seem to be doing all right again.
No, Mr. Blair that is not the most important thing. Too bad the British have a Jimmy Carter for a PM, but they do and that is there choice.A very smug Iranian, Mr LarijaniThis being reported in the Telegraph One of Iran's most senior politicians offered new hope for the swift release of 15 captured British sailors and marines, saying direct negotiations were underway and that the situation was "quite resolvable".
Tony Blair has responded by saying that the next two days will be "fairly critical" for diplomats in a Scottish radio broadcast this morning.
During an interview on Channel 4 News last night, Ali Larijani, chief of the Iranian National Security Council, indicated the fourteen men and one woman would not face a show trial.
And today, Iranian radio cited Mr Larijani saying that the British Government has started diplomatic talks with the foreign ministry in Teheran in order to "resolve the issue of the arrest of the British military personnel."
He suggested that Britain would need to send a diplomatic delegation to Teheran, admit that its Navy had made a mistake by straying into Iranian waters and guarantee that the error would not be repeated.
The Prime Minister said the remarks seemed to offer "some prospect but the most important thing is to get these people back."
Just to remind you:
AMERICA CAN'T DO A THING'
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 2, 2004
November 2, 2004 -- AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages.
The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran.
Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire.
The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.
The Bzrezinski strategy had been partly inspired by Helene Carrere d'Encausse, who, in her book "The Fragmented Empire," predicted the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities.
When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could muster enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing regime and the pro-Soviet leftist movements.
The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a 1954 presidential "finding" by Dwight Eisenhower was dusted off to reaffirm Washington's commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats.
Also to symbolize support for the mullahs, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled shah to travel to New York for medical treatment.
Just weeks after the mullahs' regime was formed, Brzezinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini's first prime minister. At the meeting, Brzezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullahs, was "ecstatic" about the American offer.
The embassy raid came just days after the Brzezinski-Bazargan meeting in Morocco and, by all accounts, took Khomeini by surprise. It is now clear that leftist groups opposed to rapprochement with the United States had inspired the raid.
Khomeini saw it as a leftist ploy to undermine his authority. He was also concerned about the possibility of the United States taking strong military and political action against his still fragile regime.
Deciding to hedge his bets, the ayatollah played a double game for several days, waiting to gauge the American reaction.
According to his late son Ahmad, who had been asked to coordinate with the embassy-raiders, the ayatollah feared "thunder and lightning" from Washington. But what came, instead, was a series of bland statements by Carter and his aides pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds.
Carter's envoy to the United Nations, a certain Andrew Young, described Khomeini as "a 20th-century saint," and begged the ayatollah to show "magnanimity and compassion."
Carter went further by sending a letter to Khomeini.
Written in longhand, it was an appeal from "one believer to a man of God."
Carter's syrupy prose must have amused Khomeini, who preferred a minimalist style with such phrases as "we shall cut off America's hands."
As days passed, with the U.S. diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no "thunder and lightning" from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama (which was to last for 444 days, ending as Ronald Reagan entered the White House), Khomeini's view of America had changed.
Ahmad Khomeini's memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved "like a headless chicken."
What especially surprised Khomeini was that Cater and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbarous act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the United States and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.
Once he had concluded that America would not take any meaningful action against his regime, Khomeini took over control of the hostage enterprise and used it to prop up his "anti-imperialist" credentials while outflanking the left.
The surprising show of weakness from Washington also encouraged the mullahs and the hostage-holders to come up with a fresh demand each day. Started as a revolutionary gesture, the episode soon led to a demand for the United States to capture and hand over the shah for trial. When signals came that Washington might actually consider doing so, other demands were advanced. The United States was asked to apologize to Muslim peoples everywhere and, in effect, change its foreign policy to please the ayatollah.
Matters worsened when a military mission to rescue the hostages ended in tragedy in the Iranian desert. The force dispatched by Carter fled under the cover of night, leaving behind the charred bodies of eight of their comrades.
In his memoirs, Ahmad nicely captures the mood of his father, who had expected the Americans to do "something serious," such as threatening to block Iran's oil exports or even firing a few missiles at the ayatollah's neighborhood.
But not only did none of that happen, the Carter administration was plunged into internal feuds as Vance resigned in protest of the rescue attempt.
It was then that Khomeini coined his notorious phrase, "America cannot do a damn thing."
He also ordered that the slogan "Death to America" be inscribed in all official buildings and vehicles. The U.S. flag was to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so that the faithful could trample it under their feet every day.
The slogan "America cannot do a damn thing" became the basis of all strategies worked out by Islamist militant groups, including those opposed to Khomeini.
That slogan was tested and proved right for almost a quarter of a century. Between Nov. 4, 1979, and 9/11, a total of 671 Americans were held hostage for varying lengths of time in several Muslim countries. Nearly 1,000 Americans were killed, including 241 Marines blown up while sleeping in Beirut in 1983.
For 22 years the United States, under presidents from both parties, behaved in exactly the way that Khomeini predicted. It took countless successive blows, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, without decisive retaliation. That attitude invited, indeed encouraged, more attacks.
The 9/11 tragedy was the denouement of the Nov. 4 attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
Good morning
ReplyDeleteAllow this example, from todays Wall Street Journal. It shows that age might not dull the "brilliance" of some.
ReplyDeleteThe Trouble With Islam
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT ...The article opens with..
"Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, ....
The Brilliant Bernard Lewis
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOne thing not botched by the Pajamas gang is their brilliant essayist Victor David Hansen, PhD. Stanford.
ReplyDeleteHis April 2nd essay is another tour de force.
April 2, 2007
Beyond Iraq
by Victor Davis Hanson
The threat from radical Islamic terrorists will not vanish when President Bush leaves office, or if funds for the Iraq war are cut off in 2008.
VDH
Was this comment made by a digruntled Brit blaming the US for the hijacking of their sailors?
ReplyDeleteOr was it made by a longshoreman?
Or by a very unhappy. menopausal woman? I present, you decide.
""They seem to feel they are making a difference."
Goddammit, (name removed to protect the innocent), you sound like a fucking social worker. Or make them sound like such.
Cognitive dissonance. It's not just a river in Egypt.
The second paragraph seems to display an overall feeling of unhapppiness. The third paragraph is diassociative and perhaps marks a severe mental stress. I believe the person meany denial, not cognative dissonance. Or hey is there a river in Eqypt we joke about as congnative dissonance?
If you guessed an unhappy menopausal woman your are correct.
I guess Sigmund Freud was correct in stating in his final years,after studying human nature he had but one question. "What do women want?" Good call Siggy.
IF YOU MISSED IT LAST NIGHT THE FLORIDA GATORS, MY ALMA MATER, ARE KINGS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL...BEATING OHIO STATE LIKE A DRUM IN EACH SPORTS TITLE GAME.
ReplyDeleteCONGRATULATIONS TO THE GATOR NATION!
GO GATORS
...and YES breaking the law, quite overtly is Speaker of the House, Nanny Pelosi .... this friends is called usurpation of power and is a treasonable act.
ReplyDelete"Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails Lebanon"
Nan Pelosi Breaks Law
bobalharb,
ReplyDeletei didn't tune into the game until the last eight or so minutes, which of course in basketball means I watched 45 minutes of time outs, commercials etc.
Ohio State IS a great University.
I just think the population shift to Florida over time gave them a recruiting advantage that built up over time...and then when you win, well EVERY ball player wants to come play for you.
And remember Archie Griffin, only 2x Heisman winner ....from ...Ohio State.
Kentucky lost Aldolf Rupp and that did that.
Yes, nothing like having an unveiled infidel female like Condi of Nanny talkinng policy with men who would chain them in the basement legally if they were Muslim.
ReplyDeleteBut all is well in Whabbi-World, and the Persians will of course come to see the light ...hopefully a large light of great intensity and heat with might shockwaves to reverberate throughout Islam.
I say if we're the Great Satan let's start acting like it.
Cut off their supply of Tang, no more Ovaltine either.
When nan returns she'll appear on Laryy King.
ReplyDelete"Arrested in Miami on December 20, 1971 on charges of grand larceny, Larry King was in debt to sustain an extravagant lifestyle among other things. There is a connection here to the Kennedy Assassination, as the debt which prompted this arrest was apparently regarding a loan to a financial backer of Jim Garrison. Garrison was the Louisiana district attorney quasi-offically investigating Kennedy's death.
Larry King is the cable TV talkshow host of CNN's "Larry King Live".
Mugshot
There was a botched US raid, but it was under the botched presidency of the very botched Jimmy Carter.
ReplyDeleteIn combat shit happens, I'm not sure it's very helpful to shift the blame to a Donk Commander-in-Chief, otherwise people might shift the credit from a 'Pub CiC in the event of a successful raid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom Frontpage :
ReplyDeleteby Robert Spencer
The Goal of the Jihad
I am not much for predicting the future, so when it comes to detailing the next moves of the jihadists I can’t tell you what they’re going to do – but I can tell you about the ultimate goal they’re working toward.
President Bush has said that they are hoping to establish an Islamic state from Spain to Indonesia.
And there is something else also. In Islamic law, jihad warfare may be defensive or offensive. Jihad is ordinarily fard kifaya – an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole, from which some are freed if others take it up. Jihad becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in any way he can, if a Muslim land is attacked.
Jihad Gone Wild
Ronnie Reagan gets credit for the War in Granada, which Clint Eastwood even made a movie about, so it was a "real" good war.
ReplyDeleteBush 41 gets credit for Panama, though no movie was made, it was a good raid.
We raided Baghdad with Bush 43, that was a great success, and Mr Bush took credit for it.
The subsequent occupation of Iraq has found no willing father.
"In combat shit happens"
ReplyDeleteYou will not find a better summation, ok , maybe,
"War is Hell"
"The subsequent occupation of Iraq has found no willing father.'
ReplyDeleteA sovereign nation that has asked us to remain and be a trainer of forces and a willing ally is an "occupier?" Hmm
I guess we've been occupying most of Europe since the end of WWII then. And Japan. And South Korea.
Golly, we are bad people.
I see that "occupier" statement on a good many anti US protest placards. It's generally used in the pejorative by the coalition of tree hugers, dope smolking anarchists, and Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan admirers.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the sovereign nation of Iraq ask us to stay and help out or are we forceably remaining there, holding their government hostage?
Sovereign, such a good word.
ReplyDeleteTo bad King Saud does not use it when referencing Iraq.
The UN authorized the Coalition Occpation of Iraq, under the Sovereign Governments approval. That is up for review, in June, I believe.
As to the US having been an Occupier, I go to no other Authority tham Mr Bush, in '04:
There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.
The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.
"The occupation will end"
Which means a US led Occupation must have begun, sometime.
Mr Bush also discussed troop levels in Iraq, on '04:
The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.
America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. ...
The more thngs change, the more they stay the same.
2164th quoted:
ReplyDelete"He suggested that Britain would need to send a diplomatic delegation to Teheran, admit that its Navy had made a mistake by straying into Iranian waters and guarantee that the error would not be repeated."
I would be very surprised if Britain agrees to a modification/codification of the disputed border just to get there hostages back. It does seem that there is movement forward today and a prisoner exchange seems to be the order of the day.
3 headlines at CNN.com
• Tempers cool in diplomatic standoff Video
• Iranian diplomat released after kidnapping
• Iraq pressing U.S. to release detained Iranians
As for the Occupation being an orphan, many do not even want to acknowledge its' existence, let alone take the credit for it.
ReplyDeleteNo pride in being father to such a bastard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat is now, we were speaking of then.
ReplyDeleteHistorical references to past raids and other military operations, as Grenada was a bit more than a "raid", and whom recieved credit for military operations.
From May '03 to June '04 the US occupied Iraq, with NO Iraqi approval. That is a fact. No one claims the credit for a job well done. A Mission so botched some deny it even happened.
Revisionism at its' best.
Mr Bush agrees, there was an Occupation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo campare Mr Bush to Ms Sheehan and yourself to Ms Pelosi.
ReplyDeleteWill wonders never cease.
habu quotes Mr Lewis, an academic.
I quote Mr Bush, a US President.
habu references Ms Sheehan, I quote Mr Bush. He says they sound alike. Who'd have guressed.
Never having spent the time to read Ms Sheehan, I take habus' word for it, that Mr Bush echos Ms Sheehans sentiments.
subsequent- what came after
ReplyDeletemaybe my definition is wrong.
maybe not.
"Possumtater"
ReplyDelete"yez suh Mistuh Habu"
"did you bust DR before noon?
"yez suh"
Let's talk..
ReplyDeleteLet's act weak...
Let's let hamas, iran, syria, palestinians, hezbollah become emboldened
Please let them think we are weak...
and then when they do something even MORE amazing than 15 solders we will have the excuse to whack a mole...
Sorry your knees buckled, habu. Hoped you were made of tougher stuff.
ReplyDeleteTell us more of Ms Sheehan, sounds like she and you agree alot.
The big war is comin' All 'cause of Mr Bush, and what he does not say.
She sees the same winks & the same nods, she does not listen to the words, either.
The words of the day
Rconciliation
to go along with
Religion of Peace
The President's desperation is starting to show. He wants Congress to hurry up and give him something to veto. Come on, Dubya, bring your "A" game.
ReplyDeleteI always am amused with historical & political comparisons. The latest to be in vouge was that of Mr Bush to Mr Churchill.
ReplyDeleteCasting, of course, Mr Clinton in the role of Mr Chamberlain.
Played well, for Mr Bush in '03 & '04.
But let US look at the timeline of WWII, around May of 1940 when Mr Churcill became PM.
WAR DIARY 1940
• January 1 2 million called up
• March 12 Finns surrender
• April 9 Germans invade Norway and Denmark
• April1 4 Allies retake Narvik
• May 10 Churchill becomes Prime Minister, German troops invade Low Countries, Britain starts internment
• May 14 Dutch surrender
• May 26 Belgians surrender
• May 28 Dunkirk evacuation begins
• June 3 Allies start withdrawal from Norway
• June 4 Dunkirk evacuation completed
• June 7 Norwegian withdrawal complete
• June 10 Italy declares war on Britain and France
• June 14 Germans march into Paris
• June 18 Churchill makes "Their finest hour" speech, De Gaule broadcasts to France from London
When they write the history of 2001-2012 which comparison will seem most apt,
"Peace in our time"
to "Religion of peace"
or
"I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, May 13, 1940
"... This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. (Applause.) And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.
All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. ..."
President Bush
US Capital, January 29, 2002
History will decide who brought peace in their time.
Mr Reid and his team doubled down on the rhetoric, yesterday.
ReplyDeleteMr Bush gives them a veto, they come back with Reid-Feingold, cutting off funds, mandating a withdrawal, ala Somalia in '93.
That will become the comparison they will make.
Iraq to Somalia, both then and now.
Mr Reid is from Las Vegas, he deals in eyes wide shut Federal land swaps, and can read the cards as they're dealt.
He is upping the ante, not standing down or even pat.
Just to further decieve his base?
Regardless of the short term outcome it does not bode well for the decade of committment that General Barry R. McCaffrey says we are going to have to make in Iraq to be successful.
Check out the shopping list, it'd take a couple of years to fill it, at current rates maybe more.
A sufficient but not necessary condition of success is adequate resources to build an Iraqi Army, National Police, local
Police, and Border Patrol.
We are still in the wrong ball park.
The Iraqis need to
capacity to jail 150,000 criminals and terrorists.
They must have an air force with 150 US helicopters. (The US Armed Forces have 100+ medevac helicopters and 700 lift or attack aircraft in-country.)
They need 5000 light armored vehicles for their ten divisions. They need enough precision, radar-assisted counter-battery artillery to suppress the constant mortar and rocket attacks on civilian and
military targets.
They should have 24 C130’s---and perhaps three squadrons of light ground attack aircraft.
I mention these numbers not to be precise—but to give an order of magnitude estimation that refutes our current anemic effort. The ISF have taken horrendous casualties. We must give them the leverage to replace us as our combat formations withdraw in the coming 36 months.
Barry R. McCaffrey
General USA (Ret)
Adjunct Professor of International Affairs
USMA, West Point, NY
PDF Document the complete report.
The U.S. hasn’t won a single political fight against Mr. al-Sistani, and it is hard to imagine why Bush administration officials might think that record will begin improving any time soon. The Americans have long proposed replacing the current Shi’ite-dominated government in Baghdad, kept in place with the forbearance of Moqtada al-Sadr’s political party, with a cross-sectarian moderate coalition that would includes more Sunni Arabs, but exclude al-Sadr and other radicals. Mr. al-Sistani has rejected this proposal in the name of preserving Shi’ite unity, even with the most violent Shi’ite extremists. Political reconciliation with the Sunni Arabs is of no interest Mr. al-Sistani. The American proposal for the new moderate, cross-sectarian government has gone nowhere and won’t go anywhere as long as that is the wish of Mr. al-Sistani and his very large body of followers.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Iraq’s internal politics, Mr. al-Sistani trumps Mr. Khalilzad. He also trumps President Bush. Mr. Bush has stubbornly maintained his vision of a harmonious multi-sectarian Iraq. This is not Mr. al-Sistani’s view and he has been equally stubborn. The difference is that Mr. Sistani and his disciples will always be in Najaf. By contrast, Mr. Bush will leave his office at noon on 20 January 2009.
Mr. Bush could do his successors and his legacy a great benefit by grasping the dismal score he has accrued in head-to-head matches against Mr. al-Sistani. And then formulating a new American policy that takes this poor record into account.
Robert Haddick, the author, was a U.S. Marine Corps infantry company commander and staff officer. He was the global research director for a large private investment firm and is now a private investor. His is Westhawk.
The NYTimes is the source of this:
ReplyDelete“I made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it,” Mr. Bush said during a question-and-answer session in the White House Rose Garden. “And it is also clear from the strong support for this position in both houses that the veto would be sustained.”
Democrats reacted to Mr. Bush’s remarks with defiance and anger. “Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. Mr. Reid said a veto would mean that Mr. Bush “will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.”
...
But Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, campaigning in Iowa for the Democratic presidential nomination, said she was not ready to bow to the president’s veto threat, and that Democrats should take a tough negotiating stance. “We need to change the approach of the White House, which means you’ve got to stand firm and say, ‘We don’t expect you to veto something that represents the will of the American people,’ ” the senator said at a stop in Crawfordsville.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, head of the House Democratic caucus, said: “We can’t continue to pursue an Iraq policy based on fairy tales and rose-colored glasses. A majority of both the House and Senate have voted to change it. The president should join us.”
On Monday, Mr. Reid said that if Mr. Bush continues to resist calls for a timetable to end American combat involvement in Iraq, he would try to pass a bill cutting off nearly all financing for the Iraq campaign. When the president was asked today if he thought that would be a legitimate exercise of Congress’s “power of the purse,” he replied somewhat indirectly.
“The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now,” he said. “I just disagree with their decisions.”
Mr. Bush said that the lawmakers, who have just adjourned for their Easter break, “need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk.” If that bill includes a withdrawal date, he emphasized, he will veto it, and the Democrats’ collective conscience will bear the burden.
“Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines, and others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to,” Mr. Bush said. “That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.”
Army Sides with Yushchenko in Ukraine
ReplyDelete3 April 2007, Tuesday
Ukraine's military forces are set to follow the orders of the president, who is also the army's commander-in-chief, the country's defense minister said in the wake of the political deadlock in the country.
Defense Minister Anatoly Gritsenko is the only minister to support the decision of Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko, who declared the dissolution of the Ukrainian parliament in Kiev.
The move came amid a long-running power struggle between the pro-Western president and pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
The standoff arose after 11 lawmakers allied with the president defected to Yanukovych's coalition last month, in violation of the Constitution, which says the coalition can be expanded only by the addition of entire factions, not individual lawmakers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy Lisa McAdams
ReplyDeleteMoscow
03 April 2007
The ruling coalition of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych has submitted a query to Ukraine's Constitutional Court, questioning the validity of President Viktor Yushchenko's decision late Monday to dissolve parliament and call new elections. The president says he took the action to save Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, after months of political deadlock. VOA's Lisa McAdams in Moscow has the latest.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
from the "Little Red Book" as I recall. "Swimmin' like fixh in a sea", too.
The Ukranian Army Chiefs side with the President. The guns win in the end.
Where is the Iraqi Army, after four years of "best efforts"?
DR,
ReplyDeleteThe signs are all there. You're a radical leftest.
*Perveyor of anti-Americanism
*Leftest attack dog
*Repeater of Goebels "Big Lie"
*Leninist's "Useful Idiot left"
Do you fly the flag upside down?
Oh, not yet...well your kind finally get there.
Bye
One more
ReplyDeleteBLAME AMERICA FIRSTER
Habu, in the immortal words of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, "If you don't like it, don't come back."
ReplyDeleteDoes mainstream Islam endores violence?
ReplyDeleteYes.
The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out.
Nice bob, real nice.
ReplyDeleteBack in September I took the high speed train from the airport at Paris to Montpelier.
ReplyDeleteThe French country side is beautiful. They have resisted urban /suburban sprawl, so that the countryside is very rural and most of tyhe farmsteads are in compounds.
The train speeds were extraordinary and it was such a treat not to have to deal with another airport.
Above the I-90 tunnel is a well established residential neighborhood built on glacial fill.
ReplyDeleteIn order to stabilize the hillside and keep the tunnel from undermining house foundations, a special technique had to be used to bore the tunnel.
The technique called for a ring of small tunnels to be bored through the hillside. The ring was like a round necklace made out of small tunnels around the perimeter of the space that the main tunnel would soon inhabit. Before the main tunnel could be scooped out, the small tunnels were filled with concrete thus creating a solid archway to hold up the hill while the large tunnel was excavated.
This process met that the tunnel had to be round, but the freeway that goes through the tunnel is much wider than it is tall. Fitting the wide freeway into the round tunnel met that there was a lot of room at the top, and the bottom, of the tunnel for things like bike paths. This situation created the opportunity for the bike path at the top of the tunnel while the bottom of the tunnel is filled with all kinds of utility lines, air ducts and service corridors.
Excess room in the tunnel above the freeway lanes allowed room for a bike and pedestrian facility.
http://www.theslowlane.com/paths/i90.html
Bob
ReplyDeletethanks for changing the subject. I was at the "here they go again" point, and getting ready to check out until I saw your pics. Very nice.
I will be at another very beautiful spot on Thursday, Augusta National. Not the Mts., but damned beautiful!
Here who goes again?
ReplyDelete;-)
Doug
ReplyDeleteThey, you know, them...those, those people, particular that one called, "comment deleted"
Good for the goose and the gander?
ReplyDelete...US refinery capacity is running at 100%, doug.
...Westcoast refineries cannot process 100% of Alaska crude.
...Panama pipeline is running, west to east, at 100% capcity 24/7.
...Just one of many choke points in the world. Targeting US infrastructure could easily follow overt US strikes against Iran.
...The US could ill afford the disruption, though it would weather it.
- Mon Apr 02, 12:46:00 PM EDT
A new call for attacks on oil facilities appeared early this year in the online magazine Sawt al-Jihad (voice of the Jihad), issued by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, expanding the list of targeted countries to include such key U.S. suppliers as Canada, Mexico and Venezuela
There you go, elijah.
ReplyDeleteObvious as the nose on habu's avatar
There is a Congressional Report that outlines Venezuelan participation in HB infiltration attempts into the US.
Do not expect Hugos' assets to be molested.
At least until the tankers and three high sulfur content crude oil refineries the Chicoms are building are ready to go on line.
Maybe a year, nine months, eighteen?
They were reading 'Rat and me.
ReplyDeleteD'Rats.
The Eternal Non-Singing Bush
ReplyDeleteBob,
The Desert
They've messed around with the pic in photoshop now, to put the tail into the picture, but I saw it before they did it, and the Bush is unaltered.
Look carefully at the two pics halfway down the page and see how little the Bush on the right has changed in over 2 decades!
My wife's dad wrote a neat book about the Deserts around Palm Springs.
I need to get off my Duff and scan it so it won't go to waste.
FOUR DECADES!
ReplyDeleteMy Mistake.
The trick is to look the barman in the eye and give a short, emphatic nod as you order a Coke. Discreetly the rum tumbles in and discreetly you toast the barman, your accomplice in crime.
ReplyDeleteThe Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has banned alcohol in the week leading up to Easter Day to try to cut the number of drink-driving related accidents which soar during the holiday exodus for the beach.
For Venezuelans, by some measures Latin America's biggest boozers, the edict has resounded like a clap of thunder. "Revolution? Fine. But with this Chavez has gone too far. This is just crazy, it's extremism," said a 55-year-old who asked not to be named.
Calling Time on Holiday Booze
We cruised across Nevada, dad and I,
ReplyDelete'thousand acres per head, it'd be overgrazed'.
Whole lot of empty
Update on past topics at the Bar
ReplyDelete1) Najaf and Qom -
Diverging or Converging?
With the vacuum of authority in Najaf, new conflicts between Shi'ite groups will certainly come to light, especially in the oil-rich province of Basra, where the SCIRI and the Sadrists, especially the Fadhila Party, compete for territorial control.
2) Full Spectrum Dominance; why Chinese tests were no surprise
The game investigates the means to defend, augment and replace space systems,
Bobal,
ReplyDelete"Global Warming!"
Finally, back to the Waziristan discussion. i had not seen this on any threads and found of interest; perhaps some of you will also
ReplyDeleteFallon Meets Musharraf; Offensive Expected Along Pak-Afghan Border
First Bald Eagle Chicks in 30 Years Hatch Unaided on Catalina Island
ReplyDeleteFor the first time in half a century-since eagles disappeared from Catalina Island-two bald eagle eggs hatched in the wild this weekend without human assistance. DDT contamination in the waters around Catalina had for years thwarted attempts by biologists to get mating eagles to successfully hatch their own eggs.
---
March 13, 2006: The final decision has been made to withdraw funding from the Catalina bald eagle project until at least 2008
---
Don't know what's up w/that.
WHAT marine mammals are they eating, great white, or dolphin!
ReplyDelete---
Magic Ingredient
Dave Garcelon, Founder of the Institute for Wildlife Studies who initiated Bald Eagle restoration on Catalina 27 years ago, further explained that "a female who wasn't particularly interested in eating marine mammals and sea gulls" was the magic ingredient in this hatching.
"We've always said that if bald eagles on Catalina were to eat primarily fish, they would be able to breed," Garcelon said. "The problem has come from the consistent intake of heavily contaminated tissues like those of marine mammal carrion and sea gulls.
"It just so happened that this particular female prefers fish, and she has plenty of access to them. She's probably not containment free, but is free enough to have hatched these two eggs."
Hot Chick
ReplyDelete(but cool enough to hatch)
Wasn't there a big story about the Feds vs the Farmers near Klamath Falls about 6 years ago?
ReplyDelete...like cutting off their water that they'd used for centuries!