The boomer story is getting old...

...and so are the 78 million that make up the boomer generation. Curious how it happens. It just does. Fast. One day you are a hunk and the next day a hulk. Here is the proof for you young vivacious foxy females who make up the vast bulk of The Elephant audience:


19 inch waisted Bardot inspires thin models

2007-04-03 10:45

Daily Mail has published the photograph of a teenage Brigitte Bardot with her extraordinary waist.

The photo was taken on the beach at Cannes in 1955 when Miss Bardot made her first appearance at the film festival there. Then unknown 19-year-old actress demonstrates her trademark sexy pose.

Bardot is said to have boasted hour-glass statistics of 36-20-35 in 1956 during the filming of “And God Created Woman”, the Roger Vadim classic that made her one of the world’s best known sex symbols.

In this photograph it appears her astonishing figure is not assisted by a corset, although the belt does appear to be buckled up particularly tightly.

Bardot retired from acting at 39 and has since been involved with various animal rights causes.

Today she is barely recognisable as the pouting blonde of her heyday and owes her looks to years of St Tropez sunbathing and a desire not to hide the fact she is 72.

Is there a purpose to this story? No. Is there a hidden meaning to life, undiscovered and about to be revealed? No.

It is what it is and that ain't all that much.

British Public - Apathetic or Afraid?

I was talking to a young man in my office today. He is concerned that the Bush Administration is going to war with Iran. I assured him that was not going to happen. I could be completely wrong but this British sailor crisis will not be the precipitant. The British people seem to be either apathetic or too frightened by the prospect of a firm Falklands type reaction. There is no hue and cry for action. I would be shocked if we see anything more than jaw jaw.

Where is the outrage? James Forsyth
Spectator.co.uk

One doesn’t need to be Lord Palmerston thundering about ‘civis Romanus sum’ and ‘the strong arm of England’ during the Don Pacifico affair to feel enraged by Iran’s capture and detention of 15 British sailors and marines. Yet the general reaction has been one of indifference. One looks in vain for mass demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy or any other signs of solidarity with our men and women in uniform.

The incident has revealed a country disconnected from its armed forces and deeply ambivalent about its global role. The lack of popular outrage here is quite incredible. According to eyewitness accounts, the Iranians crossed into Iraqi territorial waters and abducted at gunpoint British troops who were operating at the request of the United Nations and the Iraqi government. Then they moved their prisoners to Tehran and denied the British government consular access to them. If the accounts are right — and they are backed up by the master of the ship they were boarding — then the Iranians committed an act of war in snatching the Britons. Last summer, the kidnapping of two of its soldiers caused Israel to go to war with Hezbollah.

The lack of public anger is less surprising, however, when you consider that we have known for months that British troops are almost certainly being killed by militias supplied and trained by Iran. The same morning that the British sailors were seized, one of the most senior British officers in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Justin Maciejewski, reported that the ‘vast majority’ of attacks on British troops were being funded by Iran.

The unpalatable truth is that both the public and the political class are largely indifferent to a hostile power murdering British troops. It is hard to imagine this being the case in the past.

Read more.

---

Now that the fact that the Sailors were under orders not to resist the Iranians, why would anyone think that the Brits would suddenly find their manhood and do something now?

Ahmadinejad now knows that he can quite easily keep oil prices high. The oil markets only need the slightest excuse to jack prices up and it will be easier for Iran to keep the prices up than for Saudi Arabia to force them done. Damn em all!

Remember how the grovelling worked for Bigley?

Britain's feeble response
British government shows weakness, helplessness in face of Iranian audacity
Shlomo Papirblatt Ynetnews
Published: 04.02.07, 14:47 / Israel Opinion

The abduction of the British marines and sailors by Iranian forces in Iraq's territorial waters – according to Britain – is beginning to look like one of Britain's and the West's most embarrassing moments: A blundering weakness and helplessness on the British government's part vis-à-vis the defiance and audacity coming from Teheran.

The story resembles a disparaging script written with the sharp talent of a BBC series. An Iranian marine force surrounds the boat of 15 soldiers who are on a regular patrol of Iraqi waters.

Under the threat of firearms they surrender unconditionally, they are taken away, moved to Teheran, displayed on TV and publicly ridiculed. A headscarf covers the head of the only female soldier and her announcement, which is undoubtedly coerced, attacks the forceful policies of Britain and the US in Iraq.

In addition, senior Iranian officials are making announcements as if they are planning to put the soldiers on a show trial, an act that defies every international law.

Limited response
Meanwhile in London, as well as in other European capitals whose foreign policies are united, weak protest against Iran is being sounded - protests that clearly won't budge a single hair on the head of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A complaint is being filed with the UN Security Council, but its recent resolutions are being treated as though written on ice during a heat wave. And that's it. This is where the boldness and response of those who sent the abducted soldiers to battle ends.

Is the initial instinct to fold and the helplessness against unflinching terror by an insane ruler once again working against the British government and its European allies?

I am not saying, heaven forbid, that the solution has to come from the arsenal of military responses at this point in time. There are other options, and they too are unequivocal in character.

Free on the streets of London
For example, it is well known that the Iranian ambassador is still walking freely on the streets of London, free to enjoy the theatre and excellent Indian restaurants, as are Iran's diplomatic representatives in other European countries.

They continue to come to work, according to rigid protocol prevalent between normal countries – as if it was such a country and as if nothing had occurred in the Persian Gulf. No one is threatening to take them to the nearest airport and to politely but firmly put them on the next plane back to Iran.

By the same token, Western diplomats are continuing to sip mineral water or grapefruit juice at cocktail parties in Teheran, and representatives of large European economic enterprises are rolling economic opportunities from side to side. Wouldn't a freeze on of all this activity hint to the sane people in the Iranian government that it's about time they do something about the radicals who are leading them by the nose?

It is incumbent on the leaders of the West to at least try, before they turn into a laughing stock.

EB Rewind - Michael Scheurer on Iraq and Afghanistan

Lately, I have been called pessimistic. Deuce and some EB commenters have been accused of undermining the troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Although it may have seemed that BDS is pandemic in the Elephant Bar, Deuce and I, along with Desert Rat and others have had nothing but the best interests of the troops and the country in mind. The posts and comments may have seemed like unrelenting, negative criticism but if you were watching a train wreck would you think less of someone who tried to stop the coming disaster? Is it unpatriotic to point out the mistakes and missteps which have had serious implications for the future? I don't think so and regardless, those criticized are in good company.

This January 15 EB post is worth a revisit.

"...I think America is defeated in Iraq." Michael Scheurer

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has two very interesting interviews. One was done on January 8, 2007 with former CIA analyst and author Michael Scheurer. The other interview from December, 2006 is with Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terrorism at Washington's Georgetown University and the author of "Inside Terrorism,"

Scheurer's interview is an interesting read. In it, he says "...I think America is defeated in Iraq." Not only in Iraq, but also, he thinks in Afghanistan too. He says, this is why he wrote his forthcoming book, "From Pandora's Box: America and Militant Islam After Iraq."

In the short interview, Scheurer says:
# That we have failed to understand the nature of our enemy.
# Our presence in the Islamic world is the greatest motivation for the enemy.
# The only reason Bin-Laden hasn't hit us again even harder is that he hasn't been ready.
# "The United States has never had a better ally than General Musharraf."
# The purpose of rendition was originally to get "bad guys" off the street.
# Our leaders cannot bring themselves to understand and say that this is a religious war.

"...the war we're fighting against Al-Qaedaism is a more serious problem than we have imagined to date. And that it has much more to do with religion than anyone in power is willing to talk about."

Scheuer: The primary goal of Al-Qaeda and the movement it has tried to inspire around the world has been to create Islamic governments in the Islamic world that govern according to their religion. And bin Laden's view on this is that those governments -- the government of Egypt, the government of Saudi Arabia, the government of Jordan, Algeria, right down the line -- only survive because the United States protects them, and Europe protects them. Either with money, diplomatic and political support, or military protection.

And bin Laden's goal has been to simply hurt the United States enough to force us to look at home, to take care of things here, and thereby prevent us from supporting those governments, which he -- and I think the vast majority of Muslims -- regard as oppressive police states.

Once America is removed from that sort of support, Al-Qaeda intends to focus on removing those governments, eliminating Israel, and the third step, further down the road: settling scores with what the Sunni world regards as heretics in the Shi'ite part of the Islamic world. So his vision for the world, and the vision they're pursuing, is a very clear and orderly one, at least from their perspective.

RFE/RL: Tell me about the book you're working on, it's called "From Pandora's Box: America And Militant Islam After Iraq." What does that title mean?

Scheuer: Well, the Bush administration, the media, [and] the Democrats have talked a lot about the unintended consequences of invading Iraq. And the book is basically an effort to say: yes, there have been unintended consequences -- but they weren't unpredictable consequences.

What I'm trying to describe in the book is that we just have a simple failure here to understand our enemy and the world we deal with.

RFE/RL: And the use of the phrase "after Iraq" refers to a time when the United States is no longer in that country?

Scheuer: The book is written because I think we're defeated in Iraq. I think we're simply looking for a way to be graceful about the exit, but it's going to be very clear to our opponents in the Islamic world that they've defeated the second superpower.

They defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; they've defeated us in Iraq; and it looks very likely that they'll defeat us in Afghanistan. And so Iraq, for all intents and purposes, as far as our enemies are concerned, is over.

Both Scheurer and Hoffman state that US presence is an irritant in the Muslim world. Well, duh, but I do agree with Hoffman on a couple of points. One: The first step toward democracy is providing security. And two: It's not enough to "clear"; you must be able to "hold."

RFE/RL: The Taliban has made a strong comeback in Afghanistan. Are we losing the war on terrorism in that country, which is the first place the United States intervened after 9/11?

Hoffman: Well, certainly, there's been an enormous backsliding in Afghanistan. Not only a spike in insurgent activity, but suicide terrorist attacks, which were unheard of in Afghanistan, are now multiplying with a singularly disturbing frequency.

I think Afghanistan is demonstrating, just as Iraq has, that it's not enough to have forces there that do the clearing. They also have to do the holding, which means you have to have sufficient forces that can provide security and stability for the population so they're not preyed upon by the insurgents, so that they feel confidant in the government's ability to discharge the fundamental expectations that citizens throughout the world have of their governments -- that's to protect them and defend them, to provide security so they can get on with their lives, so that they can engage in daily commerce, so that they can socialize.

That I see as one of the biggest threats, and why our adversaries think they will eventually triumph, because they feel that they can eventually wear us down, or that we can't protect every target all the time, or they believe they have the impunity to strike anywhere, at any time.

Two more opinions in a world full of opinions. I don't know anything about Hoffman, but I respect Scheurer's opinions. Not that I agree with everything he says, but by and large I find him to be very reasonable and measured. That's why his opinion of the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan is such a bummer. As I have said before, the coming years will see terror attacks and little hot wars on the frontiers between Islam and its intended victims ala Somalia and Ethiopia. That is until, some fool gets his hands on a nuclear device.

The Cancer is Back

Metastasis (Greek: change of the state, plural: metastases), sometimes abbreviated Mets, is the spread of cancer from its primary site to other places in the body (e.g., brain, liver).

Cancer cells can break away from a primary tumor, penetrate into lymphatic and blood vessels, circulate through the bloodstream, and grow in a distant focus (metastasize) in normal tissues elsewhere in the body.

---

Sometimes, despite the best efforts of "modern medicine," cancer comes back. Unless every cell is removed or destroyed, the possibility exists for regrowth of the existing cancer or a metastasis elsewhere in the body. Tony Snow and Elizabeth Edwards are two prominent examples of cancer patients whose cancer has traveled through their bodies. So is Pakistan.

The cancer is Islamenoma, commonly known as Islamic Fundamentalism, and left untreated (as it has been in western Pakistan), the prognosis is grim. This report by Bill Roggio (ht: Panama Ed) could be considered the most recent of three major press releases concerning the unwelcome return of a malignancy.

Pakistan's Civil War

Events over the past week highlight the deteriorating situation in the country.

Over the past week, the Taliban have been very active in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. The Taliban attacked the town of Tank, re initiated its turf war with the Uzbeks in Waziristan and continues to consolidate gains in Kohat and Bannu. But perhaps most disturbing event isn't the slow disintegration of the Pakistani state at the fringes, but the open defiance from the Taliban in the heart of Pakistani capital. At the peripheries, Pakistan is either engaged in a full scale civil war or is abandoning territory. At the core in Islamabad, the Islamist see real weakness in the Musharraf regime, and is growing bolder each day.

The Talibanization of Islamabad & the Las Masjid

The recent developments in Islamabad prove the Taliban and al Qaeda are not satisfied with remaining confined to the tribal belt or even the Northwest Frontier province and Baluchistan. The pro-Taliban leaders of the Las Masjid have become emboldened by the weakness of the Musharraf government of late, and are now openly challenging the rule of law in the very heart of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.

Zaffar Abbas, in an article titled "The creeping coup," explains how two brothers, Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, run a pro-Taliban movement in and around Islamabad. Aziz "heads Islamabad’s biggest Jamia Fareedia madrassa" which "at any time... boasts over 7,000 students seeking higher degrees in Islamic education.""

Lal Masjid and its adjacent Hafsa madrassa have not only managed to enforce the Taliban-style system of ‘moral policing’ in matters of ‘vice and virtue’, to date they remain in control of the situation" in Islamabad, notes Mr. Abbas. Bands of burka-clad women wielding batons patrol the streets enforcing Sharia, just as Saudi Arabia's notorious 'Department for Virtue and Vice,' or the religious police, do. "Within no time [after becoming emboldened by government weakness over the past few months] groups of men and women from the brigade started visiting shops, threatening them with dire consequences if they didn’t stop selling DVDs, CDs or music cassettes," reports Mr. Abbas. "People were also issued directives about dress codes and other ‘moral and ethical’ issues."

The initial surgery in Afghanistan was not entirely successful and the Taliban cancer is now threatening to kill Pakistan which has been in a weakened condition for quite some time anyway. In October, I wrote:

Musharraf's on borrowed time. He knows it and with his book sales, has been feathering his nest in anticipation of his future endeavers. His value to the west has been as an ally against Islamists in Pakistan and his days of playing it down the middle between Bush and the Taliban are numbered. Both sides are becoming impatient.

It will be better when Musharraf is gone. Perhaps, then an aggressive treatment program can begin in earnest.

Step by stumbling step,
we wind our way through the darkness,
learning as we go.

God and Country. Newsweek shows there is still plenty of that old time religion in US.

Why has America kept her faith while many of the Western Europeans have lost theirs? Religion is filled with contradictions as someone has to be right and some others must be wrong. Or is that not true? Why are the coasts of the US more secular than the mid section and the south or is that a myth? An interesting poll from Newsweek:

God’s Numbers

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 3:04 p.m. ET March 31, 2007
March 30, 2007 -

A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public’s tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents felt the country is more accepting of atheists today that it used to be and slightly more (49 percent) reported personally knowing an atheist. Those numbers are higher among respondents under 30 years old, 62 percent of whom report knowing an atheist (compared to just 43 percent of those 50 and older). Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older).

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist. Majorities of each major party — 78 percent of Repulicans and 60 percent of Democrats — rule out such an option. Just under half (45 percent) of registered independents would not vote for an atheist. Still more than a third (36 percent) of Americans think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years. But the public is still split over whether religion has too much (32 percent) or too little (31 percent) influence on American politics. Democrats tend to fall in the "too much" camp (42 percent of them, as opposed to 29 percent who see too little influence) as Republicans take the opposite view (42 percent too little; 14 percent too much). In the poll, 68 percent of respondents said they believed someone could be moral and an atheist, compared to 26 percent who said it was not possible.

Washington Post not impressed with our Saudi friends.

Why the surprise? Has anyone looked at the Saudi flag? The green flag of Saudi Arabia is actually the flag of the Wahabbi movement. I wonder who the sword is for?



The Limits of Bad Policy
The Bush administration relearns the fact that Saudi Arabia is not a 'moderate' state.

Sunday, April 1, 2007; Page B06

SEVERAL MONTHS ago the Bush administration abruptly embraced a new strategy in the Middle East based on aligning "mainstream" Sunni Arab states against Iran and its "extremist" allies, coupled with a renewal of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Last week it began to run up against the predictable limits of that poorly conceived policy. At an Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia orchestrated the reissuance of a five-year-old initiative offering Israel normal relations if it retreated to its 1967 borders and settled with its neighbors, but the Saudis refused either to amend the plan or to embrace the idea of participating in direct negotiations with Israel. Meanwhile, Saudi King Abdullah delivered a speech that condemned the "illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq" -- a direct rebuff of the Bush administration's attempt to obtain full Arab recognition and support for the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

The Arab summit followed several days of shuttle diplomacy by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Israel and the West Bank, during which Israel resisted her attempt to start talks on a final settlement with Palestinians. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert won't conduct those negotiations because the newly formed Palestinian "unity" government -- brokered by Saudi Arabia -- does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Mr. Olmert did express eagerness to begin contacts with the Saudis -- but the Saudis say they won't engage with Israel until after it settles with both the Palestinians and Syria. Only one slim concession to U.S. appeals emerged from the Arab summit: the creation of a diplomatic mechanism under which states that already recognize Israel would meet with its diplomats to discuss the Arab initiative.

The Bush administration imagined that the United States and Saudi Arabia, along with fellow Sunni autocracies such as Egypt and Jordan, shared common interests in containing Iran, stabilizing Iraq, defending the Lebanese government and settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What's becoming clear is that the Arab rulers see these issues very differently than Washington. The Saudi government's strategy has aimed at detaching the Palestinian Hamas movement from Iranian tutelage but not from its rejection of Israel. Last week King Abdullah graciously welcomed another Iranian ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, to Riyadh, even though Syria has not ended its troublemaking in Iraq and Lebanon.

What the administration is discovering is something that it once loudly said it understood -- that attempting to achieve U.S. strategic ends through partnerships with Arab autocracies yields mixed results, at best, in the short term and is cancerous in the longer run. To facilitate its new policy, the administration has all but dropped efforts to press Egypt to liberalize its political system and abandoned even the pretense of seeking change in Saudi Arabia, which continues to export its extremist version of Islam. When she first unveiled the new strategy, Ms. Rice described the Arab alliance against Iran as one of "moderates." She shouldn't have been surprised to find last week that in terms of America's fundamental interests, Middle Eastern dictators are neither moderates nor good allies.

A strategy to avoid casualties will not win a war. Blair exposing a losing hand.

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”
-William Tecumseh Sherman

It is coming. The British government, under Blair, is doing everything possible including groveling in humiliation in front of the mullahs to rescue their countryman. It is a mistake. Doing so will confirm everything the Islamists belief about the West. Blair has foolishly determined that the goal is to rescue the hostages. It should not be. The goal should be that no one, specifically the Iranians, will dare take the risk of pulling such a stunt again. Blair is out of his league against such men as Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Sometime in the future another leader will have to undo the damage. I hope I am wrong. I fear I am not.

Anyone seen Maggie Thatcher?

The Telegraph is reporting:

Ministers seek deal with Iran for captives

By Sean Rayment, Tim Shipman and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:28am BST 01/04/2007

Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.


The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Teheran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff.

The move, which was discussed at a meeting of Whitehall's Cobra crisis committee yesterday, came as Downing Street officials explicitly cautioned against hopes of a speedy outcome and said that families of the hostages should prepare for the "long haul".

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months.

The renewed search for a solution was given greater urgency when a senior Iranian official said that moves had begun to put the 15 British captives on trial.

Read the rest if you have the stomach

Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, announced: "Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been launched." In an interview with a Russian television channel, he said: "The legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face punishment."