Sweetness & Light /* To accomodate differing install paths of WordPress, images are referred only here, and not in the style.css file. If you prefer to use only CSS for colors and what not, then go right ahead and delete the following lines, and the image files. */ /* Add an external-link icon to absolute links */ a[href^="http://"], a[href^="https://"] {background: url(%3C?php\ bloginfo////////\(\'stylesheet_directory\') no-repeat center right; padding-right: 0px } /* But not to absolute links in this domain */ a[href^="http://sweetness-light.com"] { background: transparent; padding-right: 0px; } /* But not to links in the footer */ #footer a { background: transparent; padding-right: 0px; } div#shNavBar {color:#ffffff;}div#shShutter{background-color:#000000;opacity:0.5;filter:alpha(opacity=50);}// #wpcf fieldset { padding: 15px; border: 0px solid #666666; margin: auto }
#wpcf .field { font-size: 115%; width: 250px; padding: 0; margin: 0 }
#wpcf p { margin: 0 0 7px 0 }
#wpcf p.button { text-align: left; font-weight: bold; padding: 0px 0 0; }
#wpcf textarea { float: left; font-size: 115%; width: 97%; height: 300px; }/* */ Skip to main content. Sweetness & Light Useful links:  Search  "The difference is that instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax, thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are Sweetness and Light." - Jonathan SwiftBuzzDon't Hijabs Violate The Olympic Charter?:studmuffin: "If you are so believing christian/judaist/buddhist or atheist or whoever
else, why you...Is Obama Lying About His Infanticide Vote?:Liberals Make Great Speedbumps: "Is Obama Lying About His Infanticide Vote?"
Yes....ACLU Smells Money In Paddling Lawsuits:Liberals Make Great Speedbumps: I just completed my own study: "Study finds minorities require more paddling"....Selected News For Week Aug 16 - Aug 22:BillK: Just in case you'd forgotten, he hasn't gone away.
From the AP:
Nader wants..."Wear My Hijab" Prof Claims Racist Attacks:notunderabushel: ummm Christians want Muslims to "live on this earth" we would just...More Comments >> And... News Selected By Our Correspondents  Articles So How Many Wives Did Obama Sr Have? AP Lies - Both Sides Not Taking Illegal $ Supporters Asked To Buy Obama Tickets ACLU Smells Money In Paddling Lawsuits Old Chinese Women Sent To Re-Education Is Obama Lying About His Infanticide Vote? Russia Resumes Electrical Contracts In Iraq Russian Paper Claims Saakashvili Is Crazy Shocker: Russia Not Honoring Cease-fire NYT Wonders Who Bombed 43 In Algiers Cops To Enforce Pot Laws At Convention Yippee! Cindy Sheehan Will Be In Denver Obama Lied About Why Opposed Iraq War Musharraf Resigns - Media, Terrorists Win! NYT Blames Georgia For Russia’s Invasion N Korea Finds Excuse To Stop Nuke Talks WSJ Compares Obama, Thomas Experience Obama Camp Says McCain Heard Questions Soros Invests $811 Million In Brazilian Oil ACORN Workers Talk About Its Voter Fraud McCaskill: McCain Undercutting Pres Bush The Audacity Of Obama’s Padded Résumé Russians Troops Shoot Reporter, Rob Bank Obama: ‘Abortion Is Above My Pay Grade’ Just How Obama Reached ‘Across The Aisle’ Russia: Troop Withdrawal Will Take Time The AP Warns Us About ‘Anti-Red Hysteria’ Elite Fashion Designers Are All For Obama More Than 60 Jihadists Killed in Afghanistan Selected News For Week Aug 16 - Aug 22 More Articles >> Links American ThinkerAnn CoulterGet Drunk And Vote 4 McCainLucianneMark Levin S & L RegisterLog inPrivacy ContactGet The T-Shirt!  Subscribe Web S&L  So How Many Wives Did Obama Sr Have? August 20th, 2008 From the UK Telegraph:  (Click to enlarge)Barack Obama’s ‘lost’ brother found in KenyaSenator Barack Obama’s long lost brother has been tracked down for the first time living in a shanty town in Kenya, reports claimed.By Nick Pisa in Rome20 Aug 2008The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”According to Italy’s Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world.Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael.He told the magazine: “I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist.”Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.“If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed,” he said.For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college.He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a “beautiful boy with a rounded head”.Of their second meeting, George Obama said: “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger.”George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:”I have had to learn to live and take what I need.“Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don’t even arrest you they just shoot you.“I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists.”What is Barack Hussein Obama’s favorite Biblical passage again, the words he says that guide his life?Oh, yeah. From Mattews 25: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”What has Mr. Obama done for this brother or any of his brethren? Ever?Besides live like a multi-millionaire while they live on less than one dollar a month?Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael.Still, it should be noted that there is no mention of any Jael in either of the Anointed One’s autobiographies.There is no mention of her even in Wikipedia’s entry on Barack Obama, Senior:Barack Obama, Sr.Obama grew up in Nyang’oma Kogelo. At 18, he married a young woman named Kezia in a tribal ceremony. They had four children, two of them after he returned to Kenya from the United States. He never divorced Kezia, who now lives in Bracknell, England…On February 2, 1961, Obama married a fellow student, Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii. She did not know that he already had a wife in Kenya.[citation needed] Their son, Barack Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961. Two years later, Obama was accepted at Harvard for graduate study. He moved to Massachusetts, unable to afford to take his wife and son with him. He and Dunham divorced in 1963, divorce filed in Honolulu, Hawaii in January 1964, and he only saw his son again once, at age 10. He received the AM degree from Harvard in 1965.At Harvard, he met an American-born teacher named Ruth Nidesand who would follow him to Kenya when he returned after completing his Masters degree. She eventually became his third wife and had two children with him before they divorced…In fact, the only indication we have of any additional “wives” is from the UK’s Daily Mail article we posted back in January, 2007:A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidental hopeful HASN’T said about his father…By SHARON CHURCHER27 January 2007 Now prosperous with a flashy car and good salary, his third wife was an American-born teacher called Ruth, whom he had met at Harvard while still legally married to both Kezia and Ann, and who followed him to Africa.A relative of Mr Obama says: “We told him[Barack] how his father would still go to Kezia and it was during these visits that she became pregnant with two more children. He also had two children with Ruth.”It is alleged that Ruth finally left him after he repeatedly flew into whisky-fuelled rages, beating her brutally.Friends say drinking blighted his life - he lost both his legs while driving under the influence and also lost his job.However, this was no bar to his womanising: he sired a son, his eighth child, by yet another woman and continued to come home drunk. He was about to marry her when he finally died in yet another drunken crash when Obama was 21…Of course we don’t know if this is Jael or not?So how many “wives” did Barack Senior have? Is anybody keeping track?The Obama clan is making Bill Clinton’s family background look positively stable. 17 Comments »  AP Lies - Both Sides Not Taking Illegal $ August 20th, 2008 From the relentless distorters of the truth at the Associated Press:  [AP caption:] In this image provided by the FEC, this shows the FEC from Tom Sanderson of Canada. Sanderson made clear his $500 contribution to Democratic candidate Barack Obama came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, ‘I am not a American citizen!’ Neither Obama nor John McCain has consistently followed the government’s instructions for keeping prohibited foreign money out of their presidential campaigns, and some of that banned money has slipped into Obama’s campaign. AP IMPACT: Campaigns take foreign cash, seek details laterBy SHARON THEIMER and TROY THIBODEAUX, Associated Press WritersWASHINGTON - Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has consistently followed the government’s instructions for keeping prohibited foreign money out of their presidential campaigns, and some of that banned money has slipped into Obama’s campaign.During interviews with 123 donors in 11 countries, The Associated Press found contributions Obama accepted from at least three foreigners. Just five of the donors checked, three for Obama and two for McCain, said the campaigns asked to see copies of their current U.S. passports — as instructed by the Federal Election Commission to avoid legal problems.Obama’s campaign said it would refund the money to the foreign donors the AP identified.One donor, Tom Sanderson of Canada, made clear his $500 contribution came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, “I am not a American citizen!” Obama’s campaign took the money anyway, even publishing Sanderson’s cautionary statement about his citizenship in its official finance reports.Democratic hopeful Obama and Republican rival McCain portray themselves as meticulously abiding by campaign finance laws. But the fundraising review of hundreds of thousands of donations — involving AP bureaus around the globe — found clear evidence that both campaigns took money first and asked questions later, if ever. Shining a light on a weakness in the nation’s campaign finance laws, the review turned up a smattering of illegal foreign donations to Obama as well as missing details from both Obama and McCain in federal paperwork the law requires.Only American citizens or green card holders are legally permitted to give campaigns money, a longtime ban intended to protect U.S. elections from foreign meddling and influence. The Federal Election Commission instructs that candidates ask to see an overseas donor’s current U.S. passport, considered the strongest safeguard against illegal foreign money. Screening donors can be a daunting task in a presidential race, especially one with record sums and millions of dollars coming in over the Internet.Obama has raised at least $2 million abroad, far more than McCain’s total of at least $229,000, according to the AP’s review of campaign finance records. The amount reported flowing in from outside the U.S. is a small percentage of the roughly $390 million raised so far by Obama and the $167 million by McCain. But few contributors contacted by the AP said the campaigns asked to see their passports.“I donated to the Obama campaign because I was so excited and thrilled to hear him speak,” said Sanderson, a property manager in Calgary. “I like what he says and I like what he represents, and it’s a world stage today for any political leader.”Sanderson said he donated money using Obama’s Web site and doesn’t remember checking a box certifying he was a U.S. citizen, instead noting next to his address that he wasn’t. After the AP contacted Sanderson by phone, he asked the campaign for a refund: “It was an error of me to give the donation, and it was an error that it was accepted,” he said.A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBolt, said campaign workers “consistently review our procedures to make sure that we are taking every reasonable step to ensure that the contributions we receive are appropriate and follow FEC guidelines, and we will do so again in light of this new information.”McCain’s campaign said it was impractical to ask Internet contributors for copies of their passports. “We’re always looking for ways to best comply with all provisions of campaign finance regulations, and obviously take swift action anytime flags are raised regarding potentially problematic campaign contributions,” spokesman Brian Rogers said.The AP analyzed 1.27 million campaign contributions to Obama and McCain to identify 6,948 contributions from people who appeared to live outside the United States and who were not obviously in the U.S. military. The AP contacted 123 donors in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland and interviewed them about their citizenship and donations.Obama has far more overseas donors than McCain, and that was reflected in the number of interviews: the AP was able to reach 116 Obama supporters, six McCain backers and one donor who gave to both.Australian Richard Watters gave Obama’s campaign $1,000 over the Internet, entering a fake U.S. passport number — a random jumble of numbers and letters — so the site would take his money. He said he also checked a box stating that he was an American living overseas, “because I could see it wasn’t going anywhere if I didn’t do that.”Watters was surprised when a reporter told him it was illegal for foreigners to donate to U.S. presidential campaigns, but he said he was still glad he gave.“I wouldn’t give up, because I believe in the man — I really do,” said Watters, 76, of Sydney, a stock market trader. “Maybe I just feel he can put a smile back on the face of the world.”Swiss citizen Gilles Massamba gave Obama at least $436 and received campaign souvenirs. He said the campaign didn’t ask whether he was a U.S. citizen.Just three donors to Obama and two for McCain told the AP the campaigns asked to see their passports. One Obama donor, in France, was asked to show her U.S. driver’s license at a fundraising event. Others said if they did anything, they checked a box on the campaigns’ Web sites affirming they were U.S. citizens or were asked to provide their passport numbers, or both.A spokesman for the FEC, Bob Biersack, said it was prudent for the campaigns to ask online donors to check a box confirming they are U.S. citizens, but obtaining copies of U.S. passports from overseas donors is the only protection against enforcement action.In dozens of instances, the AP could not determine whether donors had foreign addresses since their addresses were missing from campaign finance reports. Other key information also was missing. McCain and Obama each omitted information identifying the employers for at least 10,000 contributions in their most recent donor data. In most cases, the campaigns appear to have asked supporters to provide those details.The ramifications of accepting foreign money can vary from political embarrassment to federal investigations: The last major foreign money scandal, a 1996 Democratic case involving Asian money and the Clinton-Gore re-election effort, resulted in record FEC fines totaling $719,000 and probation for some of those involved.Sometimes the foreign connection comes from who collects the money rather than who donates it. McCain’s campaign announced this month it will return $50,000 solicited by a foreigner and business partner of a McCain volunteer fundraiser in Florida.The candidates are supposed to disclose detailed information about donors who give $200 or more, including their addresses, employers and occupations. At a minimum, if donors give more than $50, the candidates are expected to record their names.No donor names appeared in Obama’s campaign finance reports for a handful of donations over $50. In dozens of cases, there were names but no addresses. “Anonymous,” “999 Anonymous Street,” “XX” or “Info Requested” are listed for roughly 200 donations to McCain.The requirement to include employers is intended to let the public and news media see who is giving and help identify favors that donors or their employers may receive.The FEC expects campaigns to follow up with donors to seek missing information, but they do not have to try very hard: One attempt, such as a postcard sent to the contributor’s address, is considered due diligence under fundraising rules.In Canada, Sanderson left a message with Obama’s campaign and sent an e-mail after learning his donation was illegal. He said he hoped his contribution wouldn’t “rustle any feathers.” Sanderson considered a mischievous move to neutralize the political value his donation might have, but in the end, just asked for a refund.“I was going to donate to McCain last night,” he said, “and my wife talked me out of it.”Please note, gentle reader, that the article goes out of its way to make it sound like both McCain and Obama accepted money illegally from foreign donors — whereas in reality the Associated Press only found illegal contributions to the Obama camp.The AP provides no evidence whatsoever to support their implicit claim that they ‘both do it.”Neither Obama nor John McCain has consistently followed the government’s instructions for keeping prohibited foreign money out of their presidential campaigns…But the fundraising review of hundreds of thousands of donations — involving AP bureaus around the globe — found clear evidence that both campaigns took money first and asked questions later, if ever.What is this “clear evidence” that McCain has accepted any foreign money? Apparently whatever the McCain camp is doing is effective, if the AP could not find any examples of illegal donations.Meanwhile, the AP artfully claims that the illegal contributions were “slipped into” the Obama campaign.The reporters then shamelessly trot out a foreigner at the end of their piece who jokes about contributing to McCain, in the effort to leave the impression that the McCain camp was also doing something untoward.This is the lying and propagandizing that our media does to us each and every day. And always in the service of their Democrat masters. 2 Comments » Supporters Asked To Buy Obama Tickets August 20th, 2008 From Denver’s CBS affiliate CBS4Denver: Dem Supporters Asked To Buy Obama Speech TicketsAug 20, 2008DENVER (CBS4) ― Two known Democratic supporters are outraged at their own party after being solicited to buy tickets to Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field next Thursday, CBS4 reports. The seats were distributed for free to the general public.One source directed CBS4 to an unpublicized part of the Obama campaign’s Web site where Democratic supporters, reportedly with deep pockets, could buy tickets for $1,000 each. The source told CBS4 he was solicited three times to buy the tickets through the Web site.One source said it was unethical and being kept secret from the public.CBS4 was able to find the Web site only by directly typing in the URL provided by the source. While CBS4 attempted to contact the Obama campaign about the selling of tickets, the pay-for-tickets page was changed to say no more tickets were available.A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign called CBS4 before deadline Tuesday night to say it was proud of the success in opening the event free to the public. She said only a small percentage of the 75,000 tickets were sold to raise money for the Obama campaign.The known Democratic supporter who called CBS4 said the selling of tickets an “underground fundraising operation.” How shocking!While CBS4 attempted to contact the Obama campaign about the selling of tickets, the pay-for-tickets page was changed to say no more tickets were available.Oh, well, then it didn’t happen.By the way, just as an historical note, Adolf Hitler was the first politician in history who was so popular (in some quarters), he was able to charge for attendance at his political speeches. 4 Comments » ACLU Smells Money In Paddling Lawsuits August 20th, 2008 An ACLU press release being portrayed as news by those tireless carriers of water at the Associated Press:  Study finds minorities more likely to be paddledBy LIBBY QUAIDWASHINGTON (AP) — Paddlings, swats, licks. A quarter of a million schoolchildren got them last year — and blacks, American Indians and kids with disabilities got a disproportionate share of the punishment, according to a study by a human rights group…For the study, which was being released Wednesday, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union used Education Department data to show that, while paddling has been declining, racial disparity persists. Researchers also interviewed students, parents and school personnel in Texas and Mississippi, states that account for 40 percent of the 223,190 kids who were paddled at least once in the 2006-2007 school year.Porter could have filled out a form telling the school not to paddle her son, if only she had realized he might be paddled.Yet many parents find that such forms are ignored, the study said.Widespread paddling can make it unlikely that forms will be checked. A teacher interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Tiffany Bartlett, said that when she taught in the Mississippi Delta, the policy was to lock the classroom doors when the bell rang, leaving stragglers to be paddled by an administrator patrolling the hallways. Bartlett now is a school teacher in Austin, Texas.And even if schools make a mistake, they are unlikely to face lawsuits. In places where corporal punishment is allowed, teachers and principals generally have legal immunity from assault laws, the study said.“One of the things we’ve seen over and over again is that parents have difficulty getting redress, if a child is paddled and severely injured, or paddled in violation of parents’ wishes,” said Alice Farmer, the study’s author.A majority of states have outlawed it, but corporal punishment remains widespread across the South. Behind Texas and Mississippi were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Missouri.African American students are more than twice as likely to be paddled. The disparity persists even in places with large black populations, the study found. Similarly, Native Americans were more than twice as likely to be paddled, the study found.The study also found:– In states where paddling is most common, black girls were paddled more than twice as often as white girls.– Boys are three times as likely to be paddled as girls.– Special education kids were more likely to be paddled.More than 100 countries worldwide have banned paddling in schools, including all of Europe, Farmer said. “International human rights law puts a pretty strong prohibition on corporal punishment,” she said…Of course paddling would hit minorities and the poor hardest.Anyway, if Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union claim it, then it certainly must be true.But you do have to wonder how they define “disproportionate.”More importantly this “study” will launch a thousand taxpayer-supported lawsuits.And even if schools make a mistake, they are unlikely to face lawsuits. We can’t have that! The ACLU must get its millions so they can continue their noble work of destroying our country. 8 Comments »  Old Chinese Women Sent To Re-Education August 20th, 2008 From the UK’s Times:  Elderly Chinese women ordered into re-education for daring to protestAugust 20, 2008Two elderly women who applied five times to demonstrate in China’s Olympic protest parks against the demolition of their homes have been ordered to serve one year of re-education through labour, a human rights group said.It is the toughest penalty to be reported against any of those who followed up a government announcement that it would allow protests in three Beijing parks during the August 8-24 Olympics. So far, the police said they have received 77 applications and none has been approved.Wu Dianyuan, 79, and Wang Xiuying, 77, have been petitioning the government ever since they were forcibly evicted from their homes in Beijing in 2001 as part of a series of huge renovation projects across the city.The pair applied five times between August 5 and August 18 to the Beijing city Public Security Bureau for permission to demonstrate in the newly designated protest parks. The two women, formerly neighbours, wanted to protest against their forced eviction from their homes seven years ago. Their application was neither granted nor denied and on August 5 they were held for 10 hours for questioning by the police, the son of one of the women told Human Rights in China.On August 17, the two elderly women each received a document from the city authorities ordering them to serve one year of re-education through labour – an administrative punishment that does not require any judicial process – from July 30 this year to July 29, 2009 for “disturbing public order”. The two would be allowed to serve their term outside a camp, but the notice restricts their movements and states that if other regulations are violated they could be moved to a camp.Li Xuehui, son of of Mrs Wu, said: ”Wang Xiuying is almost blind and crippled. What sort of re-education through labour can she serve? But they can also be taken away at any time.” The two women had remained at home but were under observation of a neighbourhood watch group, he said… Bear in mind that this is exactly the future that the media and the rest of the freedom-hating left want for all of us.But doesn’t this violate the spirit of the Olympics?(Just kidding.) No Comments » Is Obama Lying About His Infanticide Vote? August 20th, 2008 From Mr. Obama’s post-Saddleback Forum interview with CBN News: Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main — they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.Obama: Let me clarify this right now.Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening.Here is actually what Mr. Obama said at the time about the ‘Born Alive” bill, from the State of Illinois 92 General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, March 30, 2001 (a pdf file):SENATOR OBAMA:This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)Senator O’Malley.SENATOR O’MALLEY:Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)Senator Obama.SENATOR OBAMA:Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present. Despite Mr. Obama’s claims, Jill Stanek shows that the Illinois and the federal bills were identical. (The Obama camp now concedes the fact that these were identical bills.)But it also seems clear from the Senate transcript that Mr. Obama’s objections were solely that this bill would hamper abortions, and it would thereby be declared un-Constitutional.Furthermore, Mr. Obama made no mention whatsoever in his remarks of the bill being redundant because Illinois already had legislation protecting such infants. 10 Comments » Russia Resumes Electrical Contracts In Iraq August 19th, 2008  From a gleeful Kommersant Moscow:  Russia to Light Up Iraq August 19, 2007Russia will proceed with executing electricity contracts in Iraq. The RF Energy Minister Sergei Shmatkov and Iraq’s Minister of Electricity Karim Wahid Hasan deliberated on potential cooperation yesterday. The first project could be rebuilding the Harta Thermal Plant by Tekhnopromexport. Russia’s chances to benefit from over $10 billion that Iraq intends to inject into its electricity facilities appear rather solid now.Sergei Shmatko met with his Iraqi counterpart yesterday, August 18, 2008. The highlight was the rebuilding project for Harta Thermal Plant executed by Russia’s Tekhnopromexport. The company won the tender far back in 1990s, but the war in Iraq prevented it from beginning the work.The war in the Persian Gulf lowered the installed capacity of Iraqi power plants to 5.5MW, while the actual requirement is 10,000MW during a year and up to 12,000MW in summer. The Iraqi authorities specified earlier that rebuilding the electricity sector calls for between $10 billion and $15 billion.Tekhnopromexport is the three-time successful bidder for Harta, having won the respective tenders in 1997, 1999 and 2007. This plant of 400MW capacity operates on oil fuel and gas. The company is ready to start rebuilding provided the issues of security and the 1.5-year growth in prices for material and equipment are taken into account, said Tekhnopromexport briefer Natalia Starodumova.Er, why are we rewarding the selfsame Russians who have armed our enemies in Iraq? Who are currently doing all they can for our enemies like Iran?At a time when the administration is flailing around for ways of punishing the Russians for their wanton invasion and occupation of Georgia?The company won the tender far back in 1990s, but the war in Iraq prevented it from beginning the work.So this is a contract dating back to when Russia was doing all it could to help Saddam Hussein.Why should the current government honor it? 10 Comments » Russian Paper Claims Saakashvili Is Crazy August 19th, 2008 From Kommersant Moscow:  [KM caption:] Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili chews his tie.Psychiatrists Made Diagnosis for SaakashviliAug. 19, 2008Mikheil Saakashvili feels severe stress and cannot control himself, Prof Farid Safuanov from Serbsky Institute of Social and Forensic Psychiatry concluded based on a few incidents broadcast by TV, Interfax reported.Professor Safuanov made diagnosis based on the BBC TV broadcast. In the first episode, Saakashvili sits in the office in front of the flags of Georgia and EU, chewing his tie as if oblivious of camera. Saakashvili’s performance during August 11 visit to Gori is also interesting. During the interview, Saakashvili abruptly looked up to the sky, panicked and sprinted from his guards. The guards finally managed to catch up with scared president, knock him down to the ground and then push him to the armored car.The emotional exhaustion of extreme extent and emotional instability are the reasons of such behavior, according to Safuanov. Any person may make uncontrolled movements in time of severe stress, but for the president, of course, Safuanov said.And the same source, Kommersant, also has this report:Georgia’s Special Service Plots Terrorist Actions in RussiaAug. 19, 2008The RF Federal Security Service (FSB) has the information that Georgia’s special services are plotting terrorist actions on Russia’s soil, said Alexander Bortnikov, who heads Russia’s FSB and National Antiterrorist Committee.Bortnikov said he had ordered to take all necessary actions to ensure antiterrorist protection of public authorities, the facilities of transport, industry, power engineering, life support and the places where the people tend to crowd, Mayak broadcaster reported. First of all these actions are to be executed in the South Federal District, Bornikov pointed out.Russia’s PM Vladimir Putin signed earlier the ruling that sets limits on crossing Russia’s border with Georgia and Azerbaijan. The document specifies actions aimed at preventing penetration of foreign terrorist organizations to Russia, the delivery of weapons and subversive devices via Russia’s borders.This is the same kind of propaganda that the bad old Soviet Union used to put out on a daily basis.What exactly has changed? 1 Comment » Shocker: Russia Not Honoring Cease-fire August 19th, 2008 From an approving CNN:  Dozens of refugees and activists yelling ‘Russia out” wave Georgia’s flag while marching towards a Russian check-point near Kaspi, on the road from Tbilisi to Gori on August 19, 2008.NATO: Russia not honoring cease-fire termsBRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) — NATO has accused Russia of failing to honor the full terms of the cease-fire agreement brokered by the European Union last week aimed at ending the fighting in Georgia.NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on Tuesday that Russian forces were still inside Georgia despite the agreement to withdraw — and despite Moscow having said they had begun doing so on Monday.“We do not see signals of this happening,” Scheffer said. “There can be no business as usual with Russia under the present circumstances.”Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said NATO’s accusations were “biased.” …Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of Russia’s armed forces, said Tuesday that some troops remained in place to protect South Ossetia’s borders…However, at the same time Russian soldiers took 21 Georgian military police officers prisoner at the key port of Poti in western Georgia and Ap said they seized four American vehicles set to be returned to the U.S. following joint military exercises…Ministers said they were “seriously” considering the implications of Russia’s actions on the NATO-Russia relationship“As long as Russian forces are basically occupying a large part of Georgia, I cannot see a NATO-Russia Council convene at whatever level,” Scheffer said…Scheffer said NATO would set up a NATO-Georgian Commission to oversee Georgia’s relationship with the international alliance, supervise its bid to join the group and assist Tbilisi with support in the wake of the Russian invasion.He said a team of 50 NATO staff would to go to Georgia to help assess needs of the Georgian military, help with air traffic resumption and assist in the investigation of cyber attacks…The U.S. claims Russia is trying to undermine the government of Georgia’s pro-Western leader, Mikheil Saakashvili.The Bush administration wants suspension of the whole spectrum of programs of cooperation between NATO and Russia. Britain and several former Soviet republics support this idea, but other countries — including France and Germany — are less inclined to isolate Russia that aggressively..The United States wants Europe to cancel the many exchanges of personnel and postpone an EU-Russia summit scheduled for November, and is also pushing Europe to start lessening its energy dependence on Russia… But in reference to the photo at the top, where are the protesters? Where is Code Pink? Where is Cindy Sheehan, who says she is against all wars? 11 Comments » NYT Wonders Who Bombed 43 In Algiers August 19th, 2008 From those tireless defender of the faith at the New York Times:  Algerian Bombing Kills 43August 20, 2008By CAROLINE BROTHERSPARIS — At least 43 people, mainly civilians and police recruits, were killed and 38 others were wounded Tuesday when a suicide bomber drove a car filled with explosives into a police academy about 35 miles east of the Algerian capital, Algiers, Algerian government officials said.The Interior Ministry said in a statement that the death toll was a “preliminary estimate” for the attack early Tuesday in the Les Issers district of Boumerdès, The Associated Press reported.“There was an explosion at 7 a.m. this morning,” said an official contacted at the office of the Algerian president who declined to be identified but who confirmed the details of the Interior Ministry statement.“What is certain is that it was an attack aimed at hitting a large number of people — they were above all civilians and a number of recruits,” the official said.Last December, Algiers was rocked by twin car bombs near United Nations offices and an Algerian government building in an attack that killed more than 30 people. Until Tuesday’s bombing, that was the deadliest attack here in more than a decade.Those bombings had come after a string of suicide attacks throughout last year, including an attack in April in which two cars exploded, killing more than 30 and wounding 200, and a suicide attack in a crowd awaiting the appearance of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika that killed 22 people but not the president.Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, North Africa’s most active terrorist group, claimed responsibility for the earlier attacks, but there appeared to be no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing on Tuesday. The Algerian government has struggled — with limited success — to convince the outside world that its crackdown against terrorists was working and that the threat from terrorism inside Algeria had diminished.This is the article from the New York Times in toto.Note how, as is more and more typical in these kind of stories, there is no attribution of responsibility.There is only the hint in the penultimate paragraph, which mentions that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for an earlier attack.This is more than the Algerian government struggling to convince the world it has no problem with terrorism.This is the New York Times struggling to convince the world it has no problem with terrorism. 1 Comment » Cops To Enforce Pot Laws At Convention August 19th, 2008 From the ABC News Denver affiliate KMGH:  Police To Enforce Pot Laws During ConventionCity Ordinance Makes Pot ‘Lowest Law Enforcement Priority’ August 18, 2008DENVER – Police say pot smokers who light up during the Democratic National Convention can expected to get busted under state laws, even though a voter-approved city ordinance makes small amounts of marijuana the “lowest law enforcement priority.”“We’ve always enforced the state statute,” police spokesman Sonny Jackson said. “That was the law before the initiative and it’s nothing new. I don’t know why we’d relax any law.”Mason Tvert, leader of the group that sponsored the ordinance that discourages marijuana busts, said city officials are ignoring the will of the voters…“We’re concerned during the Democratic National Convention that they are going to use the law to cite people or detain them,” Tvert said…Tvert and his group successfully pushed a 2005 initiative to legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for adults over 21, but the move failed to blunt arrests because authorities continued to enforce state laws.Tvert tried to pass an identical measure at the state level and 2006 but was rebuffed by statewide voters.City Council member Doug Linkhart, who sits on the marijuana enforcement panel, said he believes police have made pot possession a low priority and doesn’t think there will be any problem during the convention. “The ordinance says lowest priority, it doesn’t say stop prosecuting. I’m not concerned police will get carried away. I want police to focus on what’s important, and I expect they will,” Linkhart said.What a bummer, man! 7 Comments » Yippee! Cindy Sheehan Will Be In Denver August 19th, 2008 From a gleeful Denver Post:  Protester Sheehan and Public Enemy coming to Denver for DNCBy Felisa Cardona08/18/2008Re-create 68 announced today that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and revolutionary rappers Public Enemy will speak and perform in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.Sheehan plans to speak during a 9 a.m. rally on the Sunday before the Democratic National Convention begins.Organizers say her speech will take place on the steps of the state Capitol on Aug. 24 just before Re-create 68’s scheduled march to the Pepsi Center.Sheehan became an activist after her oldest son Casey was killed in Iraq. She has also qualified to run as an independent against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in November’s general election.Re-create 68 also announced that Public Enemy have agreed to play a free concert at 2 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 26th in Civic Center Park.Public Enemy, headed by rappers Chuck D and Flavor Flav, are considered one of rap’s founding groups and are famous for their politically-conscious lyrics.Re-create 68 co-founder, Glenn Spagnuolo, said Public Enemy’s free concert is “an action in itself.”Spagnuolo said that Chuck D agreed to Re-create’s 68 request to perform because he was impressed with the speakers that the group has lined up for their protests.Cindy Sheehan and Public Enemy are two different things?Still, what fun, eh? 16 Comments » Obama Lied About Why Opposed Iraq War August 18th, 2008 First, his claims at the Saddleback forum, via YouTube:RW: What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve even had to make and what was the process you used to make it?BO: The opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction and do we know how the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? What’s our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like Al-Qaeda? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan? And now as the war went forward, very difficult about how long do you keep funding the war if you strongly believe that it’s not in America’s national interest. At the same time you don’t want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need. (Mr. Obama’s remarks about his opposition to the war commence about 3 minutes into the clip.)But here is Mr. Obama’s world-historic speech, issued from that power center, the floor of the Illinois legislature:Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with IraqOctober 2, 2002Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.Where does Mr. Obama suggest that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction?In fact he suggests exactly the opposite:I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. Where does he suggest that the Shiites, Sunni and Kurds might not get along after Saddam is deposed?His opposition to the war seems to boil down to the claim that Karl Rove was using it to distract us away from our lack of universal health care.Mr. Obama is a liar. And if he will lie about something this obvious, he will lie about anything. 10 Comments » Musharraf Resigns - Media, Terrorists Win! August 18th, 2008 From a joyeux Agence France-Presse:  Musharraf resigns as Pakistan president by Masroor GilaniISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf resigned on Monday, bringing down the curtain on a turbulent nine years in power to avoid the first impeachment in the nuclear-armed nation’s history.The key US ally, who seized power in a 1999 coup, announced the move in a lengthy televised address, rejecting the charges against him but saying he wanted to spare Pakistan a damaging battle with the ruling coalition.The departure of the former general set off wild celebrations at home, yet it was far from certain what would come next for a nation whose role in the “war on terror” has been increasingly questioned by Washington.“After viewing the situation and consulting legal advisers and political allies, with their advice I have decided to resign,” Musharraf, wearing a sober suit and tie, said near the end of his one-hour address.“I leave my future in the hands of the people.”Coalition leaders Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain ex-premier Benazir Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted by Musharraf in 1999, were shown shaking hands and smiling after his speech but gave no immediate reaction…The president said he would give his formal resignation to the speaker of parliament later Monday. Senate chairman Mohammedmian Soomro will act as as caretaker president until an election, which is expected in the next few weeks…Of course this is not only a stunning and utter victory for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but also quite a feather in the cap of their allies in our media and the Democrats.The rational among us will regret this day for a very long time.“After the martyrdom of my mother I said that democracy was the best revenge — and today it was proved true,” said Bhutto’s 19-year-old son, Bilawal.This is the preposterous situation in a nutshell.Not only did Benazir Bhuto and her husband rob Pakistan blind, she also was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban. And still they killed her.Yet her idiot son takes their side, and even blames their enemies for his mother’s death. If Pakistan weren’t so vitally important to the war on terror it would be easy to laugh at what they are bringing upon themselves.There really does seem to be something inherently defective in the minds of so many Muslims.Anyway, we still wonder if this means that President Obama will bomb Pakistan — like he promised he would if Mr. Musharraf were overthrown.Will our watchdog media even ask him? 5 Comments » NYT Blames Georgia For Russia’s Invasion August 18th, 2008 From the New York Times: [NYT caption:] Georgian soldiers being trained by American military instructors in December 2005 for deployment in Iraq took part in exercises at a base south of Tbilisi.U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a ShowdownBy HELENE COOPER, C.J. CHIVERS and CLIFFORD J. LEVY August 18, 2008WASHINGTON — Five months ago, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, long a darling of this city’s diplomatic dinner party circuit, came to town to push for America to muscle his tiny country of four million into NATO.On Capitol Hill, at the State Department and at the Pentagon, Mr. Saakashvili, brash and hyperkinetic, urged the West not to appease Russia by rejecting his country’s NATO ambitions.At the White House, President Bush bantered with the Georgian president about his prowess as a dancer. Laura Bush, the first lady, took Mr. Saakashvili’s wife to lunch. Mr. Bush promised him to push hard for Georgia’s acceptance into NATO. After the meeting, Mr. Saakashvili pronounced his visit “one of the most successful visits during my presidency,” and said he did not know of any other leader of a small country with the access to the administration that he had.Three weeks later, Mr. Bush went to the Black Sea resort of Sochi, at the invitation of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. There, he received a message from the Russian: the push to offer Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership was crossing Russia’s “red lines,” according to an administration official close to the talks.Afterward, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Putin, “He’s been very truthful and to me, that’s the only way you can find common ground.” It was one of many moments when the United States seemed to have missed — or gambled it could manage — the depth of Russia’s anger and the resolve of the Georgian president to provoke the Russians.The story of how a 16-year, low-grade conflict over who should rule two small, mountainous regions in the Caucasus erupted into the most serious post-cold-war showdown between the United States and Russia is one of miscalculation, missed signals and overreaching, according to interviews with diplomats and senior officials in the United States, the European Union, Russia and Georgia. In many cases, the officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity.It is also the story of how both Democrats and Republicans have misread Russia’s determination to dominate its traditional sphere of influence.As with many foreign policy issues, this one highlighted a continuing fight within the administration. Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides and allies, who saw Georgia as a role model for their democracy promotion campaign, pushed to sell Georgia more arms, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles, so that it could defend itself against possible Russian aggression.On the other side, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Burns, the new under secretary of state for political affairs, argued that such a sale would provoke Russia, which would see it as arrogant meddling in its turf, the officials and diplomats said.They describe three leaders on a collision course. Mr. Bush, rewarding Georgia for its robust troop contribution to Iraq — at 2,000, the third highest, behind the United States and Britain — promised NATO membership and its accompanying umbrella of American military support. Mr. Putin, angry at what he saw as American infringement right in his backyard, decided that Georgia was the line in the sand that the West would not be allowed to cross. And Mr. Saakashvili, unabashedly pro-American, was determined to show, once and for all, that Georgia was no longer a vassal of Russia.With a vastly more confident Russia, flush with oil money, a booming economy and a rebuilt military no longer bogged down in Chechnya, the stars were aligned for a confrontation in which Russia could, with a quick show of force, teach a lesson to the United States, Georgia and all of the former Soviet satellites and republics seeking closer ties with the West.“We have probably failed to understand that the Russians are really quite serious when they say, ‘We have interests and we’re going to defend them,’ ” said James Collins, United States ambassador to Russia from 1997 to 2001. “Russia does have interests, and at some point they’re going to stand up and draw lines that are not simply to be ignored.” …[T]he career foreign policy establishment worried that the wrong signals were being sent. “We were training Saakashvili’s army, and he was getting at least a corps of highly trained individuals, which he could use for adventures,” said one former senior intelligence analyst, who covered Georgia and Russia at the time. “The feeling in the intelligence community was that this was a very high-risk endeavor.” …Washington was quick to rally around Mr. Saakashvili. Senator John McCain, whose campaign foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, had represented Georgia as a lobbyist, was the first to blast Russia. Mr. McCain, who already was the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee, telephoned Mr. Saakashvili to offer support, and then told reporters on April 17 that “we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty.” On April 21 came a statement from a “deeply troubled” Senator Barack Obama, the leading Democratic candidate…Within the Bush administration, “the fight between the hawks and the doves” erupted anew, said one administration official. In this case, the people he called the “hawks” —Mr. Cheney and the assistant secretary of state for Europe, Daniel Fried — argued for more American military aid for Georgia; the “doves” — Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley, Mr. Burns — urged restraint…Bush administration officials have been adamant that they told Mr. Saakashvili that the United States would not back Georgia militarily in a fight with Russia, but a senior administration official acknowledged that “it’s possible that Georgians may have confused the cheerleading from Washington with something else.” …Ms. Rice traveled to Tbilisi, Georgia, in July, where, aides said, she privately told Mr. Saakashvili not to let Russia provoke him into a fight he could not win. But her public comments, delivered while standing next to Mr. Saakashvili during a news conference, were far stronger and more supportive…The Russians and the Georgians give different accounts of who provoked whom in the weeks before Aug. 7. Each side accuses the other of premeditated attack. While the public line from the Bush administration has been that Russia and Mr. Putin are largely to blame, some administration officials said the Georgian military had drawn up a “concept of operations” for crisis in South Ossetia that called for its army units to sweep across the region and rapidly establish such firm control that a Russian response could be pre-empted.They note that in January, the Georgian Ministry of Defense released a “strategic defense review” that laid out its broad military planning for the breakaway regions. As described by David J. Smith of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, the document sets out goals for the Georgian armed forces and refers specifically to the threat of conflict in the separatist regions.American officials said that they had clearly told their Georgian counterparts that the plan had little chance of success, given Kremlin statements promising to protect the local population from Georgian “aggression” — and the fact of overwhelming Russian military force along the border…This is a typically wildly verbose article from the New York Times.But in general it means to blame Georgia and ultimately the Bush administration — and particularly that warmonger Vice President Cheney — for Russia’s invasion of Georgia.Of course this is nothing new from the New York Time or even Helene Cooper: U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a ShowdownBy HELENE COOPER, C.J. CHIVERS and CLIFFORD J. LEVY The U.S. seemed to have missed or gambled it could manage the depth of Russia’s anger and the resolve of Georgia’s leader to provoke the Russians.August 18, 2008After Mixed U.S. Messages, a War Erupted in GeorgiaBy HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER Bush administration officials say they cautioned Georgia not to let Russia provoke it into a fight, but the warnings may have fallen on deaf ears.August 13, 2008Russia Steps Up Its Push; West Faces Tough ChoicesBy HELENE COOPER The U.S. and its European allies seemed uncertain how to adjust to Russian actions in Georgia that could undermine democratic gains in the region.August 11, 2008In Georgia Clash, a Lesson on U.S. Need for RussiaBy HELENE COOPER; C. J. CHIVERS CONTRIBUTED REPORTING. While America considers Georgia an ally, it needs Russia too much on issues like Iran to risk it all to back Georgia.August 10, 2008Somehow Ms. Cooper knew from the start it was all Bush’s fault.How predictable these people are. 6 Comments » [ArcHive] What Media Bias? - France’s AFP Photo Of Bush January 23rd, 2006 An objective photo of President Bush, courtesy of the Agence France-Presse. (The same folks who gave us the bogus "Pakistan "missile" photo and caption.) AFP - Mon Jan 23, 3:11 PM ET US President George W. Bush looks over the crowd and collects his thoughts as he is introduced on stage to deliver remarks on the global war on terror at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Bush, under fire for ordering unprecedented spying on US citizens, defended the program as limited, legal and critical to thwarting terrorist plots.And once again there seems to a problem with the translation. Surely by "unprecedented" the AFP actually meant "what every other US President has done before." 27 Comments »  « Front Page | To Top « Previous Articles | _uacct = "UA-3025194-1";urchinTracker(); st_go({blog:'3553882',v:'ext',post:'0'});var load_cmc = function(){linktracker_init(3553882,0,2);};if ( typeof addLoadEvent != 'undefined' ) addLoadEvent(load_cmc);else load_cmc(); |
|
