Atlas Shrugs

SIX THUNDEROUS STANDING OVATIONS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH

"We miss you, George!,” a man in the crowd yelled.

In Crystal Beach Park Arena in the small rural town of Woodward, Oklahoma, population 12,000, the Freedom Ring 2009 festival was held. 9,200 tickets were sold. The organizers said that 14,000 enthusiastic supporters attended the event, and it was standing room only for President Bush's address to the crowd.

Bush spoke to thunderous applause and six standing ovations. Bush called the U.S. the ‘’greatest nation on the face of the earth." (Has Obama issued an arrest warrant for insulting other nations?)

Six standing ovations? I suspect it will be sixty in no time. If Obama has taught us anything, it's a terrible longing for what we've lost. A paradise lost, slipping so casually through our fingers.

The New York Times actually filed the following report. It makes you wonder who gets the pink slip for this one:

Thunderous Okla. Applause Greets Bush on July 4 NY Times

Former President George W. Bush was greeted by thunderous applause on the Fourth of July as he told thousands of spectators in a rural Oklahoma rodeo arena that the U.S. was ''the greatest nation on the face of the earth.''

Bush was given six standing ovations as he spoke on a warm, humid evening in GOP-friendly Woodward, a town of about 12,000 residents in northwest Oklahoma and the latest in a handful of out-of-the-way places Bush has visited since leaving office.

During a 30-minute speech mostly devoid of political references -- he mentioned his successor, Barack Obama, just once in passing -- Bush thanked members of the military, spoke about the bravery of injured soldiers he'd met and told stories of people in difficult situations helping others.

''Patriotism comes in all different kinds of forms,'' he said. ''Freedom is beautiful, freedom is precious, freedom must always be defended.''

[...]

After the speech, Bush waded into the crowd for a few minutes, giving hugs, signing autographs and shaking hands. ''I didn't think he'd do that,'' Fanning said. ''I told him he's welcome back any time.''

[...]

In 2004, Bush won 80.9 percent of the vote in Woodward County as he defeated Democratic challenger John Kerry.

''I came because George Bush was coming down here and I wanted to see him,'' said 48-year-old Douglas Stewart of nearby Freedom, who had a U.S. flag attached to his ballcap. ''I helped put him in office twice. I'm proud to say I did.''

[...]

The town welcomed Bush with banners on restaurants, hotels and a highway entering Woodward. Three protesters standing outside the arena with anti-Bush signs left by mid-afternoon. No protests were seen inside the arena.

City Manager Alan Riffel said it was the first presidential visit to Woodward since the late 1950s, when Dwight Eisenhower landed at the airport outside town en route to view drought damage in the area.

OBAMA'S BUSH HUNT: PRESIDENTIAL ORDER 13489

On January 21, the day after Obama was inaugurated, Obama put into law Executive order 13489 - Presidential records that revoked a prior executive order, No 13223 of Nov. 1, 2001, by the instant presidential order.

John Jay, a eminent lawyer, helped break it down. It is remarkable that every action, every piece of legislation Obama that has emerged from Obama and his goons, has serves a nefarious ulterior motive. Nothing for the good of the country. It is painfully clear that the autocrat-in-chief's agenda is a dark one, my friends.

It says that United States code annotated (vol.) 44 United States code (annotated) sec.s 2201 through 2207 [44 usc secs 2201-2207] govern & regulate the invocation of presidential privilege, and how the archivist at the National Archives is to react if the matters come up. It governs what the archivist is to do in situations where records are requested, most likely under the freedom of information act, and if the matter is litigated.

It tells us the (vol.) 36 consolidated federal registrar section 1270 [36 c.f.r. sec. 1270] is the administrative interpretation by the regulating federal agency of what the United States code, a compilation of congressional legislation which is put together & codified by the codifier of the laws, means and how it believes the statute and the federal regulations are to be administered. In this case, the United State code section, as codified by the codifier, was passed as legislation and identified, named as, the presidential records act of 1978.

The Presidential records referred to are such records as are maintained by the national archivist. I have absolutely no idea which records, or what sort of records, are to be maintained by the archivist, and why.

You remember that Sandy Berger stole records from the National archives, and it is widely speculated that he stole records which had notations and signature and initials from Bill Clinton and officials from an N.S.A. meeting, which may have implicated the Clinton administration in being rather derelict in pursuing leads, via the FBI and CIA and NSA having to do with 9/11. Berger claims to have put them in a dumpster in a construction sight. this would be known in trade craft as a "drop" for another agent of the Clintons to pick it up, and do whatever with it: my guess is, to destroy the records. or, maybe Berger just figured they would go to a landfill somewhere.

This order is remarkably silent as to whom the authority is given to request records from the national archivist, and to whom they are to be released.

ii says a presumptive assertion of presidential privilege is raised if the archivist determines that US. national security might be impaired if the records are released. It has requirements for notice to be given to certain persons if this might be a factor, including the former president or vice president under whose administration the records were generated. under these notice provisions, a former president or Obama has a time period by which to assert executive privilege under these code/c.f.r. provisions: the order does not impair a presidents other sources of authority by which to assert executive/presidential privilege.

An assertion of a claim of executive privilege is reviewed by the attorney general, and counsel to the White House, and perhaps in consultation with the president, obviously, and they make a determination if a former presidents claim of executive privilege is to be honored, if it is "... justified" according to the order.

In such case, the archivist is instructed not to honor the invocation of such privilege, and is directed to release the information from the archives.

On the other hand, the attorney general  and the White House counsel may inform the president that they feel privilege is justified, and the archivist is directed to not release the records upon the ground of executive privilege.

All of this is subject to judicial review.

What does it all mean?

Very early on, this bastard and his henchman decided to go after Bush and Cheney on Gitmo "torture," and they set up a procedure to force a former president to have to go to court to block obama's decision to release records generated by a former president.

All this nonsense about White House counsel and other to see the legal memo's and such is just a sham and a smoke screen, signals back and forth. I think Cheney confounded them a little by instead of being scared by the threats, demanding that all photos and records be released, not just obama hand picked ones.

My guess is Obama and his little bastards have been scouring the archives, looking for the worst that they can find.

Sandy Berger stole the records he stole, in order to prevent this kind of garbage  into the innards of the Clinton White House. He gave up a potential seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, that is where he would be headed today if Hillary had been elected, in order to prevent those handwritten notations from getting out. Bill Clinton, and Sandy Berger, of course, know what they said. another couple people.

Basically, if  its for publicity. certain persons, high enough in the pecking order, have the ability to inspect the archives anyway. That is what Berger was doing in the archives, was inspecting them in terms of possible litigation and requests for disclosure. He had a high enough security clearance that he could gain access to them.

Which he betrayed by their theft and destruction.

A Good Man, indeed

When the leftopathic confetti is swept away like so much garbage, the world will miss George W. Bush. He was honest, patriotic and good. That was the stuff he was made of. You won't like what comes after America.

Thanks to Amaros (from NRO)

Audience member: “Can you give us an example of a leader we should look up to as a positive influence?”

Dalai Lama (after thinking for a few seconds): “President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader.”

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA ON ISLAM

Much has been made about equating Bush's hand holding and Obama's bow to the Muslim king. Most folks, even on the right, draw fallacious similarities, and Atlas is here to tell you, it ain't so.

President Bush was wrong on Islam. Indeed. But his error was more in ignorance than anything else. He did not study the Quran, he was surrounded by taqiyya spouting dhimmis and Muslims. And let's be frank, Islam is a complicated, dark, deceptive ideology. You have to peel back layers of nonsense to get to the heart of jihad. How do you think they got where they are? Science? Technology, Medicine? 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II nailed it when he said, "‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (Pope Benedict cited this as well, which led to the papal jihad.)

On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama was born Muslim. His father was a Muslim. His stepfather was a Muslim. He was raised in Jakarta, Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. He went to madrassah, he studied Quran. He knows. He knows what it is. He knows what it says.
 

The bow wasn't a "mistake". If it had been merely protocol, he would have bowed to the Queen of a country that is our staunchest ally. Instead, he bowed to the Muslim king of the most violent, misogynistic strain of Islam. That's no accident.

Obama was born a Muslim. Period. His father was a Muslim, and according to Islamic law, if your daddy is a Muslim, you are a Muslim. He claims to have converted to Christianity, but there is no record. No baptism - he admits to that. He joined a Nation of Islam-inspired church of black liberation theology.

He told Nicolas Kristof of the New York Times that the prettiest sound he ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer at sunset. [Fingernails, meet blackboard]. Any Muslim who has left Islam  ............Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan does not speak of  Islam glowingly - as Obama does. They never speak of "respecting" Islam "even if you don't agree".

And this was no accident either:

The bottom line is that you cannot equate Obama and Bush on Islam. Knowing the little that Bush knew (and who was whispering in his ear) and knowing everything that Obama knows, Bush still didn't bow. Obama bowed like an abid. He knows that, too. It's why he bowed.

WOW

This says it all hat tip Ann via The Real Revo

Houston, we have a problem...

BOLTON IN ISRAEL: 'With no likelihood of American use of force, that leaves Israel'

Excellent. The Jerusalem Post runs an insightful interview with John Bolton during his stint at the Herzliya Conference in Jerusalem. I have never seen anything like it. Read it all - extraordinary, really. His remarks on Condi (and Bush) are quite revealing. Looking forward, the outlook is ominous. Very tough choices must be made - imminently.

During an hour-long interview before leaving Herzliya's Daniel Hotel and heading to the first panel-packed day at the campus of the Interdisciplinary Center, Bolton gave his take on Gaza, Iran, Turkey and, of course, on the outgoing and incoming American administrations.

Operation Cast Lead was timed to end immediately before US President Barack Obama's inauguration. Since then, rockets have continued to be fired on Israel from Gaza, with limited retaliation, and preparations for a possible second round. Had Israel not pulled out, would that have put an automatic strain on Jerusalem-Washington relations?

I do think the Obama administration will be less friendly to Israel than the Bush administration. And I understand why the leadership in Israel might have wanted the operation finished by January 20. There may have been other reasons to stop, as well, although with the renewed launching of rockets, those reasons are less apparent.

Military operations like Cast Lead should be carried through to their own logical conclusions, and I think Israel has to calibrate its military actions based on its own self-interest. Trying to judge what it should do based on American politics is a perilous venture.

But doesn't Israel rely on the US? Can Israel "go it alone," without American approval?

Well, it has done so in the past. For example, it undertook the very important operation, in September 2007, to destroy the North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria. That was done, if not over US opposition, certainly without US approval. Personally, I think that US policy was wrong. I think Israel's destroying of that nuclear facility was beneficial to international peace and security.

You're saying the US was actually against that operation?

Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wanted very much to avoid that strike. In fact, when Israel came to the US and first proposed it in the spring of 2007, she urged that it be postponed indefinitely. The Israeli response was, "We'll postpone it, but not past the end of the summer."

And that's exactly what happened.

Speaking of Rice, she seemed to have shifted to the left over the course of the Bush administration, particularly in its second term, when she became secretary of state. Does it really make a difference, then, whether it's Bush running the show or Obama?

Sadly from my perspective, there will be a lot of continuity between the Obama and Bush administrations where Middle East policy is concerned - generally on Iran, and specifically on a range of other issues. That doesn't warm my heart. It shows that mistakes were being made, especially during the second term of the Bush administration, many of which were made at secretary Rice's behest.

Was this because Bush came to rely on her so heavily, or did he actually hold with her views?

He did trust and rely on her very extensively in the second term, when a number of major voices of the first term left the government in one way or another and others, like vice president Cheney, had a much lower profile. I believe historians will judge that Rice was the dominant - in fact, nearly exclusive - voice advising the president on foreign policy in his second term.

Was he personally under her spell in some way, or did he change his mind about his own doctrine?

I can't explain it, quite frankly. It was a big disappointment to see the changes that were made in a variety of policy areas. It was one reason for my not seeking another appointment at the UN, and I thought it appropriate to leave in December 2006, because the administration had shifted on too many important foreign policy issues.

At last year's Herzliya Conference, you responded cynically to the suggestion that Bush might bomb Iran before the end of his presidency. Why, at the time, were you so certain he wouldn't do it?

Well, I had changed my view on that subject. I originally thought that president Bush was prepared to use military force. He had said repeatedly during his first term that an Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable. And, being a man of his word, I thought that his use of the word "unacceptable" meant it was not acceptable, and therefore if diplomacy failed - which I was sure it would - that left the robust response as the only option. I think what happened was that the president was persuaded by secretary Rice that a military answer to the Iranian nuclear threat would have provoked Iran to respond in Iraq, by increasing its destabilizing activities. I happen to think that analysis is incorrect - that Iran, if it retaliated at all, would retaliate by having Hizbullah launch attacks on Israel. But I think that secretary Rice persuaded the president that his biggest legacy in Iraq could be threatened and undermined if Iran stepped up its destabilizing activities.

From what you know of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, do you think she will take a similar view, or is it possible that she, ironically, might take a more hard-line position on Iran?

Bill and Hillary were a year ahead of me at Yale law school. I've known them for a long time - not that we were close buddies. And my recollection of Hillary was that she was one of the most radical leftists among the students there. She has gone through a lot of changes since then, among them in her political awareness, but I think fundamentally her views have not changed. I would worry that she will fit right in to an Obama administration, whose views are very European when it comes to a wide variety of foreign policy issues.

The danger of a nuclear Iran is an issue around which there is consensus across the Israeli political spectrum. In the event that it becomes necessary, would it be legitimate for Israel to take military action alone, if doing so were technically feasible?

Absolutely. With the end of the Bush administration, the possibility of US use of military force against Iran's nuclear program has dropped essentially to zero. The diplomatic effort failed years ago, and I don't think any renewed American effort is fundamentally going to make any difference. Iran has all the scientific and technological knowledge it needs right now to create a nuclear weapon. We can tell from publicly available information from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has enough low-enriched uranium which, if enriched to weapons-grade levels, would allow it one nuclear weapon now, and possibly another one or two this year. Let me stress here: That's what we know publicly from the IAEA - no James Bond involved in that calculation - and there may well be additional activities we don't know about, which would make Iran's capability even more substantial. So, if the diplomatic option has failed, that leaves only regime change or the use of force. And with no likelihood of American use of force, that leaves Israel.

Of course, the military option is a very unattractive one. It's risky. You could end up with the worst of both worlds: taking action without breaking Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycles, and yet incurring the disapproval of governments all over the world.

But you have to have the military option front and center, because the alternative is far more unattractive.

Now, there are people who will say that Israel can't do it without American approval, or that it's not possible technically. I don't believe any of that is accurate, though I don't mean to downplay the risk involved. But there's another thing that you have to keep in mind: The military option is declining over time. This is because Iran will undoubtedly take steps to disperse and harden its facilities even further. It will increase its air defense capabilities by purchases from Russia. It will do many things to make it even more difficult for the US or Israel to take military action in the future.

So there's a very narrow window. If it closes, then you have to contemplate what to do with a nuclear Iran. I've tried to stay away from theorizing about how you deal with a nuclear Iran, because once you start theorizing about it, in a way you're accepting it. But if the reality is that Iran is now unimpeded - except for the possibility of a military strike - then you have to start thinking about it. That's why regime change starts coming back into the picture. The only long-range way to deal with this problem is regime change. You can't contain a regime of religious fanatics. Their calculus on the value of human life is very different from ours. If you prize life in the hereafter more than life on earth, the deterrent value of retaliation isn't very persuasive.

Look at the people who carried out 9/11. What threat of retaliation would have deterred them from the suicide attack? The answer is none. So, we're at a very grave point here. There's not much time left to deal with Iran if you want to keep in non-nuclear. And once it becomes nuclear, the entire balance of power in the region shifts - not just for Israel, but for the Arab states in the Persian Gulf as a whole. It will be a dramatically different region, because of the substantial increase of influence that nuclear capability will give the Iranians.

What good can changing this or that specific radical regime do, when the forces of jihad are global and exceed borders?

By regime change in Iran, I don't mean switching a few figures at the top; I mean the elimination of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The few cases of countries' having given up their nuclear weapons programs have come at a time of regime change. For example, when South Africa moved away from apartheid toward a true democracy, that's when it gave up its nuclear weapons program. When the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus gave Russia back the nuclear weapons that had been left on their territory, because they wanted a non-nuclear future.

There's no guarantee that regime change in Iran would achieve the same objective, but if there's any chance for that to happen, it's when a new government says it doesn't want nuclear weapons, and does want peace and stability. If that doesn't work, then the options are even more unattractive. That's why this is such a critical point, without much time remaining before we find out what happens when Iran does get nuclear weapons.

It has been said that Iran's nuclear program is being set back by the global financial crisis and sanctions. Is that not true?

The fall in the price of oil globally has had a dramatic impact on Iran. There's little doubt about that. And Iran's economy is in very bad shape. There's little doubt about that, as well. But neither of these two factors has anything to do with sanctions. Iran's economy is in trouble because of nearly 30 years of misrule since the Islamic Revolution. The lesson is: Don't put religious leaders in charge of an economy. They have misinvested in Iran's oil infrastructure. They have subsidized fuel prices to the point where they're now dependant on importing refined petroleum products. You can see evidence of economic dissatisfaction all around the country. But, again, that's not because of the sanctions that have been imposed by the US or the Security Council. Those sanctions have had a very limited impact. 

[...]

What about UNRWA?

UNRWA is an example of an organization that should have ceased to exist long ago, because its functions were transformed over time from humanitarian to largely political. The idea that refugee status can pass down through the generations is contrary to the principles of international humanitarian law that the High Commissioner for Refugees operates on elsewhere. And it shows why single-purpose organizations like this often are self-defeating.

Apropos the passing down of refugee status through the generations, if Hamas and Hizbullah are proxies of Iran, how can Israel eliminate the threats they pose with this or that territorial compromise, or this or that military operation?

It is a mistake to think that you can deal with the problem of Hamas, Hizbullah or even the regime in Syria separately from the problem of Iran. And neither of those three is disconnected from the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. Nor am I sure that you can deal with all at once, without regime change in Teheran. This is not to say that you have to have a macro solution to everything before you can have a micro solution to anything. It is to say that as you approach these threats and problems, you have to understand the linkages between them.

[...]

According to polls Binyamin Netanyahu - like you, a former ambassador to the UN - is going to win Tuesday's election. Is it true, as his opponents have been claiming, that Obama will not be able to relate to him or his worldview?

I don't want to put myself in the middle of an Israeli election, but it's a mistake to think that Obama won't deal with whomever becomes prime minister of Israel, as he would deal with the leader of any country, from whatever side of the political spectrum.

I do think, however, that how Israel should deal with the Obama administration is to appoint a counterpart to George Mitchell as the Israeli "special envoy" handling the Middle East peace process. I think it's a mistake for the prime minister to deal directly with Mitchell. He or she should deal with President Obama; the next foreign minister should deal with Secretary of State Clinton; and Mr. or Ms. X should deal with George Mitchell.

Mitchell has said that all conflicts can be solved, pointing to Northern Ireland as his prime example. What can Israel expect from his efforts on this front?

The Good Friday Agreement did not solve the Northern Ireland conflict, which, after all, in one form or another, had been going on for 500 years. It was solved by the British army thrashing the IRA. What was negotiated in the Good Friday Agreement were the terms of surrender. That hasn't happened in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, which in any case is a very different environment. As for what to expect, well, this is probably the last major assignment of Mitchell's career, so he has a strong incentive to reach a deal and do it quickly. This means that its substance will be less important than the deal itself, and that if reaching it drags out too long, it will be seen as a failure on his part. This should be of particular concern to Israel.

Read the whole thing.

Bush, The Last American President

I have had my differences with George W, large and small. I am listening to Bush's farewell speech and this is a sad moment. Sad for so many reasons but primarily because Bush is the last American president. He is a patriot, he loved America but he left the left beat him up and beat him down.

I believe he always acted with the country's best interest in mind despite his inability to understand who the enemy is, and the scope of their numbers -- still referring to Islamic jihad as a small band of fanatics.

It was refreshing to hear him say that evil exists in the world - and that the battle between good and evil is real "even if there are people that don't like when you say that". He did say "America must maintain our moral clarity. I've often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two of them there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere." ... the only newsworthy quote. Right.

I am remiss in not pointing out this dunderhead remark,"The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience and marks unbelievers for murder." A small band? Wrong.

We do not have a President-elect that loves this country, or one that  grew up in America, that cherishes the constitution, that plays it straight. The President elect is an internationalist, not an America firster. So it is indeed the end of an era, the American era (at least in so far as American politics go).

Romulus Augustulus Bush

US "ABSTAINS" ON VOTE ON ISRAEL

Well that's a first - and a shocka. G.W. couldn't go out with his head held high -- he submitted to Islam. How ironic that his presidency began with the Islamic attacks of 9/11, when Bush was unbowed, and ends with him caving into the arch villainous  barbarians. iN 2001, he was quintessentially American - proud, tough, courageous. He came in like a lion and went out like a frickin zebra.

Look at him now, he couldn't go out like a man. I ashamed of him --- shakes head, walks away.

UN Council Calls for Gaza Cease-Fire; US Abstains Bloomberg Hat tip Cobra.

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and fully respected” cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, “leading to the full withdrawal” of Israel’s forces from the Palestinian territory.    

The U.S. abstained from the vote, and the resolution passed, 14 to 0.   

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. supported the resolution, though abstained to await a possible Israeli- Palestinian cease-fire stemming from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s mediation.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said earlier today the Jewish state would continue its military operation in the Gaza Strip because Hamas rocket assaults haven’t been halted. Israeli forces again struck targets today throughout Gaza from the air, land and sea, while Palestinians fired rockets at Israel.    

“Responsibility for the current hostilities lies squarely with Hamas,” Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s ambassador to the UN said after the vote. “The international community must focus its attention on the cessation of Hamas’s terrorist activity and make clear that a terrorist organization can never be a legitimate leadership.”    

We can only hope that Israel will ignore this farce of a "resolution" by the insecurity council, and keep fighting until they have achieved their objectives.

If the spineless and gutless Olmerde/Barak/Livni cabal is calling the shots - the Jews are screwed. The only silver lining to a ceasefire is Kadima would be kicked out and Likud would win handily because the Jewish people want to defend themselves. They want to live.

Sultan remarked this morning: (hat tip Kap)

When terrorists attack, even when they aim for soldiers, in truth they aim for the glass spines of politicians, whom they can always count on to bend when trouble comes. In politics there are always a shortage of Theodore Roosevelts and Churchills, and an excess of Murthas and Obamas. And that is what makes terrorism so successful, because you cannot terrorize men of courage and principle, but if you spread enough terror and make the cost of the battle high enough, you can always count on politicians to cut and run. It has worked for the terrorists time and time again, and it's still working for them today.

Update: Spencer adds:

The US abstained. Not, "The U.S. stood up and stoutly defended the right and necessity for Israel to defend itself against jihad attacks from Hamas." Oh, no. Instead, the U.S. abstained, and Rice spoke out in favor of the ceasefire resolution. Did anyone speak of how anything short of destroying Hamas would only restore the status quo ante, and lead to the resumption of jihad attacks upon Israel from Gaza? I doubt Rice did. I doubt anyone did.

UPDATE: ISRAEL SAYS NO - no one is going to tell the Jews that we can't defend ourselves.

The world is acting as a Hamas lobbyist [but] will understand, despite the UNSC resolution, that we must act with all our force to achieve our goals, to bring quiet to the South," said Yishai.

BUSH TURNS US ECONOMY OVER TO EU

Give it away, give it away, give it away now. Bush has gone and lost his mind. Why would we throw our good money after bad. Why are we abdicating our economic sovereignty to the  EUroids - moochers, looters and collectivists
Bush has lost it. He is leaving 350billion for Obama because he is a "gentleman " and wants people to like him ?  The economy needs the money yesterday and Bush, Paulson and Congress royally screwed this up.
The auto executives said nothing about labor costs at all and how the unions are destroying this country. Surely Obama will give in because he owes the unions, hell he owes everybody.
The country elected a socialist. We won't  recover in the next few years.The Democrats will raise taxes, fosho. 
Historically it is a monumental buying opportunity but historically we never had a global economy .. its a new ball game now. Look what he has gone and done. He has no right.

Bush Hands Over Reins of U.S. Economy to EU
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann  Article Font Size

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices.

The European-dominated College of Supervisors

Bush Agrees to Meet with Iran as Iran ends cooperation with UN nuclear arms probe

Stupid and obviously predictable. SHAME ON BUSH FOR PUTTING THE FREE WORLD AT RISK.  We have entered the era of the The Anti-Bush Doctrine. Good luck with that.

Iran ends cooperation with UN nuclear arms probe< (AP)

Iran signaled Thursday that it will no longer cooperate with U.N. experts probing for signs of clandestine nuclear weapons work, confirming the investigation is at a dead end a year after it began. The announcement from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh compounded skepticism about denting Tehran nuclear defiance, just five days after Tehran  stonewalled demands from six world powers that it halt activities capable of producing the fissile core of warheads.

Obama's Bush's Policy of Surrender in Installments

Cracking up. Bush on bended knee. Melanie Phillips and the awful truth.

AMERICA'S CHAMBERLAIN

Some months ago I worried here that the quiet in Iraq might be at least in part the result of a deal made between America and Iran: in exchange for Tehran’s calling off the bombers in Iraq to help put another Republican into the White House, the Bush administration would undertake not to attack Iran. Yesterday’s Guardian story that America is to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and intends to send a senior official, William Burns (pictured above), to discuss Iran’s nuclear program with Iranian officials can only deepen that fear. Unless this is all an elaborate bluff, the suspicion must be that what the Bush administration is now focused upon is not safeguarding the survival of Israel and the freedom of the world but on winning the presidency for the Republicans. After all, Bush has now effectively stolen Obama’s line of talking to Iran without preconditions. McCain, of course, has put himself in the opposite camp to Obama over Iran. If he doesn’t condemn this Bush volte-face in the loudest possible terms, the suspicion can only deepen that this is the very dirtiest kind of deal.

Meanwhile Israel is being isolated by America, which is giving Iran a further gift of the thing it most craves – time to build its nuclear weapons capability. What should be happening now is that the Iranian regime should be under the maximum economic diplomatic and military pressure, treated as a pariah state and kept guessing about the possibility of a US attack, all in order to weaken and destabilise it. Instead this latest act of craven American appeasement will strengthen it because it displays in flashing neon lights the message that America hasn’t got a clue what to do about Iran and so could Tehran kindly help it out of this jam, please. Far from avoiding war, this only makes it more likely – and more likely also that when that terrible eventuality occurs, Iran will be on the front foot.

History teaches us, after all, that war is the inevitable outcome of appeasement because, instead of preventing bad people from doing bad things, it galvanises them further to do so. When the Americans talked to the Japanese, the result was Pearl Harbour. When Chamberlain talked to Hitler, the result was the invasion of Poland. And when Britain tried to appease the Arab Nazis in 1930s Palestine by offering to reward them for their terrorist intransigence by giving them half the land promised to the Jews, the result was the Arab war of annihilation against the reborn Jewish state -- a war which continues to this day.

Moreover, Iran is as strong as it is today only because of the astounding fact that America has refused to fight back in the war that Iran has been prosecuting against it now for almost three decades. When its people were taken hostage at the US embassy, Jimmy Carter infamously sat on his hands. When more than 240 Americans were murdered when Iran bombed the US marine barracks, the US did virtually nothing. When Iran fomented attacks in Iraq and blew up coalition troops by its roadside bombs, America gave orders to its military that there were to be no covert ops in Iran and not even any hot pursuit of Iranian terrorists over the border. And when Iran turned Lebanon into a proxy battleground and stifled the nascent Lebanese democracy, America looked the other way. So much for the ‘Bush doctrine’.

[...]

It is however quite staggering to witness this change in attitude towards Israel by a man who had been arguably the most pro-Israel American president in history. Yet now he is giving the impression that – in the prescient cry of Ariel Sharon – Israel is to play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, with William Burns about to join the EU in sealing its fate in a re-run of the Munich agreement. This in turn follows the intense American pressure upon Israel to reach a suicidal deal with Fatah to establish what would inevitably be a Palestinian terror state.

LEECHES, MOOCHERS AND HATERS HECKLE BUSH ON JULY 4TH

"That man is a fascist!"

The American people elected him. Get over it. Watch the vile videos here , beneath the fold. They spit on America's weigh of life, her choices, her freedoms, the tenets of Western civiliation.

More News Video of heckling beneath the fold. Click "CONTINUE" at the bottom of the post to view.

FOX news reported:

"That man is a fascist!" one protester yelled. Another swore at him.

Protesters made it hard to hear President Bush Friday as he welcomed new citizens and marked Independence Day at the home of Thomas Jefferson.

As is the tradition each Fourth of July, a naturalization ceremony was held at Monticello in Charlottesville, Va. This year, 76 immigrants from 30 different countries came to take the oath of citizenship.

But Bush repeatedly was interrupted as he welcomed the guests.

The protesters later were removed from the ceremony by law enforcement officials.

"To my fellow citizens to be — we believe in free speech in the United States of America," Bush said when the protesters started shouting.

[Hey Bush, tell it to CAIR, and the OIC, abd the UN, and CIC, and the self censoring news media - Atlas]

To the din of more yelling, Bush discussed Jefferson’s legacy as he introduced the citizens.

"We honor Jefferson’s legacy by aiding the rise of liberty in lands that do not know the blessings of freedom, and on this Fourth of July we pay tribute to the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America," he said.   

"We also honor Jefferson's legacy by welcoming newcomers to our land, and that is what we’re here to celebrate today."

Video of whole speech

Video of protests

There's a great new blog on the President's visit  today to Charlottesville  to address new citizens on 4th of July. The asshats, moonbats and leftards were out in full force. President Bush is spending July 4th at the home of the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence. He'll be visiting Thomas Jefferson's hilltop home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, Va. and taking part in Monticello's annual naturalization ceremony, addressing 76 new American citizens. The leftist planned the ambush well in advance.

AP photo of Desiree Fairooz

The “Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice” then allowed Mr. Swanson to use its website to urge those who share his views to "Bring as many people as you can, and each request the maximum of four tickets. Go early!" (implied: regardless of whether they actually needed the extra tickets). Early reports indicate that members of the CCP&J and other (supposed) "peace" groups camped out through the night, or arrived extremely early, to fulfill Mr. Swanson's request. This action clearly prevented other (truly) peaceful local citizens from attending --- while providing anarchists with the maximum opportunity to orchestrate disruptions of the event.

From TJ's blog: Welcome to Charlottesville Presidentt Bush

Subversive political propaganda typically consists of 1% truth and 99% information that is demonstrably untrue or decontextualized, all of which is then woven together in such a way as to lead the target audience to erroneous, often dangerous conclusions.

Such is the case with the Charlottesville Center for Peace & Justice’s (CCP&J) propaganda in rallying its supporters, and others, to protest President Bush when he speaks on Independence Day at Monticello’s annual naturalization ceremony.

The great Americans couldn't get in of course. Waiting for TJ's reportage now ........

Despite the best efforts of the “Welcome To Charlottesville, President Bush” blog, its contributors and others, we failed in our mission to dissuade local anarchists --- many of whom are allied with thinly-disguised socialist-communist front groups --- from turning the July 4 ceremonies at Monticello into a shameful spectacle.

This morning, these anarchists repeatedly shouted obscenities, hateful, lie-filled accusations and other screeds during President Bush’s speech at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s beloved home. The local TV news station covering the event was unable (or unwilling) to “bleep” out their profanities. Early reports indicate that this inglorious, shameful episode is being mentioned in the national news media.

The question, from our perspective, is: What’s next, local news media?

[...]

This blog, though less than a week old, repeatedly documented and alerted the local news media to the fact that local anarchists, whom the media refers to as "peace activists," were fomenting exactly these disruptions. Yet not a single media source exposed this fact, or challenged the would-be perpetrators on their statements and actions.

The local TV station covering the event was unable (or unwilling) to “bleep” out their profanities. Early reports indicate that this inglorious, shameful episode is being mentioned in the national news media.

In short, this entire humiliating event could probably been avoided, had the perpetrators been held to account by the local news media, and subjected to the public shame that their statements and and intended actions deserved, before they had the chance to act on their anarchistic desires.

Read the rest here.

BOLTON ON BUSH'S NORK NUCLEAR COLLAPSE

....or many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.

Tragic for us. The worst of all possible scenarios.

The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy Ambassador John Bolton, Wall Street Journal hat tip Van

North Korea has consecutively broken every major agreement with the U.S. since the North's creation. The Bush administration provides no reason why this one will not be added to that long list except the audacity of hope. Where have we heard that recently? Barack Obama and John Kerry both announced support for the deal, and Mr. Obama said he intended to apply Bush's policy to other rogue states, thus confirming the early start of the Obama administration.

The Feb. 13, 2007, agreement states explicitly that North Korea was to provide "a complete declaration of all nuclear programs" within 60 days. This it manifestly did not do, either in timing or substance. The declaration, more than 14 months overdue, and which is not yet public, has long been forecast not to include information on weaponization, uranium enrichment, or proliferation activities such as cloning the Yongbyon reactor in Syria. Although the North provided less than it agreed 16 months ago, we compensated by giving up more than we agreed, which is typical of decades of U.S. negotiation with the North.

The extent to which Yongbyon's aggregate plutonium production has been weaponized and concealed is one critical unresolved issue. Moreover, analysis of the much-touted 18,000 pages of Yongbyon documentation previously turned over has uncovered significant gaps in information, especially concerning the reactor's early years of operation, that preclude making a truly accurate calculation. This is essentially the same problem that the International Atomic Energy Agency faced during its years of monitoring Yongbyon under the failed 1994 Agreed Framework, showing that the North is nothing if not consistent in its cover-up strategy.

Ironically, the documents themselves are contaminated with particles of highly enriched uranium, probably from that enrichment program North Korea still denies. This program's extent is crucial, because if it is production scope, the North will still have a route to fissile material no matter what Yongbyon's ultimate fate, proving yet again that leveling those aged facilities was a nonconcession.

Bush administration officials contend on this and other unresolved issues that they will insist on verification, but inside the government there is little or no planning on what that means precisely, let alone agreement on the details with North Korea. Given the North's record of maskirovka, the extent of open and intrusive verification we should demand would likely undermine the very foundations of the regime itself, which Kim Jong Il will obviously not accept.

The North's proliferation, such as the now-flattened Yongbyon twin in Syria, are important not only for what they prove about the North's ongoing duplicity, but for their potentially central place in the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. This is emphatically not, therefore, merely a matter of filling out the historical record, but rather an avenue of inquiry that focuses directly on the North's current capabilities and intentions. Pooh-poohing proliferation in this way, as the administration has done, is evidence of its desperation not to allow the deal to come unstuck.

The administration argues that these criticisms are unwarranted because it has always contemplated that the North's denuclearization would play out in phases. This is no answer at all. Instead, it graphically reveals one of the deal's central problems. There is no advantage to the U.S. in proceeding by phases. To the contrary, North Korea alone benefits by phasing, by stretching out a process that enables Kim Jong Il to stay in power and to maximize the political and economic benefits he can extract through each excruciatingly lengthy and painful phase.

Consider, moreover, the deal's corrosive impact on the very concept of the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Removing North Korea from the list for political reasons unrelated to terrorism simply provides ammunition for those who argue that the existence of the list itself is purely political. Critically, since the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programs materially assisted Syria and Iran, two other states on the terrorism honor roll, it is hard to see what remains of President Bush's doctrine that those who support terrorists will be treated as terrorists.

Consider also the palpable damage our mishandling of the terrorism issues has caused to our alliance with Japan, whose citizens, along with many South Koreans, were abducted by Pyongyang's agents. One might quibble that this is not state sponsorship of terrorism, but rather direct state terrorism. (Perhaps we should create a new list for North Korea.) It is hardly a reason to remove Japan's most effective leverage to get a straight accounting from the North about its citizens. Of course, why should we expect North Korea to be any more honest on the abductee issue than on anything else?

The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.

Bolton photoshop (maybe it's not) hat tip Bill

BUSH WUSSES OUT BIG TIME ...now?

Ugh. Have you seen the interview Bush gave to The London Times apologizing for defending America from the violent jihad? It is pathetic.

Bush regrets his legacy as a "man who wanted war"? Memo to Bush: it was not your legacy, it was al qaeda and company's legacy. Not aggressively defending ourselves is a moral depravity. Apologizing for defending this great nation is morally bankrupt. It was not Bush who wanted war, he was reading Goodnight Moon to a bunch of kindergartners in Sunny Florida (no, not Sunshine Florida, Obambi), remember? It was Islamic jihad that wanted war, they took out the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and attempted to take out the Capital building and/or White House.

Memo to Bush: STFU.

President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”.

His finest hour!

He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

The unilateralism that marked his first White House term has been replaced by an enthusiasm for tough multilateralism.

"Tough multilateralism"? WTF. Thats's the most moronic oxymoron I have heard this week and that's hard with the lunatic lefties and Obamaniacals.

He said that his focus for his final six months in office was to secure agreement on issues such as establishing a Palestinian state and to “leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president”.

Bush's second term has been an abject failure and an enormous disappointment for freedom loving peoples. Freedom ain't free and with this admission of weakness, he serves to empower the global jihad.

A terror state in the heart of the Middle East? That's what he wants to focus on in his last six months? G-d help us all.

UPDATE: Greenwald thinks this is the worst possible time to cave. Read him at Contentions here.

President Bush could not have picked a worse time to decide to soften his image. As Iran barrels towards full nuclear capability and as positive developments in the War on Terror shine a favorable light on the Bush Doctrine, we find the President at his most cuddly and contrite.

[...]

Here is the problem. Talking about talking is not effective diplomacy. Talking about bombing is effective diplomacy. We’ve reached a funny point in world history when the toughest thing a western leader is permitted to say about a potential nuclear menace is that “all options are on the table.” Let’s hope that what appears to be a kinder, gentler, and frankly weaker approach to Iran is just the President crossing his T’s and dotting his I’s before making the hardest decision a statesman can make. If the only thing standing between us and a nuclear Iran is a “multilateral framework” of European “considerations,” Bush’s legacy will bear the stain of something far more damning than excessive verbal bluster.

Read it all.

UPDATE: A weak Bush empowers the poison pygmy.

BUSH IN ISRAEL: IRAN ATTACKS

“The Zionist regime is dying,” President Ahmadinejad countered in northern Iran, according to the Associated Press. “The criminals assume that by holding celebrations,” he added, “they can save the sinister Zionist regime from death and annihilation.”

Photo:Palestinian children hold posters depicting President Bush as they shout slogans against Israel in a rally to mark 'Nakba' outside the United Nations office in Amman May 14, 2008. The posters read 'New Nazi'

Iran is firing rockets at a sovereign nation while the President of the United States is on an official visit? Are you getting this? Israel suffered a  direct hit on a shopping mall and children's medical center that injured 90, including a seriously-wounded baby. While the world wags their finger at Bush as a warmonger, the despots and dictators of the world build nuclear weapons, attack democracies, engage and fund barbaric Islamic terror.

Bush has only a few months left of his Presidency. I believe he will take out Iran's nukes. He'll have to, he knows it. He cannot leave that mess for what will very likely be an appeasing US administration come 2009. Bush knows just how dangerous the convergence is, of the malevolent aims of the axis of evil. He gave Condi diplomacy ample time, resources and money to no avail. It only served to weaken the West.

Iran is for him to deal with and deal with it he must.

Bush says nuclear Iran would be 'unforgivable'

Iran Role ‘Clearly Visible’ in Attack on Israeli Mall

Rocket Falls Amid a Visit by Bush
BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun

A rocket attack from Gaza at the heart of a major Israeli city, occurring just as President Bush launched a three-day visit to celebrate the Jewish state’s 60th anniversary, may signify a major escalation in the intensifying regional confrontation between pro-American countries and Iranian-backed Islamist forces.

[...]Photo: Bush on Masada.

The midrange rocket, shot from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, directly hit a medical clinic at a busy shopping mall in the southern city of Ashkelon, injuring at least 14 people, including babies. At least three among the people who were hospitalized yesterday were described in critical condition by the city’s Barzilai Hospital spokesmen.

Hamas and its allies have hit small border towns near Gaza for years, using inaccurate Kassam rockets that at times exact casualties. This week two Israelis were killed in Sderot and Kibbutz Kfar Aza. But in yesterday’s attack on Ashkelon, which is farther away from the border than those towns, more accurate Grad missiles were used, indicating that Iran’s efforts to arm Hamas are intensifying, and raising speculations about new Israeli plans for a major assault on Gaza.

Arriving at Prime Minister Olmert’s residence, Mr. Bush said America’s role in the region is to “stand with democracies and to stand strong against terrorists – whether it be to stand with Israel against the existential threat of a nuclear weapon with Iran, or whether it be to stand with the Siniora government” in Lebanon.

[...]

In Israel, fingers were immediately pointed at Iran as the power behind the attack on Ashkelon. Regardless of claims by Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, Israeli officials said Hamas was ultimately responsible, pointing to the fact that the Soviet-era Grad rocket used in the attack was upgraded in Iran.

“The Iranian hand is clearly visible,” a senior Jerusalem government official who spoke on condition of anonymity told The New York Sun. “Iran actively supports Hamas by training, financing, supplying logistical aid, and sending weaponry and ammunition to Gaza. There is one force in the north – Hezbollah in Lebanon – and one in the south, Hamas. We look at both as arms of Iran.”

In his meeting with Mr. Olmert, Mr. Bush described last week’s events in Lebanon as an “Iranian effort to destabilize that young democracy,” and promised support for Prime Minister Siniora’s government. He added that “Hamas’s objective, stated objective is the destruction of the state of Israel. And therefore the United States will stand strongly with Israel, as well as stand strongly with the Palestinians who don’t share that vision.”

While Mr. Bush did not directly address the Ashkelon attack, Mr. Olmert vowed to take the “necessary steps” to address the “intolerable” assault. “The government of Israel is committed to stop” such attacks, he said. Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly briefed Secretary of State Rice on the situation and offered to conduct a tour of Ashkelon today. Ms. Rice did not immediately respond to the offer, according to Ynet.

Yeah, I am sure Condi is running to Ashkelon ...... talk about your useful idiots.

Palestinians burn a U.S. flag during a demonstration marking Israel's 60th anniversary, which Palestinians call the 'nakba,' or catastrophe, the word they use to describe Israel's establishment

Hmmmmmmm..... I am sure they mean this to include the 900,000 Jews that were expelled from Arab lands.

Perhaps the schools should focus less on annihilation training and more on spelling.

Money shot.

If you want to be popular ....

If you want to be popular in the Middle East ..... just blame Israel.

Watch the BUSH video here. Sometimes .... I remember why I really liked him and sometimes  still do. (video hat tip Mara)

"Popularity is fleeting... Principles are forever."

HOLY SHI'ITE! BUSH SAYS THE J WORD

There it is. Minute 2:10. Does Condi and the State dept Arabists know? Bush is great oin this clip, why isn't he this clear with "Palestinian" Islamic jihad. hat tip Dave via Primetime Politics

Speaking of which, Myrick Aces, D.C. Flunks 'Jihadism 101' (Diana West)

GEORGE BUSH: "THAT MUTHF**KA, HE DON'T DESERVE TO BREATHE"

Gates of Vienna is running a very disturbing video of a little black kid warning in the most disgusting language possible of George Bush's impending assassination.

"I' m gonna kill him. ....When you hear that George W Bush is dead, I did it"

Oh and btw, it's also in support of Barack Obama.

Who put the kid up to it? Who wrote it? This is child abuse! The parents or adult responsible must be busted a/s/a/p.

Is this the change everyone in the Obama camp keeps talking about? Hate hate hate - that's the only thing different the comie Obama brings to the party.

The Baron writes:

This is a very strange and disturbing video. According to Word Star Hip-Hop, where it is now posted, it was originally made up of three separate videos at YouTube, which have been taken down.

WSHH refers to the kid as a “toddler”. He’s a little older than that, but still very young to be mouthing off so bizarrely. There’s something not quite right about his voice and manner.

Also, notice that the kid is a Barack Obama supporter!

This is all I know about this strange video.

I’m putting the embed below the jump, because of disturbing content and foul language.

- - - - - - - - -

That is some crazy shiz, man.

BOLTON: ""President Bush, you are no Ronald Reagan"

John Bolton, yet again, restates the obvious and outlines the imminent danger of a fantasy mongering US policy and a nuclear proliferating North Korea. Is such willful stupidity even possible after the Israelis took out the North Korea provided nuclear bomb making factory in Syria back on September 6th. Unfathomable.
The money quote? US Chief negotiator Christopher Hill , ""Some people imagine there is a building somewhere with a secret door they can open and find a group of scantily clad women enriching uranium." huh?
And yes, you can thank the usual  suspects, Hill, Hadley and Condappeaser. Clowns all.

Bush's North Korea Capitulation By JOHN R. BOLTON WSJ hat tip David

President George W. Bush is fond of comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But as he meets with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington this week, his policy regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program looks more like something out of Bill Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's playbook.

In dealing with the Soviet Union on arms control, Reagan was famous for repeating the Russian phrase, "Doveryai, no proveryai" (trust, but verify). Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reportedly once complained to Reagan, "You use that phrase every time we meet." To which Reagan smilingly replied, "That's because I like it so much."

This administration appears to have forgotten that concept altogether. Although the Six-Party Talks have been sliding into dangerous territory for some time, the Bush administration has repeatedly said that North Korea's complete, verifiable disclosure of its nuclear program was a sine qua non of any deal. No longer.

Last week in Singapore, U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill and his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye Gwan reached a deal that rests on trust and not verification. According to numerous press reports and Mr. Hill's April 10 congressional briefing, the U.S. will be expected to accept on faith, literally, North Korean assertions that it has not engaged in significant uranium enrichment, and that it has not proliferated nuclear technology or materials to countries like Syria and Iran.

Indeed, the North will not even make the declaration it earlier agreed to, but merely "acknowledge" that we are concerned about reports of such activities – which the United States itself will actually list. By some accounts, the North Korean statement will not even be public. In exchange for this utter nonperformance, the North will be rewarded with political "compensation" (its word): Concurrent with its "declaration," it will be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and freed from the Trading With the Enemy Act.

President Bush has repeatedly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley not to make him look weak on North Korea. If the president accepts the deal now on the table, things will be far worse than that.

Although the U.S. public is not yet fully aware of every detail of this agreement, the administration's public and private comments effectively admit the substance. While briefing Congress, Mr. Hill said he expects the North's release from the long-standing U.S. constraints to be "simultaneous" with its "acknowledgment," which he described as a "win-win" concept.

The generals in Pyongyang must love that assessment. They can also relax, since they won't have to worry about concealing their ongoing nuclear work from any verification follow-up.

Our chief negotiator conceded, without blushing, that North Korea "won't allow snap inspections," which apparently justifies the Bush administration's immediate surrender. Indeed, Mr. Hill derided concerns about the North's enrichment effort by saying, according to an attendee, "Some people imagine there is a building somewhere with a secret door they can open and find a group of scantily clad women enriching uranium."

What a maroon!

So much for legitimate concerns about U.S. security and the equally legitimate concerns of our allies. Despite cryptic comments by Secretary of State Rice to the contrary, there is no verification mechanism whatever to explore and monitor the truth of what North Korea will say. We will be taking their word.

Ironically, the only hang-up is that North Korea is still lying about how much plutonium it has accumulated, proffering an amount well below what U.S. intelligence believes to be the case. In short, the Bush administration is focusing on what it thinks it knows (plutonium), ignoring what could be the far more dangerous activities (uranium enrichment) it has reason to suspect.

This is the same mistake as the drunk searching for his car keys near a lamppost, even though he admits to a passerby they are not there. Why keep looking near the lamp post? "Because the light is better," the drunk replies.

ha!

One can only imagine what Ronald Reagan would have said in his 1980 campaign, if Jimmy Carter had fallen so low. Similarly, in 1999, former Secretary of State James Baker called Clinton administration policy on North Korea "appeasement," writing in the New York Times: "Once again, we have been played for fools. . . . [I]t is hard to fathom how anyone could put credence in any agreement by North Korea."

Perhaps President Bush could at least read Secretary Baker's Times's op-ed before he signs off on this deal. Even Jack Pritchard, the Bush administration's former chief North Korea negotiator – who resigned five years ago because he believed our policy was too harsh – is critical of the current approach.

[...]

Last fall, President Bush rejected the idea of giving North Korea a pass on uranium enrichment and proliferation. Now, in the waning days of his term, he seems poised to accept it. If he does, and if this deal proceeds, we can well and truly say: "President Bush, you are no Ronald Reagan."

Please. Read it all.

So Stop Funding the Murder!

Stop training them, paying them, arming them. Kill them. If they won't live in peace. Kill them. D'oh.

White House Faults Hamas in Gaza Violence - Jennifer Loven
The White House on Monday blamed the Palestinian militant group Hamas for causing the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians that has killed dozens and put a halt to peace talks. Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council, said: "The No. 1 thing that has to happen is that Hamas has got to stop targeting Israeli citizens with rockets. It must stop." (AP)

What humanity? You need humans. And why is Israel responsible for the welfare of the executioners? Condi, STFU already.

Rice to Raise Humanitarian Issues with Israelis

Sometimes I love him

And so many of the African nations love him but none more than Liberia. Check Bush out ......... uh huh uh huh

This is part of the reason they are dancing:

Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since   then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press   conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.  

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.  

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."  

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably     unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man,     but both rose to the occasion."  

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.  

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans"     but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report     on this good news story.  

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from     all the major newspapers.

 

Taranto: Apparently they still aren't paying attention. Apart from the Times, the only   press reference we could find to Geldof's comments was an editorial in the conservative   Investor's   Business Daily.

The leftards? Absolute silence.

Was Michelle Obama Proud of this?

What the press or the Obama nation won't tell you about Bush or Obama's background.

Over at The Washington Times

"I like Obama because he is African and he is tall," said Ms. Moyo, who has a 13-year old son whose father is Kenyan.

But Ms. Moyo said she questions whether Mr. Obama is possibly a Muslim.

"Even for us here we are afraid of those people," she said of the Arabic and predominantly Muslim nations across the Indian Ocean to the north.

Tanzinian President Jakaya Kikwete avoided answering a reporter's question yesterday about Mr. Obama, at a press conference with Mr. Bush where the two leaders signed a deal cementing $698 million in aid for Tanzania's infrastructure.

"Of course, people talk with excitement of Obama," Mr. Kikwete said. "For us, the most important thing is, let him be as good friend of Africa as President Bush has been."

And this from The Best of the Web;

Geldof Praises Bush
President Bush is visiting Africa, and the Washington Times's Fishwrap blog reports he is being joined by Bob Geldof, "an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa":

Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since   then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press   conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.  

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight     disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the     achievement.  

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."  

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably     unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man,     but both rose to the occasion."  

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.  

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans"     but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report     on this good news story.  

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from     all the major newspapers.

Apparently they still aren't paying attention. Apart from the Times, the only   press reference we could find to Geldof's comments was an editorial in the conservative   Investor's   Business Daily.

For the past 2½ years or so, we've been hearing endlessly that Americans   hate President Bush, that even those who don't hate him disapprove of him, that   even those who don't disapprove of him are tired of him, and that his presidency   is an unqualified failure. Now comes a surprising dissent from that view, and   hardly anyone pays attention. It's a man-bites-dog story, but the press corps   looks more like a herd of sheep.

If it Rains Bad News, It Bloody Pours

Deep deep into the rabbit hole. The question is will Bush go so far as to call it  anti-Islamic Islamic activity as is the current vogue in the subjugated motherland.

Do you think Bush is clicking his heels together and chanting, "it's not Islamic activity, it's not Islamic activity!" Sorry Pres, we're not in Kansas anymore. Hummunah hummunah .............

So Now President Bush Won't Call It "Islamic" Terrorism or Extremism?

By Andrew Cochran

I noticed something unusual [...] during President Bush's State of the Union speech - he never used the words "Islamic" or "Islamist" to describe the most dangerous forms of terrorism and extremism which the U.S. and the West face in the Middle East and around the world. Contrast that to his 2007 SOTU speech (emphases mine):

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ... instruct with bullets and bombs ... and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent... These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah - a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken... The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East ... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

And take a look at a segment in his 2006 SOTU:

"No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously... By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage."

Why did President Bush retreat from the obvious? Who imposed upon him, employing what logic, to depart from his past clear and accurate statements on the nature of Islamic-based terrorism and extremism?

On Sunday, Walid Phares suggested (or hoped) that the President would "Define the enemy, clearly and strategically. For the changes in definitions over the past seven years have left the public in quest for a definitive knowledge about who are we fighting and why." I guess Walid - and the rest of us - will have to wait for the next State of the Union message.

It takes a special kind of retardation

to train "Palestinian" Islamic terrorists.  Now Bush and Rice are going to give “professional” training to the terrorists? hat tip geoff

Palestinian forces enter Jordan for training under U.S. program 

Palestinian forces enter Jordan for training under U.S. program 
he first battalion of Palestinian security forces crossed into Jordan on
Thursday to begin training under a U.S. program after nearly a year-long delay.

The first battalion of nearly 700 U.S.-screened recruits to serve in an overhauled National Security Force crossed the Israeli-controlled Allenby Bridge, in the West Bank, into Jordan for what officials called "law and order" training.

The eventual plan is for a nearly 50,000-member gendarmerie in the West Bank.

Bolton: Bush Bailing on Nuclear Iran

Sad day my friends. If Bolton says it, I believe. sad day when the leader of the free world can't or won't defend that world.

Ironic that the security of the free world lies in the hands of the Jews. Atlas indeed.

Bolton: Chance Bush will okay strike on Iran is 'close to zero'
By Barak Ravid and Yuval Azoulay, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service

Former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton said on Tuesday that there is almost no chance that U.S. President George W. Bush will approve a military strike on Iran before he leaves office in January 2009.

"It's close to zero percent chance that the Bush Administration will authorize military action against Iran before leaving office," he said.

[..]

He said the recent American intelligence assessment, according to which Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003, was a politically-motivated report intended to restrict the Bush Administration's room to maneuver.

"It seems that for the next few years the United States will be a bystander to the process," Bolton said.

Bolton also said that Israel's "stunningly successful" military strike on Syria last September could constitute a precedent for a similar attack on Iran in the future.

The Israel Air Force attacked a structure in northeast Syria that foreign media reports said was a nuclear facility built with North Korean assistance. Syria and North Korea both denied the reports, and Israel has remained silent. Bolton had warned of nuclear cooperation between the two countries before the strike.

"Why wouldn't the government of Israel want to take the credit for a stunningly successful military strike?" Bolton asked.

He is so fabulous. I mean really.

Bolton said Israel and the United States know very well that Syria's close relations with North Korea have not been severed, but refused to elaborate. He said North Korea might sell nuclear know-how and a ready-to-use nuclear bomb to the highest bidder.

"The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east will start with North Korea. It counterfeits money, sells narcotics, and it will do anything for hard money," he said.

He insisted that Syria's nuclear efforts should be taken with the utmost seriousness, as North Korean expertise and Iranian willingness to fund are more available than ever.

He insisted that it be made known to the public that the facility that was hit was an offshoot of a joint Syrian, North Korean, and Iranian cooperation.

Mofaz hints at greater likelihood of military strike on Iran

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz hinted Tuesday that the probability of a military strike against Iran has increased given "the deterioration of efforts to stop Iran diplomatically."

"The diplomatic timetable is running short and thus the next two years are critical for stopping Iran through diplomatic means," Mofaz, who also served as defense minister as well as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said.

On Tuesday, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council proposed additional sanctions against Iran.

Are they kidding? You mean they've abandoned the strongly worded letter approach?

"Over the course of the last year, the Iranian train has been an express train while the international train has been a local train that experiences delays and stoppages at every station," Mofaz said. "The Iranian locomotive is galloping with strength towards a nuclear bomb and towards regional hegemony," Mofaz told a special session of the Herzliya Conference of the Institute for Policy and Strategy.

"Iran has made a mockery of the world and has bought precious time," Mofaz said. "There are two years left to stop Iran before it's too late. The Iranian nuclear program is not an end but a means. Iran hopes to turn into an Islamic superpower that will unite the entire Muslim world under its umbrella. In order to realize this goal, Iran needs a nuclear weapon."

UPDATE: John Bolton: It will be up to Israel to stop Iran

Losing Bush

Caption anyone?

Bush delivers arms sale to Saudi Arabia (hat tip wolf)

Keep your food down (here)

President George W. Bush sits with United Arab Emirates President Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan at Al Mushref Palace, Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 in Abu Dhabi. (AP Photo)

Just one more

During their dinner, George W. Bush and Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nayhan look at falcons Sunday, Jan. 13, in the desert near Abu Dhabi

UPDATE: Melanie Phillips unflinching assessment of Bush's moral breakdown.

PEACE IN OUR TIME Melanie Phillips, Spectator

Rarely has a moral compass been so completely and publicly destroyed by its owner. George W Bush’s presidency has been defined by the moral position he took, under the impetus of 9/11, to repudiate the amoral realpolitik of his predecessors in appeasing and rewarding aggression while ignoring or even punishing its victims. Instead he would hold the aggressor’s feet to the fire and support and promote those who stood for freedom and democracy. Controversial as this doctrine undoubtedly was in the eyes of many in the US and around the world, it was at least consistent — with one niggling exception. On the Israel Arab impasse, Bush veered between making extraordinarily impressive speeches which correctly identified Arab aggression and incitement to hatred of Israel as the core problem to be addressed, and the imposition of the ‘Road Map’ which, by detailing the steps both Israel and the Palestinians had to take, descended into the kind of moral equivalence — and thus negation of the centrality of Arab aggression — which has kept this conflict alive for the past sixty years. At the time, however, it seemed that the Road Map was no more or less than a sop to Tony Blair — who has always failed grievously to grasp that the Palestinians don’t want a state, they want the Jewish state — as a gesture of thanks for his support over Iraq.

With Bush’s visit to the Middle East  this week, however, any such residual excuse is blown away along with the last shreds of his claim to moral integrity< Peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he said blithely, was eminently possible this year. But everything he then said was about pushing Israe to make ‘painful concessions’ rather than the Palestinians. Since the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East is the Arab rejection of the Jews’ right to their own ancestral home — the fact that Mahmoud Abbas not only has consistently refused to halt the continuing violence against Israel by both Hamas and his own Fatah affiliates, not only has refused to halt the incitement to hatred of Israel perpetrated daily by his own education system and PA controlled media, but has also repeatedly and consistently demanded the right of mass Palestinian immigration to Israel, thus showing his ‘aspiration’ for a Palestinian homeland existing peacefully alongside Israel to be totally bogus as was underlined by his chief negotiator’s recent declaration that the Palestinians would never recognised Israel as a Jewish state — Bush’s position is tantamount to pushing Israel to surrender to an enemy still hell-bent upon Israel’s annihilation.

This is a must read , Hat tip Brand. He is sending me the MP3 of Bush's speech Abu Dhabi, who is "trying to sound like a latter-day Founding Father, but its vision was discredited by his hypocrisy vis-a-vis Israel.  He's a Floundering Father".

Here's the audio of Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi: Download BushatAbuDhabi.mp3

Give 'em YERUSHALAYIM SHEL ZAHAV!

Stay out of it.  These savages are hardcore. Give 'em a state?

 

GAZANS STAGE ANTI- BUSH PROTESTS aht tip wolf

Thousands of Palestinians in Gaza staged protests against George W. Bush on Wednesday, burning Bush in effigy and underscoring the deep political split with West Bank moderates who welcomed the visit of the US president as an important gesture to the Palestinians.

Supporters of Hamas chanted "Death to America," and burned US and Israeli flags. A shadowy al-Qaida-inspired group appeared in public for the first time with rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and uttered vague threats against US targets

Give 'em a state! Jerusalem! Judea! Sumaria! Shebaa! Golan! Billions! Munitions! Respect of the world communitay!

Abbas to urge US president to 'order' settlement freeze

NUTS!

UPDATE: From the Al Qassam English forum (hat tip the mighty wolf)

From

 

A Palestinian printing press prepares an anti-Bush banner for demonstrations in the Gaza Strip agains US President George W. Bush's visit to the region, 8 January 2007. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

__________________

“The West demands from us that we stop the resistance. Instead of asking the occupiers to leave our land, they ask us to surrender to the occupier… The peace that reinforces occupation, settlements, and the exiling of the Palestinian people, is not really peace.” - Sheikh Ahmad Yassin

BUSH KILLER
DO NOT COME
FRIEND ZIONISTS
The first terrorist. Murderer childrenof Iraq. Enemy of humanity

A Palestinian artist in Gaza City paints a mural attacking Bush's presence in the region [AFP]

Bushwhacked

What is he talking about? And what is he not talking  about ? The 950,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab lands? C'mon, this is nonsensical. He sounds foolish. New York is a settlement - give it back to the brits. Giving such credence to annihilationist's propaganda is as good as sanctioning Islamic terror. Better. The world does the dirty work of Islamic jihad.

Bush, stop punishing the Jews for being reasonable people seeking a little peace and quiet.

Says Palestinian right of return' must be discussed

Visiting US president insists NIE report doesn't mean Teheran not dangerous, emphasizes America cannot dictate terms of Palestinian state.

OCCUPATION NOW!

Bush's Death Wish

The Palestinian Arabs are guaranteeing Bush's security??!!?? Wait wait .... run that by me again. Are these the same "security" forces picking off Jewish hikers? The same savages cheering the attacks on America on 9/11. What's with Bush, does he think 72 virgins will be awaiting him?

Palestinian security ready for Bush visit Monsters and Critics

Ramallah - Palestinian Minister of Interior Abdul Razzak  Yehya said Tuesday the Palestinian security is ready for US President  George W Bush's visit to Ramallah on Thursday.

He said preparations have been taken as well in both Bethlehem and Jericho in the West Bank in case Bush decides to visit these two. Bush was expected to visit Bethlehem but Jericho was not confirmed.

Yehya told reporters at his Ramallah office that a security plan his office has prepared for the Bush visit was tested on Tuesday and proved 'very effective.'

Al-Qaeda Calls for Attacks on President Bush During Mideast Trip

"free speech is not just for lefties"

I like it. Keffiyahs ... nice touch. Works for me.

6 Caught Hanging Anti-Bush banners. J Post

Six youths were arrested Monday night in Jerusalem as they were hanging anti-Bush posters ahead of the American president's visit.

The posters depict Bush, Olmert and Peres wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs, with a banner running "accomplices to terror".

The youths told police that they were paid to hang the posters by extreme right-wing activist Itamar Ben Gvir, of the National Jewish Front.

Ben Gvir was also detained for questioning later in the day. He admitted to having printed the posters, adding that he would continue to do so as it was perfectly within the limits of the law.

He also said police should learn that "free speech is not just for lefties."

A Jerusalem court later released two of the detainees. The judge said that picturing someone wearing a kaffiyeh did not constitute a racist act, and merely testified to the protesters' bad taste.

Police were preparing Tuesday for a string of protests, by both left and right, during the US president's visit. Right-wing activists were expected to try and create a "human chain" around the walls of Jerusalem's Old City, while left-wing activists were planning to hold a protest in front of the American Consulate in Jerusalem.

Bush, Stay out of it

Scroll contents here (hat tip Shirley)

It ain't your country, stay out of it. Better yet, read your bible. It seems to me the purpose of this visit is to shore up support for the traitorous Olmert. Bush was invited to but won't speak to the knesset. Seems to me he is sending a very definite message to the people of Israel.

Bush Snubs Netanyahu on Israel Visit

U.S. President George W. Bush is refusing to meet with Likud Opposition Leader Binyamin Netanyahu, or anyone else opposed to the Annapolis process.

UPDATE: Brand sent me this amusing play on words

"Annapolis Brutality"

[New lexicon]: Bushsnubbed (like Bushwhacked)
Bush is now a Bibishitter

Now read these lyrics and and play the song -- just substitute "Bibi" for "Baby"

UPDATE:  Caroline Glick's advice to Bush:Bush's historical parallels

In his last year in office, Bush's central challenge is to clarify what he himself has allowed to become muddled about the nature of the current generational struggle. Unfortunately, though his commitment to Palestinian statehood, and his refusal to assert his own foreign policy against the wishes of a hostile bureaucracy, he calls to mind not Truman, but another American president who led his country at the cusp of another formative crisis. Like Bush, James Buchanan - the last president to serve before the Civil War - understood the nature of the gathering storm; yet rather than confront the dangers, he was overwhelmed by them.

Read it all.

 

Islamic Fat Bastard Vows Bush Hit

Such a lovely religion. EJO sent the video along with this endearing sentiment, "if you like to watch murder-loving, Jew-hating, America-hating, traitorous S.O.B.'S spewing bullshit, then you'll love this video." Click to watch this fat traitor call for Bush's death and rip up his passport.  Big and fat and can barely tear up the thing. This is what the left aligns itself with.

You just know some pretty Jewish girl turned him down in high school and he's been making up for it ever since. L7 ....loser.

Koolaid. Very, Very Strong Koolaid

Is this before or after it was discovered that the EU was smuggling chemical explosives to the  Pali Arabs disguised as "sugar" in a humanitarian aid shipment? Internet Haganah here;

White House Is Confident of Broad Support on Iran

The Bush administration expressed confidence on Tuesday that it had rallied international support to intensify diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. Senior administration officials now increasingly express chagrin that last week's National Intelligence Estimate incorrectly focused on the suspension of a secret weapons program and not on the accelerated effort to enrich uranium. That undercut the administration's main rationale for confronting Iran, and left the administration seeking to regain the diplomatic initiative for continued sanctions.

Acknowledging this, administration officials said that a UN vote on new sanctions, originally scheduled for this month, would most likely be deferred until next year. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We're not talking about whether or not there's going to be a resolution [to tighten sanctions on Iran], but we're talking about what are the elements to a new Security Council resolution."

Bush's EID Message: Let's kill some animals!

“If we are outside this country, we can say ‘Oh Allah, destroyAmerica.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. This country will become a Muslim country.” —      Abdurahman Alamoudi, frequent guest at the White House, U.S. citizen, now serving a 23-year sentence on charges related to his role in al Qaeda

Did  Bush slaughter any cows, sheep, goats and bulls  to pay tribute to the religion of peace? ? I hope not, he might have gotten hurt!

Islam: Bush sends Muslims Eid al-Adha greetings ADNKronos

Washington, 19 Dec. (AKI) - United States president George W. Bush on Wednesday sent a message of goodwill to Muslims worldwide at the start of the major Muslim Eid al-Adha festival of sacrifice.

"During Eid al-Adha, Muslims around the world reflect on Abraham's unwavering faith and his trust in God when asked to sacrifice his son," Bush said in the message.

"These four days are a time for Muslims to honour Abraham's obedience by celebrating with family and friends and showing gratitude for the many blessings bestowed by God.

S & L explains here, Muslims sacrifice cows, sheep, goats and bulls during the four-day religious holiday, a ritual commemorating the biblical account of God’s provision of a ram for Abraham to sacrifice as he was about to kill his son. Uh, Abraham was the first Jew. 

"This holiday also helps ensure the important values of compassion and devotion are passed on to future generations," the message continued. 

Bush also paid tribute to the role played by Muslims in America, saying they "enriched" multicultural US society.

CAIR is laughing rubbing their hands in pure glee.

"The kindness, generosity, and goodwill displayed by American Muslims during this special occasion and throughout the year have contributed to the strength and vitality of our Nation," the message stated.

Say what?

"May all those observing Eid al-Adha find love and warmth during this joyous holiday. Laura and I send our best wishes for a memorable celebration," the message ended.

Need a mood elevator? ? Rudy Giuliani's Christmas message here.

IRAQ: Media Clings to BDS

"Strategy that is making Iraq safer was snubbed for years"

Bruce writes the following in response to the above leftarded comment in today's  article (JOURNALISM!)  in USA TODAY, on-line edition: 

"Strategy that is making Iraq safer was snubbed for years" I saw the print copy in our office cafeteria and the opening paragraph of course specifically said Bush Admin resisted the idea for years (not in the on-line edition).  Alternatively, the print headline noticeably (to me) used the word "safe" (not "safer", as above) .  The narrative on Iraq has changed.  The Bush bashing likely never will.

Ben explains;

There is a very different way of interpreting this.  The constant, close patroling of residential neighborhoods, according to popular... er... media wisdom, was supposedly the thing that pissed off Iraqis the most, as it was "intrusive".  Our presence supposedly stoked the insurgency, and the talking heads on the Left wanted us to have a lower profile.  (Or no profile at all, Murtha wanted us to patrol... from Okinawa and Guam.) So now we see, intrusiveness and presence is what Iraq wanted (and needed) all along?  And we also see, that those who told us that our presence was creating the insurgency were lying.  Now that the facts are in, it is clear that the insurgency flourishes in our absence, while our presence surpresses it.

But on a deeper, more accurate level, I can say that the USA today article is Bullshit.  The plan was always to work up the networks.  It's how we bagged Saddam and many of the high muckedy mucks.  They ALWAYS work up the network.  The only difference is now we're getting better at it- four years of data bases being built, contacts being made, and the little fish getting caught and squealing about who the bigger fish are, who get caught and give away the still bigger fish, etc, etc.  A LOT has to do with changing perceptions of civilians who are an important intel asset.  (US Army counterinsurgency intelligence textbooks mention old women as being the best "neighborhood" intel sources.)  With the insurgent side slowly being crushed and more and more of the young radicals not surviving to become old radicals, and the threat of insurgent reprisals falling while cell phones make anonymous tips more anonymous, the neighborhoods were won, and the locals shifted sides.  This was not a simple overnight change of tactics, but many long term factors.  Al Queda helped- by being inhumanly cruel even to fellow Sunni muslims, they gave Iraqis incentives to turn against them.  And it takes years to create a competent (or semi competent) local security force in the middle east.  Yet, USA Today, in it's absolute cluelessness, thinks that somehow, this was all due to a simple change in tactics- one day, some smart guy said "hey, why don't we try to get at the enemy leadership?" and everyone slapped foreheads and said "golly, why didn't I think of that?"

*BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome.

UPDATE: OT but related: : Check out this video  "US military gets video of Iraqui Torture House"  at redlasso hat tip ejo

UPDATE:

 

12/18/2007 U.S. Army Col. Tom James

Extremists in Iraq 'Getting Desperate,' Army Colonel Says Extremists are intimidating Iraqi citizens less and less, thanks to security improvements in the country, a unit commander there said. Story Roundtable Files: Audio File | Transcript(pdf) | Bio(pdf) Additional Resources:Task Force Marne

---

BOLTON: "Bush Foreign Policy in Freefall" -- "Rein in Rice"

Wow.

Bolton: Bush must 'rein in' Rice YNET

Former American ambassador to UN slams president's foreign policy, says Bush 'doesn't supervise Secretary of State Rice enough'

US President George W. Bush's foreign policy is in free fall and puts the nation's security at risk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a German magazine on Sunday.

Bolton , who was a leading hawk in the US administration and favored a tough stance against Iran, North Korea and Iraq, told the Der Spiegel weekly that Bush needed to rein in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is acting against his own judgment and instincts (and is) under the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice," he was quoted as telling the magazine.

True that.

Bolton said Rice's was the dominant voice on foreign policy and that she was a channel for the views of liberal career bureaucrats in the foreign ministry.

"(Bush) does not supervise her enough. That is a mistake," he was quoted as saying, adding that a moderate foreign policy was a threat to US security.

"North Korea will, for example, now keep its nuclear weapons. And the Iranians have got a signal from our own intelligence services that they can do whatever they want.

R-E-A-D   I-T   A-L-L.

" Again we are alone in our moment of peril"

GLICK!

Column One: The abandonment of the Jews Caroline Glick

The US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear intentions is the political version of a tactical nuclear strike on efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring bombs.

The NIE begins with the sensationalist opening line: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program." But the rest of the report contradicts the lead sentence. For instance, the second line says, "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Teheran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

Indeed, contrary to that earth-shattering opening, the NIE acknowledges that the Iranians have an active nuclear program and that they are between two and five years away from nuclear capabilities.

The NIE's final sentence: "We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so," only emphasizes that US intelligence agencies view Iran's nuclear program as a continuous and increasing threat rather than a suspended and diminishing one.

But the content of the NIE is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the opening line - as the report's authors no doubt knew full well when they wrote it. With that opening line, the NIE effectively takes the option of American use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons off the table.

There are two possible explanations for why President George W. Bush permitted this strange report to be published. Either he doesn't wish to attack Iran, or he was compelled by the intelligence bureaucracy to accept that he can't attack Iran.

Arguing the former in Time magazine, former CIA agent Robert Baer explained, "While the 16 agencies that make up the 'intelligence community' contribute to each National Intelligence Estimate, you can bet that an explosive 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the president."

The alternative view - that Bush was forced to accept the report against his will - is also possible. The report's primary authors, Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill are all State Department officials on loan to the office of the Director of National Intelligence. According to the Wall Street Journal, all three are reputed to be deeply partisan and hostile to Bush's foreign policy goals. Furthermore, for the past four years the three have reportedly worked studiously to downplay the danger of Iran's nuclear weapons program and to discredit their opponents within the administration.

[...]

The NIE denies him the option of taking military action against Iran's nuclear program for the duration of his tenure in office. So for at least 14 months, Iran has nothing to worry about from Washington.

Although Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continue to speak of imposing further sanctions on Iran, the fact is that after the report was published, any chance of getting an agreement on further sanctions evaporated. French President Nicholas Sarkozy stands humiliated for having dared to speak of the possibility of attacking Iran. The Germans will immediately reinvigorate their commercial ties with the mullahs as will the British and the French. The Russians and Chinese will drop even the veneer of opposing Iran's nuclear program.

[...]

The NIE's message to Israel and world Jewry is clear. Again we are alone in our moment of peril. It is high time that our political and military leaders acknowledge this fact, stop hoping that someone else will save us, and get to work on defending us.

Read it all.

 

 

Coup Against White House

Who is in charge? The NIE report on Iran's cessation of their nuclear program is a thinly veiled attempt to change the direction (if there is one) on how we handle Iran's nukes. And that has clearly succeeded.

Foreign officers at the Director on National Intelligence were not elected by the people of this great nation  but they are imposing foreign policy agenda on this country? This is unheard of. But clearly the danger of the permanent bureaucracy so frighteningly (but presciently) described in John Bolton's Surrender is not An Option. There should be no permanent diplomatic institution, even at the federal level. They're too readily converted into bastions for America's enemies.

This was an end run around the administration and will easily provide the much needed out to everyone on the security council, the EU3, the Democrats and everyone that has been loathe to take any action on the development of Iran's nuclear's weapons.The NY Times and the left wing media have hungrily devoured the bait.

The permanent bureaucrats in these intelligence agencies are notoriously partisan and their intel is poor at best. These guys are running the country now? Yes, that's a 21st century coup. Bush will not be able to get anything nothing done on Iran.

This, IMAO is sabotage, sedition. And it's a very scary turn of the knife.

Bush On The Defensive Over New Iran Intel US New World Report

President Bush held a press conference  in which he urged key allies to maintain the current pressure on the Islamic Republic.  In fact, the AP reports, Bush said the new intel "contradicting earlier US assessments...would not prompt him to take off the table the possibility of pre-emptive military action against Iran."

Media accounts of the press conference are almost universally negative toward the President.  ABC World News, for example, said last night Bush "was instantly and consistently defensive."  NBC Nightly News prefaced its report saying, "The 'Washington Post' is running an analysis story on the internet for tomorrow's paper with the headline, 'Neck Snapping Spin' from the President. They're talking about the President's news conference today." (The piece NBC referred to was in fact an online opinion piece not intended for the newspapers' print edition by Dan Froomkin.) NBC also reported Bush was "a president on the defensive."

Print media outlets also suggest the new intel findings and Bush's reaction to them raise questions about the President's "credibility." So much so, says the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, that "several" Democrats "said that Congress should investigate the discrepancy between the Bush administration's recent doomsday rhetoric on Iran and the NIE's judgments."

McClatchy says the NIE "has dealt another blow to Bush's credibility -- which already was low over his false claims about illicit weapons in Iraq -- because he was aware of the findings when he warned on Oct. 17 that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons could ignite World War III." USA Today also notes that it was the President's first press conference "since warning in October that a nuclear Iran could lead to 'World War III.'" The President also "said he learned in August that there was new information on Iran's nuclear program that needed to be analyzed. He said he did not see the specific findings until last week." In similar reporting, the New York Times  says Bush "opened himself to new criticism over his credibility."

The Chicago Tribune's Mark Silva also says this morning there are "new questions" about Bush's "credibility on...security issues."  In her New York Times column, Maureen Dowd mentions that during the news conference yesterday, Silva told the President , "I can't help but read your body language this morning, Mr. President. ... You seem somehow dispirited, somewhat dispirited." Bush is said to have replied, "This is like, all of a sudden, it's like Psychology 101, you know?"

Another major issue this morning is how and why the reversal on Iran on the part of the US intelligence community came about. The Los Angeles Times says that "as US intelligence officials sought Tuesday to explain the remarkable reversal, they pointed to two factors: the emergence of crucial information over the summer, and a determination to avoid repeating the mistakes that preceded the Iraq war." The New York Times, meanwhile, says the intel "reversal" on Iran "was based on 'a great discovery' by American intelligence agencies, but neither he nor other officials would elaborate." The Washington Post, Detroit News and New York Times  trace the impetus for the reversal to the lessons learned from the Iraq WMD fiasco.

Conservatives Don't Buy New Intel  And Neither Does IAEA. The Wall Street Journal reports the NIE "has reopened long-simmering tensions between military hard-liners in the Bush administration and the intelligence community

From today's Wall Street Journal.

HIGH CONFIDENCE GAMES

As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks was that "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons" and do so "despite its international obligations and international pressure." This was a "high confidence" judgment. The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 "in response to increasing international scrutiny." This too is a "high confidence" conclusion. One of the two conclusions is wrong, and casts considerable doubt on the entire process by which these "estimates" -- the consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies -- are conducted and accorded gospel status.

Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull -- .'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

No less odd is the NIE's conclusion that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to "international pressure." The only serious pressure we can recall from that year was the U.S. invasion of Iraq. At the time, an Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of a covert Iranian nuclear program to mill and enrich uranium and produce heavy water at sites previously unknown to U.S. intelligence. The Bush Administration's response was to punt the issue to the Europeans, who in 2003 were just beginning years of fruitless diplomacy before the matter was turned over to the U.N. Security Council.

Mr. Bush implied yesterday that the new estimate was based on "some new information," which remains classified. We can only hope so. But the indications that the Bush Administration was surprised by this NIE, and the way it scrambled yesterday to contain its diplomatic consequences, hardly inspire even "medium confidence" that our spooks have achieved some epic breakthrough. The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy -- not that it ever had much.

In any case, the real issue is not Iran's nuclear weapons program, but its nuclear program, period. As the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- that is, build the capability to make the fuel for a potential bomb. And it is doing so in open defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. No less a source than the IAEA recently confirmed that Iran already has blueprints to cast uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core.

The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile. And there is considerable evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion at the weapons testing facility in Parchin. Even assuming that Iran is not seeking a bomb right now, it is hardly reassuring that they are developing technologies that could bring them within a screw's twist of one.

Mr. Bush's efforts to further sanction Iran at the U.N. were stalled even before the NIE's release. Those efforts will now be on life support. The NIE's judgments also complicate Treasury's efforts to persuade foreign companies to divest from Iran. Why should they lose out on lucrative business opportunities when even U.S. intelligence absolves the Iranians of evil intent? Calls by Democrats and their media friends to negotiate with Tehran "without preconditions" will surely grow louder.

* * *

The larger worry here is how little we seem to have learned from our previous intelligence failures. Over the course of a decade, our intelligence services badly underestimated Saddam's nuclear ambitions, then overestimated them. Now they have done a 180-degree turn on Iran, and in such a way that will contribute to a complacency that will make it easier for Iran to build a weapon. Our intelligence services are supposed to inform the policies of elected officials, but increasingly their judgments seem to be setting policy. This is dangerous.

UPDATE: Gateway has an excellent post here.

Ahmadinejad: "NIE Report Was a Bullet In the Head of Liars"

John Bolton was on The O'Reilly Factor last night and agreed that nothing had changed with the information but that intelligence officers are playing politics with this latest report- the video is HERE.

UPDATE: Atlas reader and BTWA colleague Deb provided the most insightful and logical analysis of this deadly game of he said she said;

John Bolton was on O'Reilly last night, and he made a point about the partisanship pervasive at the higher levels of the intelligence community. He also tried to change the focus from the MSM meme (Bush loses credibility, now we can relax) to say nothing is changed -- Iran is still a "black hole" is the phrase I believe he used.

Having read Timmerman's book (Shadow Warriors) and in anticipation of Bolton's book (Not an Option), based on what Pamela has commented on Bolton's book, I am highly suspicious this is more manipulation by the intelligence agencies to direct policy to their liking and, bonus points, sideline Bush and destroy his effectiveness (whatever remains from their 7-year assault).

I find it a tad odd that the spin is that diplomacy and sanctions have worked to make Iran back off. ****IF**** (big IF) it is true Iran halted vital parts of production of nukes in 2003, then that would be because the kick ass U.S. MILITARY was next door, not because of sacred diplomacy. Lybia turned their program over, right? It's sitting somewhere down south on U.S. soil. My opinion is that (again) ***IF*** production was altered in 2003, it was because of the hard power of the U.S. military and its Commander in Chief, not because of the soft power of diplomacy/sanctions.

As for the spy agencies, Timmerman and Bolton are clear they have taken over. As I stated some days ago (while reading Timmerman), I am amazed that Bush got anything done the way he wanted because there has been and still is so much sabotage from the movers and shakers within the intelligence bureaucracy. Timmerman did not give high reviews to Negroponte, either. And remember, this dude was in Iraq where he could have done any number of things under the radar. And now he is coordinator of all the Agencies? The Dems wanted him in that position, remember.

A thought about the quick reversal of Intel estimates from 2005 to Dec, 2007. I would not put it past the agencies to long-term plan this for the express purpose of destroying Bush and, lest we forget, any Republican candidate running for the 2008 election. How to minimize or destroy the Republican advantage on perceived superior strength in formulating defense? Simple -- craft it so they look like warmongers that lie about intel to scare the American people so they can pre-emptively invade other nations. This, of course, has been the narrative all along about the neo-cons, Bush, Cheney, but with nothing to back it up except for insinuation. Now we have a smoking gun, correct? And the Republican candidates, who on the campaign trail have been talking tough on defense, will now fall under the same scrutiny and innuendo. Quite a good pay-off for the Conservophobes, wouldn't you say? It is not far-fetched, I think, to theorize the Agencies are capable and willing to purposely feed Bush alarming NIE's which make him saber-rattle, then come up with "new intel" to negate Bush's foundation -- he is EAGER TO BOMB IRAN without knowing much of the facts. I think that's exactly what happened with the Saddam/Niger/uranium/16 words story. Yes, other nations and operatives (cough, France, cough) were the more visible perpetrators of the fraud, but no way in hell was American operatives not also involved, perhaps orchestrating -- all to destory Bush's credibility. And it worked. Why not again?

I have more thoughts, but this is long enough as it is. Will be interested in others' sharing their own thoughts.

And finally, this from John, another sharp Atlas reader out yonder (uh...Yakima):

to me, it is very simple.-- why make the stuff, usable for weapons only (is my understanding, and if correct, crucial), if you do not intend to make weapons.

they are doing the "hard stuff," the rest is "easy." 

they are making bombs, if they are making the part that goes "bang," is the inescapable conclusion, and i am so baffled why this report is given so much credance, other than it is another example of hysteria wanting to believe the "easy news" and latching onto it, like a drowning man to a toothpick.

sometimes people are very silly, even very smart people.  in fact, when they are silly, they are very, very silly.

Sharansky: Annapolis Catastrophic for Israel

Ugh ....everything I've been saying. And the Condi smackdown is long overdue. Long overdue.

WASHINGTON — A former Soviet dissident and Israeli deputy premier whose ideas President Bush has cited as an inspiration for his ambitious freedom agenda said the peace talks kicked off this week at Annapolis "has nothing to do with promoting democracy," and he warned that Israel will be lucky if it does not end in catastrophe for the Jewish state.

In an interview yesterday, Natan Sharansky said he did not feel betrayed by Mr. Bush, whom he called a friend. But he said, "I am upset." "The greatness of President Bush is the way he would believe in the power of the idea of freedom," Mr. Sharansky said. "He believes in principles; he was willing to stand alone against all for these pressures, but it is not enough to stand for principles. He has to appoint the people who share these beliefs and who would implement them. He has not."

Those words appear to be a direct criticism of Secretary of State Rice, who has made the creation of a Palestinian Arab state her top priority in the last year, visiting Jerusalem nine times to press for the launch of final status negotiations between the government of Israel and the nearly vanquished Palestinian Authority, now dominated by Fatah after the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June.

Rick Richman has the 4 minute  video here of Sharansky at the offices of Commentary;

Natan Sharansky on the Annapolis Process Jewish Current Issues

Tuesday evening, after the Annapolis conference, Natan Sharansky the offices of COMMENTARY and filmed a Q&A with editor Sam Munson. The four-minute video is below, with a transcript of Sharansky’s analysis of Annapolis

Bush: We are all Terrorists now

Bush has lost his mind and his moral compass. This statement is an outrage. A lie and a blood libel. Israel has never committed any acts of terrorism. What a tool of Islamic jihad. Based on that, Bush is a terrorist, anyone that defends himself, his family, his country is a terrorist.
This is a  sad sad day.

"We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering  and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of  peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and  mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence;  to confront terrorism and incitement, whethercommitted by  Palestinians or Israels," the text of the opening Israeli-Palestinian Statement here  hat tip Mik

And if Olmert had one ounce of integrity, he would have walked. Awful, all of it.

LIVEBLOGGING Annapolooza: Updated all day

Abbas: We must have Jerusalem as capital

Of course the Islamazis must have Jerusalem - it means everything to the Jews and nothing to the Muslims so of course they must rip the heart out of the Jewish homeland.

Likud slams PM speech

• 'Former PMs prepared to give up Golan'

"Negotiations will address all the issues which thus far have been evaded", Prime Ministrer Ehud Olmert said during his address at the Annapolis parley on Tuesday.

"We will not avoid any subject," he said. "While this will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, it is nevertheless inevitable. I know it. Many of my people know it. We are ready for it."

• Full text of Olmert's address

Olmert: Israel Ready for ‘Unbearably Difficult’ Change

Likud calls for Israel Beitenu, Shas to leave coalition (why haven't they bolted alreadyI?)

In response to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech at the Annapolis conference, Likud on Tuesday issued a statement calling on Israel Beitenu and Shas to leave the coalition "so as not to serve or assist Olmert and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak in making concessions with nothing in return."

Israel never got anything in return. Never. No condition was ever met when there were conditions. Ever. WTF are they talking about?

Another could be barbaric country heard from:

Hamas rejects Abbas speech at Annapolis conference

Watching on TV Tuesday as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appealed for peace with Israel at the beginning of a Middle East conference in the United States, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza rejected his call and said Abbas speaks only for himself

Hamas, were they the savages that got elected and actually represent the "aspirations" of the Pali Arabs?

MK Orlev: Israel stands before a liquidation sale

I agree with Orlev, but I would drop the "sale." This is a liquidation, alright.

It's a gang bang: Conference Participants

The following is a list of the heads of delegation as provided to us by the countries and organizations participating in the Annapolis Conference:

 

Description	Delegation	Title of Head of Delegation	Name
Parties	Israel	Prime Minister	Ehud Olmert
	Palestinian Authority	President	Mahmud Abbas
Quartet	United States	President	George W. Bush
	EU Commission	Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy	Benita Ferrero-Waldner
	EU High Rep	High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the European Union	Javier Solana
	EU President (Portugal)	Minister of State and of Foreign Affairs	Luis Amado
	Russia	Minister for Foreign Affairs	Sergey V. Lavrov
	UNSYG	Secretary General	Ban Ki-moon
	Quartet Representative	Middle East Envoy	Tony Blair
Arab League Follow-up Committee	Algeria	Minister of State for Foreign Affairs	Mourad Medelci
	Bahrain	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa
	Egypt	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Ahmed Aboul Gheit
	Jordan	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Salaheddin Al-Bashir
	Lebanon	Minister of Culture	Tarek Mitri
	Morocco	Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation	Taieb Fassi Fihri
	Qatar	Minister of State for Foreign Affairs	Ahmed bin Abdulla Al-Mahmoud
	Saudi Arabia	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Saud Al-Faisal
	Sudan	Ambassador	John Ukec
	Syria	Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs	Fayssal Mekdad
	Tunisia	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Abdelwahab Abdallah
	Yemen	Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Expatriate Affairs	Abu Bakr al-Qirbi
	Arab League SYG	Secretary General	Amre Moussa
G-8, P-5	Canada	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Maxime Bernier
	China	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Yang Jiechi
	France	Minister of Foreign and European Affairs	Bernard Kouchner
	Germany	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Frank-Walter Steinmeier
	Italy	Vice President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs	Massimo D'Alema
	Japan	Special Envoy for the Middle East	Tatsuo Arima
	United Kingdom	Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs	David Miliband
Others	Austria Brazil	Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister of State for External Relations	Ursula Plassnik Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim
	Denmark	Minister for Foreign Affairs	Per Stig Moeller
	Greece	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Dora Bakoyannis
	India	Minister of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences	Shri Kapil Sibal
	Indonesia	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Noer Hassan Wirajuda
	Malaysia	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
	Mauritania	Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation	Mohamed Saleck Ould Mohamed Lemine
	Mexico	Under Secretary	Lourdes Aranda
	Netherlands	Minister for European Affairs	Frans Timmermans
	Norway	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Jonas Gahr Store
	OIC	Secretary General	Ekemelddin Ihsanoglu
	Oman	Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs	Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdulla
	Pakistan	Foreign Secretary	Riaz Mohammad Khan
	Poland	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Radoslaw Sikorski
	Senegal	Senior Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs	Cheikh Tidiane Gadio
	Slovenia	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Dimitrij Rupel
	South Africa	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma
	Spain	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Miguel Angel Moratinos
	Sweden	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Carl Bildt
	Turkey	Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief EU Negotiator	Ali Babacan
	United Arab Emirates	Minister of Foreign Affairs	Abdulla bin Zayed Al Nahayan
	Vatican (Holy See)	Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Special Envoy	Pietro Parolin
Observers	IMF	Managing Director	Dominique Strauss-Kahn
	World Bank	President	Robert Zoellick

hat tip Michael

UPDATE: And the Palis disagree in the only way they know how, by killing each other over Annapolis. Give e 'em a state! And billions! And arms! and the respect and recognition of the international coummunitay!

Gaza groups: More Qassams during Annapolis

UPDATE: Whoever said Annapolis won't make a difference because nothing will come out of it is dead wrong. DEad wrong. The bar has been lowered yet again on Israel. The bar  of compromise and capitulation has reached a vanishing point.

Gaffney on the gang rape:

This time, the intended victim is Israel. As with the effort to appease the Nazis and Fascists nearly 70 years ago, however, the damage will not be confined to the rapee. The interests of the Free World in general and the United States in particular will suffer from what the Saudis and most of the other attendees have in mind for the Jewish State — namely, its dismemberment and ultimate destruction.

Millions of Americans have lately been introduced to the Saudis' attitude toward gang-rape, pursuant to the theocratic code known as Shariah that they seek to impose on us all. We learned that a 19-year-old Saudi woman identified only as the Girl of Qatif was kidnapped and raped by seven men. The rapists were to receive prison sentences and whippings. The woman was sentenced to receive 90 lashes for the crime of sitting in a car with a male who was not a relative. When she had the temerity to appeal her barbaric sentence, it was increased to six months in prison and 200 lashes.\

There will, of course, be no punishments for the perpetrators of the coming gang-rape of Israel at Annapolis. To the contrary, the Bush administration feels deeply indebted to the Saudi foreign minister for his participation and that of a representative of a country Miss Rice's department lists as a state-sponsor of terror: Syria.

Read it all

UPDATE: Iran to host militants for 'alternative' Mideast meet Sounds like a mirror image of Annapo-loser. Now that Iran sees that Israel will give up everything they are moving in for the kill.

UPDATE: Michael Freund here;

One can easily imagine Secretary Rice in the role of the Queen of Hearts, badgering and threatening Israeli and Arab officials to make sure they show up and smile. Or, to borrow a phrase from the book, "The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round."

And how about the Mad Tea Party, where the March Hare, the Hatter and the Dormouse crowd together at the table and proceed to lambast and insult Alice to her face? With that image in mind, consider how Israel has been greeted by various Arab participants at the Annapolis gathering.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal declared that he would not even shake Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's hand, and on Monday, the Saudi embassy in Washington expelled Israeli journalists from its premises for seeking to attend a press conference.

The Gulf Arab emirate of Bahrain flatly rejected a proposal to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, while the Palestinians refuse even to recognize the country as a Jewish state.

If our Arab foes won't shake hands with us and won't even recognize us, then what are the chances that they will truly wish to live in peace with us? Or, as Alice herself put it, "It's the stupidest tea party I ever was at in all my life!"

The outcome of this process, like the trial presided over by the King and Queen of Hearts at the book's end, is a foregone conclusion. In the story, at the very opening of the hearings, before even a word of evidence has been presented, the King turns to the jury and declares, "Consider your verdict."

UPDATE Bush video hat tip Gateway Pundit

Syria Govt: Columnist in Syrian Government Daily: "Bush, Fuehrer of the 21st Century"

From the nuclear bomb making, state sponsors of terror and invitee to Annapolis.

Columnist in Syrian Government Daily: Bush – Fuehrer of the 21st Century MEMRI

    In his column in the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra, Ghaleb Hassan Muhammad stated that the "American empire" is about to fall, and calls President Bush "the Fuehrer of the 21stt century."

The following are excerpts from his column:(1)

"George Bush, the Fuehrer of the 21st Century, is Falling Victim to the Deadly Disease of Hubris"

"It is important to have power, but it is more important to manage it correctly and [thus] benefit from it. Even a novice to politics and international relations can see very clearly that President Bush Jr.'s escapade in Iraq is a significant turning point that will go down in history as the beginning of the fall of the great American empire.

"Though the entire tyrannical media is mobilizing in a vain attempt to present the events [in Iraq] as the complete opposite [from what they really are], [eventually] it is geography that will [have the last word]. That is what happened to the great Roman Empire, to the British Empire, and to the French empire, in the tripartite attack on Egypt in 1956... This is also what history wrote on the death certificate of the Nazi beast – the Fuehrer – who in his day held every crucial [source of] power, and relied on [this power] as he set out to destroy part of humanity and conquer the rest, so as to turn them into slaves in the service of the 'Aryan übermensch'...

"Yes, that is hubris, the deadly disease of the mighty. And now George Bush Jr. – the Fuehrer of the 21st century – is falling victim to the same deadly disease of hubris. [This is] a failure to use and manage power [wisely].

There's much more. Go.

Preparing the Sacrificial Lamb for the Predators Ball

The government is becoming more and more like the medeia. If we don't report or acknowledge something that it's not happening! You can ignore evil, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring evil. A world of pain. We are in for a world of pain. Over at Jihadwatch;

US "Holding Back Reports critical of Palestinians"

As the Munich -- uh, that is, Annapolis -- conferences approaches. The huge unrecognized fallacy of this conference is that the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a smaller Israel. The only Israel that will satisfy them, because of the jihad ideology, is no Israel at all. Fantasy-Based Policymaking Update, by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily.com (thanks to Doug):

JERUSALEM – At the request of the Palestinians, the U.S. has been holding back from Israel reports critical of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' purported attempts to fight terrorism in the West Bank, according to diplomatic sources familiar with the reports.

The U.S. has been closely monitoring Abbas' implementation of commitments to fight armed groups in the West Bank ahead of this week's Annapolis summit. In line with understandings, State Department and U.S. security representatives were to share their observations with Israel while the U.S. also monitors Israeli commitments to dismantle anti-terror road blocks and to take initial steps toward bulldozing what are termed illegal outposts, or Jewish structures built in the West Bank without government permits.

While the U.S. has been reporting to the Palestinians on Israel's actions on the ground ahead of Annapolis, according to informed diplomatic sources, it has withheld some State Department reports critical of Abbas' Fatah security forces purported fight against terror.

[...]

On Wednesday, Olmert and Abbas will meet with Bush about specific ways to carry out the declarations presented at the conference. According to Israeli sources, the three will discuss creating a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January 2009.

The conspire against greatness.

UPDATE: Security Officials: Kassams in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem after Annapolis
(link fixed)

Bolton and Sharansky

Jerry Gordon wrote me,

Having just listened  to an interview with Amb. John Bolton and Natan Sharasky on Lori Lowenthal Marcu and Steve Feldman on the ZoA Middle East News Hour on  WNWR.com, Listen here at WWW.ZOAPHILLY.ORG .  I would say that Dr. Rice follows what Bolton called "the General Colin Powell school" of listening to the Arabists at State and the Islamist propagandists here in America and advocating on their collective behalves before the President and the NSC staffs. But then, the President and Dr. Rice are leading this country astray and  into a cataclysmic abyss based on denial and delusion akin to what British PM Chamberlain did in September, 1938. Israel, according to Amb. Bolton has weak leadership and the Palestinians are even weaker ones. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates member oif the Arab League anti-Israell boycott have trillions of petro dollars. They could part with 1/10th of one-quarter of one percent to assist their Mulsim brothers in the PA West Bank and Gaza, but won't. Blame it on the Jews and the West and let us pay for the huge open running sewer in Gaza and delivery of armored cars to the PLO-Fatah along with 1,000 weapons.

And let us not forget the 'good faith release'  of another Palestinian terrorist prisoners.  The sands in the nuclear hour glass as commented on by Amb. Bolton held by Iran have about been drained, what follows will be the dawn of an artificial sun on the Persian new Year in 2008 that coluld obliterate Israel and sections of the Arab Middle East. As I pointed out during a call to Lori and Steve, Amb. Boilton had been an early and vigorous advocate warning in the highest councils of government about the menace of not only Syria's nuclear threat, but, as I also pointed out Syria's massive bio-warfare thrteat to Israel and US. A threat  jointly developed with Iran, North Korea, Russia, with 'gifts' of pathoigens and dispersal technologies from Saddam Hussein and even purchase of technology from Germany and the US.
We are in denial about that threat to Israel and us. As Steve Feldman pointed out israel has a gas mask shortage-all at a time when this palpable threat could be unleashed at a momet's notice producing mass casualties.

Here's the direct link: http://www.zoaphilly.org/zoaradio/MER082907.mp3

 

Bush Push for Hillary

The things you'll see on the road to hades. The man has lost it.

Bush: Clinton Understands White House Pressure
Exclusive Interview Details President's Thoughts on 2008 Race, Last Year in Office

President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the "pressure" of a presidential race and the White House, and the president said he believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination but lose the presidency next year.

"I think she's a very formidable candidate, and one of the interesting things that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights," the president said, in a phrase he repeated twice in the interview.

Again. Resoundingly. Perhaps Laura has designs on the White House.

"No question, there is no question that Senator Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first --could see it first-hand," the president told ABC News' Charlie Gibson Tuesday afternoon at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

[...]  he refused to speculate on the Republican presidential field, calling it a "wide-open" race.

Transcript here.

Islam Website Calls for Bush Assassination: Cut off His Head

An Islamist website (not a leftard website - I know, I know it's their MO but really what's the diff?) has called for Bush 's beheading. I don't know WTF Islamazis are whining about, he is more of a friend to these fascists, then any President in prior history. Billions to the Palis, Iran, Egypt blah blah blah.

Apparently Israel's head is not the only head on the chopping block at Annapolis.

New From The MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project Website:
A Call to Assassinate U.S. President George Bush

On November 15, 2007, the Islamist website http://www.alhesbah.net/v (hosted by NOC4, Inc., in Tampa, Florida, USA) posted a message by a contributor calling himself Abu Osama Al-Hazin, titled "This Saturday, Bush Will Be in Riyadh; Lions of the Peninsula, [Get Ready] to Cut Off His Head." It should be noted that an OPEC summit is slated to take place in Riyadh on Saturday, November 17, 2007, but there have been no reports that Bush intends to attend.

Following are excerpts from the posting:

"[This is] a message to the Lions [i.e. jihad fighters] of the Arabian Peninsula… This Saturday [November 17, 2007], the Arabian Peninsula, home of the Prophet Muhammad, will be trodden upon by the Crusader dog, the foolish leader of the worldwide heresy and evil, [George] Bush. He will attend a summit, which will, to the best of my knowledge, be dedicated to world trade.

"Oh young [followers] of Muhammad! Hasten to assassinate this leader of heresy! [In reward], may Allah promote you to the highest spheres of Paradise. Oh brigades of martyrs, go forth with Allah's blessing and lie in wait for this scoundrel everywhere, just as the Al-Qaeda fighters have been ambushing his soldiers in Iraq."

To view on The MEMRI Islamist Websites Monitor Project Website, Click Here.

Nightmare Pic of the day

Debbie Schlussel has the absolute last word on this. You must read her post on Sheika Laura.

We are the king of the world. We are the best and the brightest. We are America goddammit.  WTF are we bowing to Islam for? This ain't PR no matter what Karen Hughes and Condirasha say. This is not not going to make the Islamic world hold hands and sing campfire tunes. Uh uh. This is submission and the worst message to send to Muslims.

Carolyn sent the pic and Schlussel link, shaken by it, with this note,  " This should be the photo that sinks the West.    If the Bushes don't get the proper advice, they will destroy this country before their 14 months are up.    Today, the shuttle commander and the space station commander are both women. In Saudi Arabia the women cannot even go out of the house. [Or drive - Atlas]

   This picture will say to the Arabs they are winning, and those women who would like to be free, will be very disheartened.Those who subscribe to Islamofascism will, of course, cheer.
   Whose country is this, is the question. Is Bush the President shilling for the Saudis? What is Mrs. Bush doing there and in the UAE in the first place.That scarf and abayah has just insulted every single woman in the free world.
   It's over, mark my words.Too bad, I so admired her."

BUSH DENIES ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Another huge capitulation ...... this one to the Turks and their new Islamist President Gul ("there is no 'moderate Islam'"). Bush refuses to term the murder  of hundreds of thousands of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire - a genocide.  If the President won't call genocide genocide and he won't utter the name of the mortal enemy we face, Islamism, we are in for a world of pain.

I can smell the Condarasha ................

BUSH REJECTS TURKEY 'GENOCIDE' TAG New Age.Au

THE US President has opposed moves to legally term the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire a "genocide", backing Turkey's stand on the issue.

"The President has described the events of 1915 as 'one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century', but believes the determination of whether or not the events constitute a genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

The comments came after George Bush talked with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and discussed legislation before the US Congress, which describes the deaths of Armenians from 1915 to 1923 as genocide. "The President reiterated his opposition to this resolution, the passage of which would be harmful to US relations with Turkey," Mr Johndroe said.

Bush, the Arabist: Islam's President

Classic West on Bush's to Ramadan. Guess who's coming to Iftar dinner:

President Bush has said something utterly ignorant about Islam meaning peace, or, addressing the Muslim pooh bahs he always has at the White House for a fast-breaking Iftar dinner, how the jihadists have "twisted" Islam.

"I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam," Abu Qatada said about six years ago. "Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?"

Read it all.

Is Bush with us or Against Us?

Remember when Bush was Bush? "You are either with us or against us." Whose side is he on? Did he ever stop to think the outcome of he is wrong? If it is not a religion of peace? Rhetorical ..........
LGF has the interview of Bush;

The terror-enabling Arab satellite channel Al Arabiya is openly hostile to George W. Bush in this interview, and in return he just keeps insisting that Islam is a Religion of Peace™, and denying he is an ‘enemy of Islam’.

There’s so much denial on both sides here that it ends up a pretty depressing read.

President George W. Bush spoke exclusively to AlArabiya television on Friday and tried to defend himself against the widely believed view in the Islamic world that he is an “enemy of Islam.”

In the White House interview, AlArabiya anchor Ellie Nakozi asked Bush if the views in the Islamic world, that he is an enemy of Islam and wants to destroy the religion, were in anyway true.

“No, it’s not ...  it just shows a couple of things: One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing,” he replied.

“We are having an Iftar dinner tonight. This is the seventh one in the seven years I’ve been the President. It gives me a chance to say ”Ramadan Mubarak“ ... the reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country ... that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit,” Bush said.

The interview comes as the Bush administration is failing miserably in the Iraqi quagmire, the Israelis and Palestinians are in peace discussions, Lebanon is in the midst of electing a new President and the world wonders if it should brace itself for a war with Iran.

Go here for the interview.

Bush in Iraq and other good news ....

The President made a surprise visit to Iraq, his third. How he kept it a secret I will never know. I am sure the mainstream media is crying in it's latte having blown the opportunity to let the Islamazis know his whereabouts and when. Surely Daily KOS is excoriating it's secet naval mole.

Meanwhile the people of Iraq (even the tribals) are rising up against Al Qaeda. Small Wars Journal has a great piece;

ANATOMY OF A TRIBAL REVOLT SWJ

Some aspects of the war in Iraq are hard to fit into “classical” models of insurgency. One of these is the growing tribal uprising against al Qa’ida, which could transform the war in ways not factored into neat “benchmarks” developed many months ago and thousands of miles away. I spent time out on the ground during May and June working with coalition units, tribal leaders and fighters engaged in the uprising, so I felt a few field observations might be of interest to the Small Wars community. I apologize in advance for the epic length of this post, but it's a complex issue, so I hope people will forgive my long-windedness. Like much else, it’s too early to know how this new development will play out. But surprisingly (surprising to me, anyway), indications so far are relatively positive.

To understand what follows, you need to realize that Iraqi tribes are not somehow separate, out in the desert, or remote: rather, they are powerful interest groups that permeate Iraqi society. More than 85% of Iraqis claim some form of tribal affiliation; tribal identity is a parallel, informal but powerful sphere of influence in the community. Iraqi tribal leaders represent a competing power center, and the tribes themselves are a parallel hierarchy that overlaps with formal government structures and political allegiances. Most Iraqis wear their tribal selves beside other strands of identity (religious, ethnic, regional, socio-economic) that interact in complex ways, rendering meaningless the facile division into Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish groups that distant observers sometimes perceive. The reality of Iraqi national character is much more complex than that, and tribal identity plays an extremely important part in it, even for urbanized Iraqis. Thus the tribal revolt is not some remote riot on a reservation: it’s a major social movement that could significantly influence most Iraqis where they live.

More here. Really worth your time. And check out this good news.

Good news, but not for Democrats Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe. I expect the defeatocrats will have work double time to defeat the US now.

UPDATE: Excerpt from W's speech today to the troops in Anbar: hat tip Irwin

"When we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. If we let our enemies back us out of Iraq, we will more likely face them in America. If we don't want to hear their footsteps back home, we have to keep them on their heels over here. And that's exactly what you're doing, and America is safer for it."

Want more? Good stuff. Stop the ACLU has the video here.

UPDATE: IRaq Surge Report September 4th: Download IraqSurgeReport3September.doc