Angela Merkel

Budget debate
German Chancellor Angela Merkel reacts during a German Bundestag parliamentary budget debate in Berlin on March 29.
(AP/Jan Bauer)
Mar. 29, 2006

Imagine...

... in a mythical state,
a governor announced a campaign to punish
African-Americans for alleged violence.

Step one is to confiscate the land owned by
African-Americans, evict them from it and use the land
to build massive new subdivisions. Only white
Protestant Christians may live in these subdivisions.

Step two is to connect these all-white Protestant
Christian settlements to each other by a highway on
which African-Americans are forbidden to drive. To
facilitate control, the automobile tags for
African-Americans will be a different color from the
tags issued to white motorists. Checkpoints would be
set up all around the state capitol to search and
harass African-Americans trying to enter.

Would you support such a plan? Would you hail that
mythical governor as a man of peace? Would you go to
your church congregation and ask the members to send
money to the occupants of these white settlements?
Would you lobby the federal government to subsidize
this new apartheid state in our midst?


.... Check your beliefs

Lie big and Stick to it

One article says:

Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."

The other article says:

Rumsfeld's comments expanded on his recent accusations that the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guard is trying to stir up trouble in Iraq by helping to move explosives and bomb-making material across the border from Iran.

It is actually an old technique: Big Lie

Lets not miss the broader context!

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 13, 2006

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room

.....

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, can I ask you about the speech? You say that there's a lot of progress being made, but there's more work to do. When you say that speaking for the President, it sounds like he's dangerously out of touch with public opinion in this country about the war. And these speeches, which are kind of a PR blitz for the second time, seem to be about communicating the policy, and not addressing what a lot of people think is a failing policy.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it's convenient to try to simplify it and talk about it in those ways, but it misses the broader context of what we're working to achieve......

Source

Mind if I smoke?

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looks at a charango given to her by Bolivia's President Evo Morales (R) in Valparaiso, Chile March, 11, 2006. Rice and Morales met in Chile while attending new Chilean President Michelle Bachelet's inauguration. REUTERS/Maglio Perez

The ultimate metaphore

This was in the news today:

Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, discussed his country's fight against illegal drugs on Saturday with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and then gave her a guitar decorated with coca leaves.
Source

What a metaphor for all that is happening with Bush Administrations. It Talks about human right and democracy, then we end up with torture in Gunatanamo and Abu Gharib prison. It is fitting to talk about fight against drugs then give a give a guitar decorated with coca leaves.

The endorsement of the week

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say just a word about the request here for democracy promotion money for Iran. We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East that we would like to see develop.


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Opening Remarks before the Senate Appropriations Committee
Washington, DC
March 9, 2006

Source

With the current anti American sentiment at an all time high in the middle east, I wonder if the Secretary Rice understands the endorsement she has given to the Iranians.

Last 5 years according to Dick Chenney

Vice President's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference
The Washington D.C. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

10:10 A.M. EST

.....And we will continue to act with the kind of resolve that has made these past five years a time of progress in the broader Middle East.

Consider for a moment where we were five years ago, when President Bush and I took office. The secret planning for the attacks of 9/11 was already well underway. Hijackers had been recruited; funds raised; training had taken place. Some of the hijackers were already in the United States. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were in power. Al Qaeda was operating training camps that in the late '90s turned out thousands of terrorists. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing, along with his two malevolent sons, one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century.

Five years ago, there was a serious problem with proliferation, especially in the nuclear area. A. Q. Khan, the man who helped put Pakistan's nuclear program in place, had established a network that was providing nuclear weapons technology to rogue states including North Korea and Iran. And Moammar Ghadafi of Libya, one of the A.Q. Khan network's biggest customers, was spending millions to acquire nuclear weapons.

Today the picture is very different. The Taliban regime is now history, and 25 million Afghans are free. (Applause.) We have captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda; put its leaders on the run; and closed the camps that had trained the killers. (Applause.) Saddam Hussein wakes up every day in a jail cell, his sons are dead -- (applause) -- and Iraqis by the millions have embraced democracy. (Applause.) Iraq's leaders reflect the decency of the Iraqi people, and no dictator is taking their money and giving it to the families of suicide bombers. (Applause.)

Only days after Saddam was captured, the leader of Libya announced he would turn over all of his weapons of mass destruction materials. (Applause.) A short time later, Libya's uranium and centrifuges were sent to a U.S. facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (Applause.) And the A.Q. Khan proliferation network has been shut down. (Applause.)

Our great country, which over the decades has aided the rise of new democracies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, now serves that cause in the Middle East -- with courage, and firm purpose, and a level of generosity by the American people not seen since the Marshall Plan.

Five years ago, many would have found it hard to imagine that all these changes were on the way. And, obviously, they did not just happen. Because we've been willing to act on our convictions, we live in a better world today. We cannot know every turn that lies ahead in the fight against terror, and tyranny, and proliferation. Yet at every point, we will be patient and resolute -- because the supporters of democracy will need our help, and the enemies of democracy will test our will. And we will be confident, because events are moving in the direction of human liberty. Freedom's cause is the right cause, and every action we take in support of it makes this world better and safer for our children. (Applause.)

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your hospitality this morning. The President and I are grateful for your counsel, for your commitment to the security of our country, and for all you do on behalf of America's friendship with Israel.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Source

This was also in the news today:

"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?"

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad

Source

"There is an easy way for untying a Gordian knot."

'Why try to untie a knot with your teeth if you can do it with your hands?'


Hashemi Rafsanjani,
citing an old Persian proverb with respect to the current nuclear energy negotiations.

What is in Iraq to win?

I wish I had a penny for every time someone said Iran is winning in Iraq, Afghanistan... Liberal or Conservative (particularly neocons) have a common ground in creating fear and hysteria over Iran. It comes either for its non-existing nuclear weapons program, or the hypothetical wins. Take for example this artile: Chaos in Iraq Sends Shock Waves Across Middle East and Elevates Iran's Influence


Any one that knows anything about middle east would have to say Iraq is a lose-lose situation. There is nothing there for anyone to win, well other than the Halliburton, KBR, etc. It is a mess At best you have to limit your loses. For instance, Spain, it was quick to recognize the trouble in Iraq, it pulled out and was able to cut its losses. They won, or Spain lost less that then say England.

What is there to win for Iran (or that matter any country in the region) if there is a civil war on its eastern border. Would US win any influence if there was a civil war in Mexico? The arguments that Iran is somehow winning in Iraq, I believe are all nonsense. It is designed to distract attention from George Bush's disastrous policies. This is not unprecedented either, if you remember in Vietnam war, Laos and Cambodia were the scapegoats.

Here is the funny part.... let say we accept these arguments that Iranian influence is growing in Iraq. So there is US, a democratic government run by secular forces, invades a country, spends billions of dollar and spills blood of thousands of its soldiers. Then there is Iran, a non-secular, some say non-democratic government, without firing a shot, without spending any money, come out winner in the political games. Well if you believe this I have a bridge to sell you, or may be a conclusion:

If you truly believe this then you have to also believe that democracy, secularism, election... simply don't work. If they did you would expect the policies of a democratic government (such as US or UK) to be more in line with its interest than that of a non-democratic, religious government (like Iran)? Another world, if Iran is really winning in Iraq, then it would seem to me you have to also conclude that Iranian government can product better policy, and hence a superior form of government.

It didn't work!

Here is my response to William F Buckley Jr's article: It Didn’t Work

Dear William F Buckley Jr,

In you article "It Didn't Work" you failed to explain what the "it" was. As I see it at least there are two "It"s that didn't work .

First "it" can refer to the idea of bringing gift of democracy, tolerance, social institutions... all by "shock and awe". Only fools believed that this "it" would have been possible.

The 2nd "it" that didn't work here was the democratic processes in UK and America. A few were able to manipulate the democratic processes primarily in USA/UK to drive their foolish agenda. None of the checks and balances built in to the US and UK political process were able to prevent it from going forward. The media, intelligence service, UN, the congress... all were manipulated and the "cooler heads" were powerless to do anything about it. Just as Iraqis couldn't stop Saddam from his foolish policy of invading Kuwait, the political process in US/UK were unable to stop the Bush administration to pursue its disastrous policy.

And so now the clothing merchant has seen both failures and is not buying the company line. Why would he?

Support Our Cooler Heads.

The article: Commanders: Iraqi army can quell serious spike in violence Had an interesting quotes from Gen Kimmit:

“This is more than a bump in the road, it’s a pothole,” said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of plans and strategy for Central Command, in a Thursday interview at a hotel near the Pentagon. Kimmitt said the ability of Iraqi security forces to address the violence occurring now is a major test of Iraqi forces’ competence, but that he remains confident they can do what is needed.
“We believe cooler heads are going to prevail,” said Kimmitt. “There are enough shock absorbers in the system that this is not going to lead to increasing sectarian violence,” he said, continuing the road metaphor.

Hmmm... “cooler heads are going to prevail”. May be one can hope. The problem is the batting average of the cooler heads sucks. Even in US cooler heads haven't been able to prevail how can one expect they would in Iraq. Heck, if the “cooler heads” were successful, the general would not have been in Iraq in the first place.

There is something interesting in the arguments by military folks, religious fanatics, or the right wingers (aka neocons). They believe their offensive would end the hostilities. For instance, they would advocate “Shock and Awe” to bring peace and democracy to a middle east. Same thing with likes of Bin Ladin, they believe if they bring down the World Trade Center towers Americans in their shock and grief would end hostilities in the middle east.

Fundamental in their thinking is that the other side has ample supply of “cooler heads” that somehow are not in the driver seat but with a high dosage of “Shock and Awe” or destruction they would be able to wrestle control from the crazies. In a way they believe in an elixir formula. In their magical world if you bring enough insanity, and at high dosages, to a conflict you can get long lasting sanity out of it.

Rather strange argument. There is a positive though, the fact that even advocates of insanity believe the solution would be in the “cooler heads” (albeit on the other side) is the good news. All we need now is to listen to our own “cooler heads”, rather than banking on other side's “cooler heads”.

I look forward to see bumper stickers that say: Support Our Cooler Heads.

When the salt goes rotten

There is a saying in Persian... my literal translation would be: You add salt to keep perishable from rotting, god forbid if salt goes rotten.

I run across this artile: Hamas leader lists terms for recognizing Israel. So Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas Leader, says:

"Let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs,"

Sounds reasonable to me. Then David Makovsky chimes in. His position? He is “director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy”. Impressive title! Makes you wonder if he brother to mother Teresa, or a disciple of Dali Lama! Here is what he says:

"This interview is filled with contradictions, including putting old wine in new bottles.”

Putting old wine in new bottle! Hamas Leader is asking Israel to recognize the Palestinian state. If that is an old wine, then what is the “Project of Middle East Process”? Do “The Project” believe in a two state solution?

But then it gets funnier:

"He is hinting that they might be reasonable if Israel does everything and they do nothing, while in Arabic they say they will not recognize even an inch of Tel Aviv,"

The language is funny... "hint" and "might be" vs "say" and "will not". But the content is ever more comical.


So “Israel does everything “ means Israel accept a two state solution and “they do nothing” means Hamas accepts two state solution.

Makes you wonder how the director of “The Project for Middle East War” would have responded.

But to add some spice to his views, he says “while in “Arabic they say they will not recognize even an inch of Tel Aviv,”.

Now this is putting old wine in new bottle. More like putting vinegar in wine bottle. This is what Israel always said about any Arab politician they didn't like. If it is so why don't they bring the Arabic text of the interview and let others translate it. That would be easy to do wont it? In this particular case the Hamas statements were in an interview with The Washington Post, does he have problem with Arabic translation of Washington post?

US Holds Its Breath in Aftermath of Mosque Bombing

Interesting analysis: US Holds Its Breath in Aftermath of Mosque Bombing

Shock and Awe.

In the article: Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war"

The Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shi'ite-led interim government, warns of the risk of "endless civil war". His solution:

"We are ready to fill the streets with armored vehicles."

Shock and Awe, the "armored" division.

From Crystal ball!

This is interesting article; Clerics' authority growing in war-torn Iraq


It seems to confirms what I was saying in"My crystal ball on Iraq."

Reading between the lines

It just doesn't make any sense... In the article: Iraq Orders Tough Curfew to Stem Violence

It says:

"We're not seeing civil war igniting in
Iraq," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a spokesman for the U.S. command, told reporters.

It also says:

Meanwhile, seven U.S. soldiers died in a pair of roadside bombings north of the capital, and American military units in the Baghdad area were told to halt all but essential travel to avoid getting caught up in demonstrations or roadblocks.

If it is not a civil war, then why aren't the millitary units in the middle of it to restore peace? What are they there for any ways? What ever happened to all those Iraqi units that were trained? If the conflict is so bad that the millitary can't do any thing about it, then why not call it what it is, a civil war.

Trying to be fair to Iraqis

Couple on interesting quote in Mosque Bombing an 'Evil Act,' Bush Says

``We understand its importance to Iraqi society and we want to stand side by side with the government in making sure that beautiful dome is restored,''
President Geroge Bush

And this one...

``I don't think we do the Iraqi people any good or really that we are fair to them in continually raising the specter that they might fall into civil war when it seems that the only people who want a civil war in Iraq are the terrorists,''

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

But we sure did Iraqis a favor by invading and occupying their country eventhough the only people that wanted the war were the Neocons in Washington.

7-Up, never had it never will

In today's daily State department briefing, Adam Ereli, the Debuty Spokesman had this exchange:

QUESTION: Adam, to follow up on that, there's also obviously been several reports of reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques out of anger over this incident. What is your reaction to that?

MR. ERELI: Obviously we condemn them. And I checked before coming out here, there are reports of -- isolated reports of attacks against Sunni targets. Again, I think if you look at the statements by the political leaders of Iraq, they've all said the same thing, which is calling for nonviolence, calling for a period of mourning obviously, but calling for unity and calm in responding to these attacks. And that's something we will be actively promoting over the course of the next couple of days, as we have been, frankly, throughout the political process that has involved Iraq's development. I think we, on our part, are actively working with our partners in the region to speak out publicly to not only condemn the act but also to call on Iraqis to unite in opposition to what the insurgents and terrorists are trying to do.

So yes, we are, obviously, alert to the possibility of violence, but also I think very determined and energetic in acting to contain that threat.

QUESTION: If I can just follow up on that. This is not the first attack on a Shia target. Obviously, it's the most dramatic. You also have reports of death squads on the other side -- death squads. My question is this, are we right now in the midst of a civil war, an incipient civil war?

MR. ERELI: I think that's overstating the situation. Again, there are forces seeking to prevent democracy and obstruct the peaceful political and economic development of Iraq. That shouldn't be news to anybody. They seek to carry out the -- they seek to achieve their goals in a number of ways, but as I said before, promoting sectarian violence is -- and promoting sectarian violence is one of them. There's nothing new here and I think it serves as a reminder to all of us that there are some savaged and unprincipled elements out there that are going to stop at nothing, including attacking one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines, to promote the kind of unrest that the great majority of Iraqis have clearly demonstrated they don't want to see. I don't call that civil war. I call that attempts to undermine understanding an emergent compact among Iraqi society for a peaceful political future. And we don't think -- well, we are committed to preventing them from succeeding.

Yeah.

After reading some of the news items, and blogs on what is happening now in Iraq, I was speech less when I heard the State dept spokesman say: "There is nothing new here"!

If you want to argue that there is nothing new here, then you also have to admit that you have had three years since the fall of the Baghdad to try to resolve this. It is getting worst. So it is admission of failure of George W's policy. Shock and Awe doesn't work, Mission is not accomplished, capturing Saddam is not going to end opposition to occupation, destroying Fallujah didn't solve the insurgency....


But then I think I see his point. There is really nothing new here, Bush administration has no clue on how bad things are in Iraq, just as it never had. There is nothing new in that!

Like 7-Up, never had it never will.

My crystal ball on Iraq.

I think what we see in Iraq is a replay of Iranian post revolution politics.

In my opinion, Khomeni in 1978, just as Sistani in 2005 wanted an Islamic country run by politicians with clergies in the background. May be Khomeni to lesser degree than Sistani, but if you go back to history of Iran right after the revolution (1979) you see similar patterns. In the original Iranian constitution the President of Iran was head of the armed forces and most of the government officials were non clergies. But facing incompetence of the president (Bani Sadr) in facing Saddam's invasion, and the Kurdish rebellion Khomeni had two choices, either to sit on the side line and essentially see the country go up in flames, or take center stage. He choose the later, the president was ousted, the constitution was modified and made himself (with title of “the leader”) to be head of armed forces and the final say on all matters.

I see Sistani being on the same crossroad as Khomeni in 1979. He can sit on the side line and essentially make himself irrelevant or at some point he (or someone like himself) has to become “The Leader”. It is a difficult choice, and has its own set of problems. With clergies in power, it means they are responsible for daily affairs of the population, Sistani wants to avoid that but he may not have a choice. There may not be any other choices if there is to be any future for Iraq. Specially since 3 months after the election, there is no government in place, and US ambassador seems to be eager to micro manage the process for its own goals.

President Bush said: "..And if you believe that, then you have faith in people demanding freedom, if given a chance". To which I have to say... What I see in US policies on Iraq is that there doesn't seems to be any "faith" in Iraqis, and they are not "given the chance" to govern themselves.

We are three years into the occupation, something like 2 trillion dollars have been spend in Iraq (most likely Iraq now owes more to the rest of the world than the end of Saddam regime) and lives of Iraqis is getting worst every day. Three years into Iranian revolution, Iran was fighting Saddam and was able to push back Saddam's army and turn the tied of the war. With the current political leadership in Iraq, and the American/British occupation there is no hope for it dealing with the insurgency and bringing any sense of normalcy to lives to lives of Iraqis.

The Iranian model may not be perfect, but facing a deteriorating situation in Iraq, I would expect the religious leadership to step in and play more assertive role. Thanks to Geroge W's policies, secular voices within the middle east may well be at their weakest point in history.