TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | June, 2009

Iran Election ‘Results’ Reveal ‘Irregularities’

By on 13 June 2009

The reported election results out of Iran are wholly unbelievable. Could Ahmadinejad have pulled off a victory? Sure, but not at the level the Iranian government is claiming.
“Communication disruptions” are being reported starting late on Friday. The rest is written by the Iranian government, which is actually controlled by the Supreme Leader, with a “2 to 1″ Ahmadinejad “win” something that is impossible to believe as far as I’m concerned given what I’ve learned over the last weeks from experts in the region, as well as from independent polling from Terror Free Tomorrow.

No doubt that Ahmadinejad had a loyal base of Iranians from which to amass his voting foundation. However, during the forum on pre-election polling I attended, one thing Ken Ballen of Terror Free Tomorrow said was that outside of Israel, Iran’s voting was really fairly democratic, though in the same breath he also said no incumbent president in Iran has ever lost re-election. It’s the reconciling of these two issues that’s so hard to do given the reported outcome, especially given how many young people were ready to vote in what was absolutely record turn out. It’s logical to believe that the poor and the rural, Ahmadinejad’s vote, could not outweigh the young, especially given the average age of Iranians. Put this all together and you don’t exactly have the foundation for a believable outcome that Ahmadinejad is the winner.

Mousavi’s website is now down, probably bombarded with hits.

This comes via Laura Rozen.

“Moussavi’s official website, http://www.ghalamnews.ir/, reported that when his supporters gathered around his headquarters to celebrate what they believed was his victory based on reports of his representatives at polling stations, police forces confronted them using pepper spray and violently dispersed them,” the human rights group earlier said in a press release.

The group’s Hadi Ghaemi said opposition forces believe there was massive fraud in the vote count but cannot yet prove where it occurred, perhaps pre-planned in advance. He said that they are frightened.

Iran hands have used words like “coup” to describe what they believe may be taking place.

Via Reuters:

Karim Sadjapour, analyst at carnegie endowment for international peace:

“I don’t think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence. This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretences. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: (Supreme Leader) Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei wasn’t ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose.”

Trita Parsi, President of national Iranian American council:

“I’m in disbelief that this could be the case. It’s one thing if Ahmadinejad had won the first round with 51 or 55 per cent. But this number … just sounds tremendously strange in a way that doesn’t add up … It is difficult to feel comfortable that this occurred without any cheating.

“If there is a fight in Iran and there are accusations of fraud and Mousavi declares himself a winner and you have numerous leading clerics and other figures recognising Mousavi, you are going to have paralysis and significant infighting in Iran.

Christian Amanpour is in Iran, also reporting people gathering in the street and the general level of anger mounting. The Iran government says all uprisings will be “crushed.”

The revolution may have been delayed, but it’s coming.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Netanyahu Speech to Outline Conditions for Palestine

By on 12 June 2009

Pres. Obama and his administration have delivered the message on a two-state solution loud and clear. Prime Minister Netanyahu just might have gotten the message. I say maybe, because what Eli Lake is now reporting offers just as many questions as to outcome as we had before. The Israeli hardliner may be willing to give to reality, but offers as many sticking points to make you wonder if these “strict Israeli conditions” will scuttle any hope before we get started.

Here’s the rub… actually that should be rubs:

The conditions he is expected to put forward include:

• Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.

• Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.

• A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state’s eastern and southern borders.

• Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, a nod to the hawkish side of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition that has raised concerns that the Palestinian Authority, which nominally governs the West Bank, does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Wonder how many entities are included on the list of those “powers hostile to Israel”? Is Hamas one of them and if so this means we’re not going anywhere quickly, maybe not at all?

In the conversation with Mustafa Barghouti earlier this week, it was mentioned that the continued nod to the P.A. isn’t exactly helping the conversation, because they’re basically hobbled (or maybe Netanyahu can’t bring himself to say Hamas?). So one has to question whether this condition is also set up to cause complications.

As for “unfettered access to Paleninians airspace,” it seems to me Netanyahu, for all his reported bending, is actually intending to offer a state on training wheels, subject to the rules set forth by Israel. Who in the world would accept this? What “nation”? It’s preposterous.

It just won’t work this way, especially since we have no idea what Netanyahu is prepared to do on settlements. Matthew Yglesias also mentions the “controversy du jour regarding settlements” which is far too flip for the reality. It’s a major issue, because you can’t have Palestine and settlements (or outposts).

So, color me curious to hear the details on Sunday. But seriously, it’s not exactly impressive that Netanyahu might agree to something that has been accepted as the end game for Israelis and Palestinians for over a decade.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘Morning Joe’ Gets It Wrong on Hate Speech

By on 12 June 2009

–updated–

I was extremely glad to see that Keith Olbermann had someone on to talk about the Holocaust Museum tragedy who wasn’t taking the moment to make a convoluted political statement about Israel and the Middle East, as Jack Levin did the night before. Here’s what Levin said:

“But let me also point out that it’s not just the extreme right that we find this type of anti-semitism. There’s also a new anti-semitism that comes from the left, from progressives, who blame Jews from all over the world, even those who have never been to Israel, never been to the Middle East, support a Palestinian state, but they still get blamed for all of Israeli policies that they don’t like. So we’ve got anti-semitism coming from both sides of the political spectrum. …”

Um… No, we don’t.

Unfortunately, the Scarborough crew this morning tried to take a bi-partisan line, saying both the left and the right are trying to make hay out of the situation. This is when trying to be “fair” comes off as mutilating the facts.

As for hate mail, I assure you though Scarborough sees more volume, I’ve had more years in the hate mail circuit than any of them on “Morning Joe.” Conflating your average hate mail with the right-wing vitriol that spews out on radio is blatantly dishonest. But that’s what they did today. Watching Joe Scarborough squirm as he tried to criticize Rush Limbaugh was a classic.

Though he’s not my “shield,” as Scarborough deemed Krugman today, saying he was the equivalent of right wing extremists, Paul Krugman, makes note of what I’ve been talking about for over 15 years, something Scarborough is a neophyte to experiencing. No doubt, people like James W. von Brunn are responsible for their actions, but inciting them as right-wing talk does every day is something that must be said.

Contrary to what Scarborough and Willie Geist tried to do today, there is absolutely no liberal, left or progressive equal to a white-supremicist, racist, anti-semite who blames Jews and still uses the “n” word as having any roots in the Democratic side of the political dial. None. Geist trying to be even handed does a disservice to a history of right-wing fanatacism, the type that led to the assassination of Dr. Tiller, which Scarborough never even bothered to discuss in depth, and only adds to this country’s ignorance. Now, I watch Scarborough every day and like the show, but they’ve really gone off the truth rails recently, becoming just another apologist, by ignoring these issues, for the right wing hate crew that spews forth every day.

Another example to illustrate what the right spews forth comes from Andrew Breitbart, who unleashed a profanity laced barrage because he couldn’t take the truth about von Brunn, as the right tries to run away from their responsibility in inciting violence.

Now Krugman:

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

Eugene Robinson, who said on “Countdown” last night that he recently got a hate message sent his way, which no one should doubt, talks about the right wing haters today, too.

For days, some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating “right-wing” with “terrorism.” It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn’t matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn’t to illuminate a subject with light but to blast it with heat.

And it wasn’t just the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world who pretended to be outraged. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused the administration of trying “to segment out Americans who dissent from this administration, to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration, and labeling them as terrorists.” Steele seems to have decided that telling the truth isn’t nearly as important as the high-temperature exercise known as “firing up the base.”

The thing is, though, that words have consequences. …

This isn’t a bi-partisan thing. It’s a right-wing problem that becomes everyone’s issue when “lone wolf” assassins take hate speech as a battle cry.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Up Against It On Gitmo

By on 12 June 2009

The blaring headline accompanying this leaked reality is disappointing:

The Obama administration has all but abandoned plans to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to live in the United States, administration officials said yesterday, a decision that reflects bipartisan congressional opposition to admitting such prisoners but complicates efforts to persuade European allies to accept them. …

But should President Obama determine that Alexandria needs to play a reasonably limited role in a nationwide effort to bring justice to the Guantanamo detainees and close this unfortunate chapter of American history, I am confident that Alexandrians will stand strong as they always have: gritting their teeth, stiffening their spines and carrying the load required so that the American values of justice and the rule of law are not overridden but, rather, respected and honored, as is our heritage as a great nation.

There has been a scare campaign ever since Obama announced what was right, following up on what Adm. Mullen and Gen. Petraeus have also said was important: closing Guantanamo.

However, one community paper in Virginia responded vehemently, with what has become the usual ignorance on the subject as the guide. A letter to the editor in another Alexandria paper said no, too.

It doesn’t help that people like Sen. James Webb are against transfers as well. Another Virginia politician, Rep. Jim Moran, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post about Alexandria taking some of the detainees was greeted not so happily by his constituents.

An article in the Washington Times acts as a press release for Sen. Tom Coburn, while stating unnamed military sources are advising Congress against the transfers.

There is absolutely no reasons that Alexandria or other municipalities with facilities like this city cannot handle detainee trials. Or that supermax prisons can’t handle detainee transfers from Gitmo.

But in the end something else is at issue. Indefinite detention is un-American and anti-constitutional. Anyone suggesting that as an option should understand what they’re actually suggesting. Bush-Cheney may have gotten us into this mess by establishing Gitmo, but it will be Obama’s embarrassment if he can’t figure out a way to solve it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

On the Eve of the Iranian Elections

By on 11 June 2009

cross-posted on Huffington Post (world section)
–updated below–

Earlier this week I was at an event at the New America Foundation revealing the latest polling on Iranian public opinion as relates to the election tomorrow. As I do with much of the foreign policy reporting I do now that I’m in D.C., I liveblogged it via Twitter.

According to the polling done by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and the New America Foundation, Kenneth Ballen of TFT reported that 34% of Iranians plan to vote for Ahmadinejad. However, there is anecdotal evidence, especially since the contentious debate, that the energy has shifted towards Mirhossein Mousavi. This isn’t hard to imagine, because Ballen also reported that his polling revealed 27% undecided. Ballen said “a run-off is likely.” Not surprisingly, most polls are monitored by the Iranian government, with Ballen’s TFT actually independent. Full results are here.

One thing you won’t hear talked about much in the U.S. is the degree to which the Iranian people passionately desire a more open society and government. Right-wing radio goes out of their way to say just the opposite, with a lot of misinformation from Fox News Channel to back it up. Ballen’s polling found Iranians favor a system where they can even vote for the Supreme Leader; with the economy, assuring a free press and free elections their top priorities.

As for nuclear weapons, the issue came in last in importance, though Iranians polled by TFT support nuclear energy. These same people have no problem with inspections.

Azadeh Pourzand, another person on the panel, who has been following the election fervor through Facebook, the blogs, YouTube, etc. (she speaks and reads Farsi), said Ahmadinejad’s reported lead is surprising to her, given what she’s heard and read. She also mentioned 1/3 of Iranians have access to the web.

One entry in my live reporting feed might surprise you: Iranian people polled have a 71 percent favorable opinion of Sunnis; 49 percent favorable opinion of Jews.

Ballen and Amjad Atallah, of New America Foundation, wrote an article for CNN that outlines other important aspects of pre-election Iranian public opinion.

In a new public opinion poll before Iran’s critical June 12 presidential election, by large margins, most Iranians said they support an American-Iranian rapprochement for bringing a new era of peace to the Middle East. Surveyed on a wide range of issues, Iranians overwhelmingly favor better relations with the United States and greater democracy for Iran.

The poll shows that the Iranian public remains far removed from the stereotypes of apocalyptic fanatics commonly asserted in some circles in the United States. The survey suggests that Iranians instead are a people with self-confidence and hope in a more democratic future.

It also reveals a population with a strong awareness that the United States is as much a potential ally as it is now seen as a current threat. This holds much promise for U.S. national security interests in the region. …

At the event, Flynt Leverett, an expert on the Middle East, added quite a bit of context, as he always does. His belief is that there is an opportunity for a “grand bargain,” if only the Obama administration would make it clear they’re open to it. He commented that anyone who thinks this cannot be done doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to Iranian foreign policy. “Flynt, tell us what you really think about Dennis Ross,” quipped Steve Clemons. That brought a chuckle from everyone.

During the question portion, I asked Azadeh Pourzand to comment on Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who has become such an inspiration in the elections, as well as the brunt of Ahmadinejad’s fury, which prompted her to demand an apology or she’d sue him for libel. She’s been referred to as “Iran’s Michelle Obama,” so when I mentioned this everyone sort of chuckled. Ms. Pourzand lit up and then explained that she’s become important. Rahnavard really has ignited young voters. She and her husband hold hands, something never seen before during elections from a candidate and his spouse. Her strong presence is a new development, according to Pourzand. But one thing unexpected is that Rahnavard used to wear mini-skirts! In fact, she gave what was considered an important speech, Pourzand said, detailing that her shift to traditional dress for Iranian women was a real movement and more organic due to where she once stood on dress. Her presence has helped her husband, Mirhossein Mousavi, a lot.

In the end, Flynt Leverett said he believes that whomever wins in Iran, few things will change. The fact remains, as he sees it, that Iran has “no strategic depth” in national security, with asymmetric action a focus and nuclear weapons their only option, but that all of these are only “defensive in nature.” He also believes that neither Gates nor Clinton believe in Leverett’s coined phrased, “a grand bargain,” and he isn’t sure at all Pres. Obama will push for it.

Steve Clemons was more optimistic, saying Obama’s confidence reveals he “is his own national security policy.”

As for my thoughts as Iran gets ready to vote, reviewing all the independent study I’ve done, as well as what I’ve learned from the experts, the information reveals one thing. Maybe Iran’s policy will stay the same even with a change of leadership at the top, but the perception created if Ahmadinejad loses can’t help but be powerful. As in Lebanon, it will be more evidence of “the Obama effect” and that just maybe the tide is turning.

Just maybe.

UPDATE: Also see follow up forum where Clemons nails Flynt Leverett as the “crack cocaine of realists.” Live tweet feed here.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Is This A Joke?

By on 11 June 2009

Don Surber has written a post that defies rational thought. It’s actually entitled “Why the left ridicules women,” in which he opens with the following nonsense:

Too many American liberals cannot handle a strong, good-looking, intelligent, independent woman who disagrees with them — and so they make the crude, cruel and sexist remarks…

What women are his examples? In the order Mr. Surber chose himself through his pictorial: Katharine Harris, Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, and Michele Bachmann.

Where’s the laugh track when you need it?

Katharine Harris couldn’t even get the Republican Party behind her, even after she threw the 2000 election. Pres. Bush ignored her, even though she helped put him in office. That’s how Republicans treat women.

Carrie Prejean finally got fired because she wouldn’t commit to her contractual obligations as Miss California. As a former Miss America Pageant contestant, I can tell you that they’re serious about these types of things, though the Miss USA is that other pageant.

Sarah Palin is a governor who when tapped to be on a national ticket had some fantasy that Vladimir Putin was someone she was supposed to watch. That she didn’t know what Bush’s policy of preemption was all about is another issue. Most liberals around my neck of the woods in 2008, which was a major stop for Clinton supporters, were insulted that Mrs. Palin didn’t have the chops for the job. That she was basically put on the ticket to save John McCain.

As for Michelle Malkin, well, Google her.

But it’s when you get to Michele Bachmann that you’ve really got to wonder if Surber forgot to do his homework. This video says it all, though there’s always more where Bachmann is concerned. But from her own congressional YouTube site (via DailyKos diary) comes the description of the video, which a day after the Holocaust tragedy proves that we don’t have respect for her because she’s not only ignorant, but that her ignorance is dangerous:

Republicans take to the floor to call to question the recent Homeland Security department memo referring to conservatives as “right-wing extremists” who pose a potential threat to the security of the nation. Rep. Bachmann urges her to answer questions before Congress and potentially tender her resignation.

Of course, Surber’s new found anti sexism campaign was all inspired by Dave Letterman. As I said yesterday, he can fight his own battles.

But the right doesn’t get to conveniently co-op an issue they’ve ignored for one hundred years.

Conservatives finally finding a voice on sexism is not going to be taken seriously by anyone, let alone liberal women, who have watched these cretins eviscerate our brightest female, someone who almost became the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. Conservatives hunted her for two decades, calling her every name in the book, as well as attempting to destroy, not only her public life, but her personal life as well.

In fact, he can’t resist bringing it up again:

So-called feminists stand on the sidelines like so many Silda Spitzers or Elizabeth Edwardses or Hillary Clintons, standing by their menfolk while the boys treat women like dirt. Heck, Mrs. Edwards even served as her husband’s attack dog against any critic — even as she knew he was sleeping with his mistress of many years.

Funny how Senator David Vitter is omitted. I even remember what his wife was wearing at the time, as it got a certain cable host in trouble when she commented about it.

I also have never heard Mr. Surber or anyone on the right call Rush out for his “feminazi” rants, his “info-babe” belches, or any number of other names he’s called liberal women.

Selective sexism from the right, that’s what we’ve gotten for years, which includes not utilizing women when they actually do get an important job. Tell me again what real accomplishments Dr. Rice was allowed to achieve as she fought against Rummy and Dick Cheney? Like Christine Todd Whitman who had to leave the EPA because Bush had reduced her to a figurehead.

Oh, and when was the last time a Republican fought for equal pay? When I interviewed Carly Fiorina last year during the election cycle she wouldn’t even back the Ledbetter Act, making excuses for John McCain.

And someone needs to tell me how Sarah Palin was supporting her daughter when she dragged her in front of a national audience in a publicity stunt, TV shotgun wedding that was nothing but a fraud.

It’s not just about women. It’s about intelligence, competence and the policies people support. It’s about supporting women, all women, not just when you decide you can make hay from a comedian on tv.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama (and the People) v. the AMA (and the GOP)

By on 11 June 2009

The AMA is not on our side, at least according to what they sent to the Senate:

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.” … The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.” …

The portion in bold is stunning coming from the American Medical Association.

Now, I’m not a health care expert. Talking about Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East comes easier to me. But it doesn’t take an expert to understand that without the public option plan we’re never going to get this done.

Republicans are scared witless about the public option, but the reason is political:

Republicans fear that the public option would work, and therefore undermine their broader arguments about the evil of government and the perfection of the market (and make voters thankful to Democrats to boot).

Mike Lux, who was in the Clinton administration (also aided the Obama transition team), said it so perfectly recently, when talking about how determined we are to get health care passed:

So here’s the point I made to CNN: Obama is doing a great job of including the insurance companies and their stalwart Republican defenders in the discussions, welcoming their ideas, etc. But this bill does not need to be bipartisan, and if the Republicans want to insist that the insurance industry gets what they want, we can do this without them. We will need 83% of the Democrats in the Senate, and 85% in the House, and an effective, popular president can get that done.

And to those who worship at the alter of bipartisanship, who say we need a bipartisan bill for something to be “sustainable,” I would suggest you check your history books: many of the greatest reforms in our nation’s history — including ending slavery and most of the great New Deal reforms — came without much or any bipartisanship. So, look, if you Republicans want to stop carrying water for an insurance industry desperate to avoid legitimate competition from a public plan, you are welcome to the table, come on aboard. But if not — as I said to CNN — we will just roll you and muscle this one home.

Exactly.

Obama speaks in front of the AMA on Monday in Chicago.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liz and Dick Cheney’s Disrespect of the Military Continues

By on 11 June 2009

What is it about certain Republicans and conservatives who give lip service to “supporting the troops,” but when those same military people offer experienced advice they are immediately ignored or worse?

As my friend Joan Walsh did on CNN debating Liz Cheney, she put up Admiral Mullen and Gen. David Petreaus, though there are many other examples as well, to make the point that the highest ranking military officers believe Gitmo needs to be closed. On cue, Ms. Cheney scoffed at these far more experienced leaders, basically reducing their advice to opinions instead of something they’ve learned to be true through their experience on the front lines.

This dismissal and disrespect for the military includes Gen. Colin Powell, whom the entire Bush administration reduced to a U.N. mouthpiece after feeding him false information so he could be their war pony on Iraq.

No Republican in the past Administration had any shame at all in ignoring the intelligence community either, bullying them into submission through tactics put in place by Dick Cheney so he could coerce intelligence.

Liz Cheney has no problem with this either. She also would turn the U.S. into a police state, because our supermax prisons hold some of the most hardened criminals known to man, with their being no evidence at all to suggest these same prisons cannot also handle Gitmo detainees. Is Ms. Cheney saying that murderers already incarcerated are less of a threat than men at Gitmo, none of whom have ever been convicted of anything, because according to Liz and Dick’s world they’re too dangerous to be tried.

But as this smackdown proved, when Liz Cheney is made to debate with someone who knows what she’s doing she loses.

So the question is, why does CNN demand this type of discourse, while Fox and MSNBC give Liz Cheney free rein?

Considering when either Cheney makes their case they’re going against the best military minds we’ve got, the question becomes even more curious.

Read full story · Comments are closed

That Didn’t Take Long

By on 11 June 2009

The far bow of the wingnut tree didn’t waste much time in turning the Holocaust Museum shooting tragedy into a way to attack –wait for it– Obama and Muslims. Yessiree, folks, it’s a twofer for the cranks. I’ve been watching and waiting for this one and as I told some friends yesterday, the countdown began the moment the incident occurred. Unfortunately, it also became an opportunity to hit progressives from someone who decided to capitalize on a tragic day in order to smear people who dare to criticize Israel as the same as Von Brunn, and Olberman’s show was used to do it.

Cue Debbie Schlussel, a prime example of conservative crazy.

But that is a distinction without a difference. In fact, it is because of Muslims–who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels–that neo-Nazis feel comfortable–far more comfortable!–manifesting their views about Jews. Until 9/11 and our resulting new tolerance for Islam, the neo-Nazi types were marginalized and howling at the wind. [...] Whereas the latter has over a billion followers and a U.S. President kissing their collective ass.

Long time readers will no doubt remember Debbie Schlussel and the lawsuit she threatened against me.

Now to the opposite wing of crazy, which was spotlighted on Keith Olbermann’s show last night. Jack Levin decided to try to make the horrific Holocaust shooting something that belongs to the left and right, so he could take a free shot.

“But let me also point out that it’s not just the extreme right that we find this type of anti-semitism. There’s also a new anti-semitism that comes from the left, from progressives, who blame Jews from all over the world, even those who have never been to Israel, never been to the Middle East, support a Palestinian state, but they still get blamed for all of Israeli policies that they don’t like. So we’ve got anti-semitism coming from both sides of the political spectrum. …”

Mr. Levin’s contorted logic obviously is meant to take a swipe at progressives who dare to hold Israel accountable, saying that “a new anti-semitism that comes from the left”, even though this is wholly concocted by him so he can introduce it in this moment. It’s what’s been said for ages about anyone criticizing Israel for what she does. Levin’s naked attempt to slap progressives on this occasion is despicable. Different, but almost as bad as Schlussel, because the Holocaust shooting has no progressive roots whatsoever. Shame on Mr. Levin.

The point in spotlighting Schlussel is different, so we never forget the hate that is gurgling inside our own country, even as we reach out to the world.

But it does make you wonder. If a lawyer like Schlussel can spew such insane venom, who else is out there locked and loaded?

TM Note: Uploaded a draft first, with this version the actual complete post. Apologies for the mistake.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Holocaust Museum Latest Domestic Terrorism Scene

By on 10 June 2009

–updated–

When Fox News Channel starts backtracking on the DHS report, you know something big has happened.

What we know right now:

…A third person sustained minor injuries in the shooting, according to police.

A law enforcement source identified the gunman as James W. von Brunn, who is known to authorities as a white supremacist.

Sgt. David Schlosser, a spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said the security guard and the gunman were the only two persons who were hit by gunshots. Initial reports said at least one other person sustained gunshot wounds.

He said the museum has been “completely secured and evacuated.”

We have a real escalation of domestic terrorism unfolding in the United States. Something Janet Napolitano warned about in her homeland security report, for which Republicans eviscerated her. She was ringing the warning bell, which as we’ve seen lately was fully warranted.

Along with the Post, Pete Williams of NBC news also named the shooter as James W. von Brunn. A person by the same name has a website that beyond his background contains highly inflammatory rhetoric, though whether this is the same person isn’t assured. News reports also state James W. von Brunn has “ties to white supremacist group,” so the website could be linked.

It’s the latest domestic terrorist incident that should be worrying the FBI, but also Pres. Obama. It’s very dangerous out there.


UPDATE: James W. von Brunn was an Obama birth certificate wacko. Sargent quotes the important DHS section right-wingers should have to recite together.

Read full story · Comments are closed

MSNBC Brewer Cuts Mike on Pro Palin Ziegler

By on 10 June 2009

Will this end up being David Letterman’s Hugh Grant moment?

You know what I mean, the event that takes Letterman to number one, just like Hugh Grant did for Jay Leno?

Letterman’s ratings gift from his competitor, with help from the Sarah Palin crew and right-wing blogs, was concocted via Dave’s “Top Ten” list. CBS is all too happy to provide the YouTube. Memeorandum revealing the rage from the right, as they come to Sarah’s defense.

Then today, Contessa Brewer, in an interview with Jon Ziegler, who recently interviewed Gov. Palin on the Letterman issue, had a smack down in a brief “Palin vs. Letterman” segment that had HowObamaGotElected’s main man, Ziegler, confronting Brewer on all the things that annoy him about MSNBC.

The foundation of the right’s outrage? Sexism. I know, it’s hard to say that with a straight face. So excuse me if I find this not only hypocritical, but laugh out loud hilarious.

Seriously, outrage from conservatives over sexism? Over the treatment of a woman being targeted?

This from a crew who hounded and slandered Hillary Clinton throughout the 1990s, saying a lot worse than Letterman did this week, which was clearly a ratings publicity stunt.

Today, the conversation with Brewer got so testy, with Ziegler ticking off every charge on his MSNBC greatest hit list, including going after Olbermann for his coverage of the Palin’s speech kerfuffle regarding the charge that she “plagiarized” Gingrich, ended with a bang.

Brewer pulled a Bill O’Reilly, telling her booth crew to “cut the mike.”

Insert picture here of Dave Letterman giving high fives to his writing staff, with the producer laughing all the way to the advert bank.

That said, can anyone doubt what would have happened if Letterman had said the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton, let alone talking about A-Rod getting Chelsea pregnant?

Oh right, Clinton never appeared as a “flight attendant” at any time in her political career, let alone a “slutty” one. However, that didn’t keep the right from smearing Clinton in the 1990s using every profanity in the book.

What about the video screed made by David Bosse and timed for the Dem primaries that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which eviscerates Clinton in every way possible?

As for Contessa Brewer, she nailed it when she asked Ziegler, “are you functioning now as her spokesperson?” All Ziegler is about is trying to make Palin relevant again.

The right can huff and puff, but they’ve got no standing whatsoever on defending against sexism (which includes their policies against women, equal pay, reproductive and contraceptive health care, etc.).

I’ll take the right seriously on sexism the day they do something about their gutless leader, Rush Limbaugh, who regularly calls females “feminazis,” “hags,” or “info-babes.” Until then, they’ve got no standing to whine over Sarah.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Lunch with Mustafa Barghouti

By on 10 June 2009

“It is already an Apartheid system. … [...] Israel didn’t really withdraw from Gaza.” – Mustafa Barghouti

Another possible title for this conversation: Will Netanyahu Push Hamas to Overreact?

Whenever you are talking about Israeli-Palestinian issues with the well informed it’s always sure to be interesting. That was the case when I was invited to be part of a small lunch gathering at the New America Foundation yesterday, where Mustafa Barghouti was the invited guest. Who controls the airspace above Gaza? The water? It’s not just about the Palestinians, because Israel’s hope for calm in their own country are tied into the issues Mustafa Barghouti was talking about, too.

If I could get two minutes alone with Mr. Barghouti, I’d tell him the Palestinians desperately need a female face seen regularly here in the U.S. A Palestinian woman talking about something very basic: The plight of trying simply to get a good job. As politically engaged as females are in this country, nothing would begin to change perceptions about the Palestinians quicker. Hearing Aida Touma-Sleiman tell this very tale hit me like a brick.

This type of effort matters, because anyone who pays attention to Middle East politics in the U.S. knows Pres. Obama won’t be able to do alone what presidents before him have failed to do. Public opinion is powerful, as are the forces aligning against Obama on this, which first arose during the Charles Freeman swiftboating.

Barghouti began the conversation talking about Obama’s speech in Cairo.

“We live in different times… I think it’s refreshing. … Great value of what Obama did… is that he saw the human face of the Palestinians. … a great, great change.” – Moustafa Barghouti

He continued, saying “After years and years of dehumanization,” Pres. Obama was able to “speak about the humiliation of occupation.”

The most emphatic point Barghouti made during the lunch was his emphasis on the importance of non-violence. He reiterated this over and over again, even saying that regarding Hamas, “now they understand it.” Try selling that to conservatives in America. Who can’t script right-wing radio’s response?

Barghouti had a lot to say about outposts v. settlements. That if Netanyahu gets rid of even several outposts, that only means a handful of people because, according to Mustafa, there are only 106 outposts, with around 4,000 settlers. He also claims that 58% of settlements came after Oslo. As an aside, one gentleman, who came in late so I didn’t get his name (though he referenced his work with the World Bank), said the whole issue of settlements is, to paraphrase using my own words, an issue of marketing, if you will. Each settlement should be called an “occupation village,” as far as he was concerned. Everyone in the room got the point.

“With existing settlements there can be no (Palestinian) state.” – Mustafa Barghouti

Barghouti also proved that Obama’s speech in Cairo has raised expectations exponentially, saying quite dramatically that Obama is “the last American president who can deal with this problem.”

If there is one thing that’s been constant over the many Middle East conferences and forums I’ve attended since landing in D.C. just two months ago, it’s the finality of opportunity everyone feels is facing us, especially in the Arab world.

Barghouti challenged that while people continue to support and fund a sprawling security system still, no one is paying any attention to fundamentals like a judicial system for the Palestinians, health care, the very basics of civil life.

“We don’t just want a state, we want a good state where human rights are respected. … going to elections again.” – Mustafa Barghouti

But the entire conversation boiled down to one thing for me, something I’ve been thinking about for quite some time, but particularly after Obama, then Clinton, came out so strongly with the Administration’s settlement policy. That this policy alone is a mortal political threat to PM Netanyahu, one he likely sees as something he cannot afford to handle as an expectation he must meet, as he fears the fall of his own government. The entire settlement issue a “dangerous situation” for Pres. Obama, as Barghouti sees it.

Netanyahu is many things, but he’s not stupid. Why can’t this be his Nixon in China moment? He’s got to sense that opportunity, even as a darker possibility looms.

Here’s that scenario. Netanyahu hears Obama’s policy on settlements, then hears it reiterated by Sect. Clinton. Suddenly, the mythical back channel avenue some Israelis thought they might have through Clinton goes poof! The Israeli Prime Minister then makes his “what the hell do they want from me?” query, just prior to Obama hitting Cairo with a speech that not only ignited Arab and Muslim expectations, but once again laid bare that no settlements means no settlements. Bibi’s corner is getting tighter by the minute. What to do next? Push back at protests in Gaza enough to get an overreaction from Hamas so… you know the rest. The Middle East goes kaboom. Again.

“You can always find a way to blame the victim. … [...] There is no way we will ever give up.” – Mustafa Barghouti

Obama’s given the right signals in his speeches, what matters now are actions and follow through and whether he can get Netanyahu to sit down and make an honest deal.

According to Mustafa Barghouti, the Palestinians are ready. They certainly would be if he was in charge.

So let’s call the next chapter waiting for Obama. Hamas awaits action, too.


Thanks to Daniel Levy for the invitation to be part of yesterday’s event.
TM note: Last line was inadvertently left off when post was uploaded.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Just Because…

By on 09 June 2009

–updated–

Dreaming of Ned Lamont, because Joe Lieberman continues to piss me off.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threatened to hold up any and all legislation in the Senate until Congress passes its legislation to prohibit the release of photos showing detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We’re not going to do any more business in the Senate,” Graham said. “Nothing’s going forward until we get this right.”

Both Senators said they were alarmed that a House-Senate conference committee on the supplemental war spending bill appears poised to eliminate language — inserted by the two Senators — that would block public disclosure of detainee abuse photos. The $90-billion-plus bill has been held up, in part, because House Democratic leaders have said they do not have the votes to pass it with the detainee photo provision included, because many liberal lawmakers have balked at the language.

Virginia governor’s race election results, for those interested.

On Obama and the press, from Phil Bronstein, comes “Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room.” Calling Richard Wolffe. Bronstein makes a larger point.

Music tonight compliments of my email pal WB.

UPDATE: Deeds won a big victory in Virginia, with McAuliffe a distant second, Moran last. Let’s hope Deeds fairs better this time around against McDonnell, whose right-wing alliances should be milked for all their worth. Deeds may be a Tim Kaine like Dem, but frankly, I don’t think Dems need another Tim Kaine.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Republican Male Angst Over Sarah

By on 09 June 2009

This was revealed after the Palin – Newt shuffle orchestrated through the incompetence of NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn reached critical mass, when he couldn’t even navigate the complexities of booking a single speaker to last night’s big GOP fundraising event.

The day after, pick your headlines. From Politico: Sarah Palin makes little splash at dinner. From CNN: Palin center of attention at big GOP dinner. That’s the kind of confusion Sarah Palin still engenders.

For what it’s worth, listening to Rush while driving in D.C., he is definitely still keen on Sarah, and won’t forgive Gingrich when he sided against el Rushbo when he said he hoped Obama presidency would “fail.”

Call it the monster that John McCain built. But one way or the other, it may end up being his lasting legacy. It’s also the one thing upon which McCain and Rush Limbaugh agree, that is until McCain lost, with Sarah becoming a drag on the ticket. However, something tells me the white boys of the GOP are thinking more about their own hides when it comes to this story in The Hill.

Sarah Palin has begun to get on the nerves of Republican senators who say the former GOP vice presidential nominee is taking her own White House aspirations entirely too seriously.

But those same senators may have their eye on a 2012 White House run or be friends with senators with presidential ambitions. And Palin, who does not have a lot of Washington connections, energized the party’s grass roots in 2008 while bucking the D.C. establishment, leaving much of the party’s elite grumbling about her appeal to the conservative base.

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election. …

As for proving not to be a joke, she’s got a lot of Republican company on that one.

The Palin crew also think they know who was badmouthing their girl. Never mind that Palin’s earned most of what she’s getting from her own. Your first try at the show can’t illustrate ignorance and incompetence, especially if you’re a woman. That’s why she’s taking her rehabilitation tour to Fox.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Epic Thunder in Virginia, and a Lunch

By on 09 June 2009
Photobucket

When it crashed down this morning I thought the house was going to collapse. Thunder like I’ve not heard since I was a kid. In fact, I have to go back to when I was a girl growing up in Missouri to recall such crashes. Then the rain came, with this morning bringing with it a downpour on a day when sun was hoped for. It’s the big showdown between Deeds, Moran and McAuliffe. Most people go to the polls before they go to work. Only the strongest survived that plan, because Virginia weather just didn’t cooperate.

I’ll be out this afternoon for a while, attending a foreign policy lunch that should be quite interesting. I’ll blog it or tweet on Twitter if I can keep from getting my keyboard sticky. It’s with Mustafa Barghouti, someone who should definitely be interesting to meet.

In the meantime, I wonder how many took in Newt’s speech last night at the big Republican Senate House Dinner? If there was ever a doubt that he’s running for president, last night should have obliterated that notion.

As for other news… Sarkozy, Michelle Obama and the girls.

If this picture doesn’t represent Judge Sotomayor’s struggles to get on the Supreme Court to date nothing does.

A rare “victory” against Obama’s secrecy, passed down from Bush-Cheney. Great work by Jane, Howie and all of you who pitched in to make a call or send a letter. Glenn has more.

Lastly, something many of you will appreciate, Ezra Klein on health care, the basics.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Protecting ‘Intelligence Sources and Methods’

By on 09 June 2009

That’s what the CIA is supposed to say, because it’s correct. Until those “intelligence sources and methods” are wrapped up in a U.S. torture policy that is against national and international laws. These types of things we should not “protect.” We should expose to the light of day and then walk far away.

Panetta also said he wanted to emphasize that his request was “in no way driven by a desire to prevent embarrassment for the U.S. government or the CIA, or to suppress evidence of any unlawful conduct.” He said his only purpose was to prevent harm to U.S. national security and to protect intelligence sources and methods.

This is wholly unbelievable.

The truth is that Pres. Obama, now that he’s part of the presidents’ club, is allowing his administration to cover for all things Bush and Cheney. Once again choosing secrecy instead of the disinfectant of transparency that this country so desperately needs. Because if anyone believes that “recruitment efforts” of Al Qaeda will be encouraged by releasing what the world already knows to be a fact then you’re as gullible and ignorant as the president hopes you are.

The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts.

… The “disclosure of explicit details of specific interrogations” would provide al-Qaeda “with propaganda it could use to recruit and raise funds,” Panetta said, describing the information at issue as “ready-made ammunition.” He also submitted a classified statement to the court that he said explains why detainees could use the contents to evade questions in the future, even though Obama has promised that the United States will not use the harsh interrogation techniques again.

I’m particularly fond of this section:

It also said that one of the documents summarized “details of waterboard exposures from the destroyed videotapes,” referring to a simulated-drowning technique that Obama and his appointees have said amounted to illegal torture.

Learning what was in the “destroyed videotapes” seems important, especially since Bush and Cheney lied to the American people about what was done. Too bad we don’t have a president who thinks so too.

Read full story · Comments are closed

My Blue Collar Husband and Terry McAuliffe

By on 08 June 2009

cross-posted on Alternet and Huffington Post

We’re new to the D.C. area. So when we started paying attention to the Virginia governors race it was late in the game. But because I don’t write about these issues, I wouldn’t have even commented on the race if it hadn’t been for McAuliffe being attacked for backing Hillary Clinton in ’08. That’s how petty it’s gotten.

It didn’t take long, however, for my blue collar husband to take sides. I haven’t, except that Brian Moran isn’t an option for me, because he’s still fighting ’08 primary fights against Terry McAuliffe through Clinton. That turned us off from the start. So it’s between Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe, though not for my husband. There’s only one choice for him. That’s McAuliffe. I’ll explain in a minute. For those of you not familiar with the race, here’s where it stands today, according to FiveThirtyEight:

[...] Most public polling is showing Deeds and Moran gaining and McAuliffe dropping, but the numbers are close enough that a good GOTV operation could make the difference for any one of the three candidates. I see the most likely outcome as a Deeds win, but McAuliffe could still win if Deeds and Moran continue to split the “non-McAuliffe” vote. If Moran’s supporters begin to defect to Deeds then there is probably no way for McAuliffe to win what would then be functionally a 2-person race against Deeds.

As with all close races, it’s about GOTV.

People must be a little worried, because a couple of posts have lately picked on Terry McAuliffe. One post a bit earlier took issue with something I’d written and even goes so far as to completely misrepresent a post I wrote in order to target McAuliffe. The post I wrote was about Moran targeting McAuliffe through Hillary. Believe it or not, this post takes out after McAuliffe for backing Clinton too.

What does that have to do with Virginia? As my husband looked for work, he wanted to know that too.

After having the same job since he was in his twenties, when we moved he took early retirement, which meant my husband was looking for work once we landed. Even as talented as he is it was daunting. He can build anything; give him two beams and you’ll get yourself a shopping mall; he can also fix anything. He was offered a couple of jobs, then landed a really good one, but the hunt had an impact. That’s when McAuliffe’s ads started showing up. He also heard Creigh Deeds, coming to the judgment that he “sounds like a solid guy.” But McAuliffe’s ads had a bigger impact on him. What my husband heard from McAuliffe was a man who can widen his job options if he goes hunting again. He also heard enthusiasm and someone who he believes has the dynamic optimism to convince businesses to choose Virginia.

When I told him I hadn’t decided whom to vote for, though neither of us will vote for Moran because of his negativity, he looked at me like I’d just insulted him. “How can you not vote for the guy?, meaning McAuliffe. “He’s so optimistic. You just know he’ll tell businesses they have to come to Virginia and they’ll come.” Of course, my husband doesn’t know a thing about the progressive push against Terry McAuliffe, so when I told him he just laughed. After looking for work and seeing the job market after so long, he’s looking for someone who can pitch big companies, get them to Virginia and help people like him have more choices. As far as he’s concerned it’s McAuliffe. “You’ve gotta vote for him,” he now simply says.

I just don’t know. With Moran hitting me wrong from the start, looking at Creigh Deeds, he seems solid, his record a good one. The Washington Post endorsement was impressive. But…

I’m just not convinced he can beat Bob McDonnell, who is slick. He’s also got serious right-wing tendencies, and the guy he picked to run his campaign proves McDonnell’s judgment stinks.

“One of the underlying concerns that many thoughtful Virginians have about McDonnell are his ties to the Christian right,” Sabato said. “I can’t tell you how many times senior people have asked, ‘Who will Bob McDonnell appoint to the 4,000 appointments he gets?’ ‘Who will run the college boards of visitors and the state agencies?’

“The reasons these questions matter to the people asking them is they fear it will be the far right and the Christian conservatives,” he said.

So, it gets down to who can beat McDonnell for me. Nothing else matters. I’m just not sure it’s Creigh Deeds.

“The other big issue is electability, and Bob McDonnell has already beaten Creigh Deeds.” – Terry McAuliffe

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liveblogging Iran Pre-Election Public Opinion Results

By on 08 June 2009

–updated–

TM NOTE (after the event): CNN gets the headling correct. At least according to the people who actually commissioned the poll. Of course, it’s delivered by Ken Ballen and Amjad Atallah, two people who know what they’re talking about. During this discussion at New America Foundation, Kenneth Ballen of Terror Free Tomorrow took issue with the AP article on his polling that is entitled: Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama. He says this article gets the entire polling analysis wrong, because Obama wasn’t figured in any part of the polling at all. Ballen seemed truly mystified that the AP would deliver this verdict in their headline.

______________________

12:15:11 PM: No surprise, “plurality of Iranians said they would vote for incumbent” Ahmadinejad: 34 percent.

12:18:15 PM: Results from survey by Terror Free Tomorrow, New America Found., KA Europe SPRL

12:20:51 PM: Mir Moussavi is at 14 percent, with 27 percent undecided; 89 pcnt plan to vote.

12:31:30 PM: Ballen (TFT): most polling is monitored by gov; poll shows Iranians want dem process; free elections, better US relations.

12:33:28 PM: Ballen says Ahmadinejad lead is likely overstated, race closer. A “run off is likely.”

12:37:08 PM: Iranians favor a system where they vote for Supreme Leader. Econony, assuring free press + elections are top priorities.

12:38:54 PM: Nuclear weapons issue came in last; nuclear energy program fully supported, as are inspections.

12:40:37 PM: Side note: looking around the room, five men are cat napping.

12:45:02 PM: Iranian people have a 71 percent favorable of Sunni;49 prcnt fav of Jews.

12:50:46 PM: Pourzand: follwing Facebook, blogs etc, Ahmad’s lead is surprising. No official parties; 1/3 have access to net.

12:57:51 PM: Leverett: no incumbent pres has been defeated; Ahmad has 12 mill+ reliable vote; “surge” for Mousavi reported

1:05:08 PM: Lev: Iran has “no strategic depth” in nat sect, with assymetric, nukes their only avenues. These are “defensive in nature,” the “essence …

1:10:24 PM: Lev: After 9/11 Iran reached out, helped in Afhan. and made Bonn conf success. Bush labeled them “axis of evil.” Iran wnts “real deal.”

1:14:21 PM: Lev: Are we prepared for “grand bargain” w Iran? No matter who wins a ‘gb’ is possible.

1:15:39 PM: Clemons: Flynt, tell us what you really think about Dennis Ross. –Laughter–

1:18:13 PM: Clemons comment ref Leverett saying anyone who thinks Iran not ready for ‘gb’ doesn’t know Iran foreign policy.

1:23:43 PM: Ballen takes issue w AP analysis bcuz they focus on BO influence, which is not in polling.

1:33:47 PM: I asked (Pourzand) about Mousavi’s wife: pop w young; used to wear mini skirts; they hold hands, new dev (in Iran politics), she’s important.

TO ADD: Couldn’t fit this in the orginal tweet of this entry, but when I asked the question I premised it on reports that Mousavi’s wife was referred to as “Iran’s Michelle Obama,” asking her to comment. Everyone laughed, with Pourzand getting quite animated on the question, as Rahnavard really has ignited the voters. As to the mini skirt issue, Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, gave a speech that was quite popular, where she said she changed her dress when she became more aware of the importance of the traditional coverings, which made her decision even more important. Her presence is helping Mousavi a lot.

1:42:31 PM: Who’s listening to Leverett? Lev: Clinton doen’t believe in ‘gb’, Gates same. No evidence BO will push it.

FINAL ENTRY… Clemons: Still hopeful. Believes Obama “is his own nat security policy.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Send Someone to North Korea

By on 08 June 2009

–bumped & updated with Clinton video–

North Korea has now made Iran look reasonable. With the release of Roxana Saberi, we had a good ending, but with a sentence on Laura Ling and Euna Lee harsher than expected, according to most reports, the only thing that will change the current dynamic is more direct negotiations. Between Al Gore and Bill Richardson, obviously I’d prefer Al Gore, however, just send someone. This is not politics, it’s a humanitarian issue.

A North Korean court sentenced two U.S. journalists to 12 years in a labor camp Monday, as the government of Kim Jong Il continued to ratchet up tension with the United States and its neighbors.

… “The trial confirmed the grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing,” the official Korean Central News Agency said. It said the court sentenced “each of them to 12 years of reform through labor.”

The “grave crime,” however, was not explained. The reporters had earlier been accused of unspecified “hostile acts.” Legal analysts in South Korea said the North Korean court may have sentenced the women to the maximum of 10 years of hard labor for hostile acts and added on two years for illegal entry. …

Richardson commented today that it’s “good news” that there was no espionage charge against Ling and Lee.

Between Saberi and now this latest threat to foreign journalists, maybe everyone can understand how dangerous it is to bring the news from these isolated countries.

Send Al Gore.

Read full story · Comments are closed

As Iran Election Nears, A Victory in Lebanon

By on 08 June 2009

Iranian elections are heating up, with Ahmadinejad coming at Mousavi using his wife just last week. I’ll be going to a forum today where pre-election polling out of Iran will be released. I’ll liveblog it if opportunity permits.

Meanwhile in Lebanon, huge voter turnout over the weekend handed a victory to Saad Hariri, the son of Lebanon’s slain leader, and his March 14th coaltion.

Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.

… If Hezbollah’s alliance had emerged victorious, it would have represented another step in the evolution of a once parochial Shiite militia that started as a guerrilla force fighting Israeli occupation of the south into a national institution that slowly has defined the identity of the state.

Hezbollah has said that it would work to build what it called a “culture of resistance,” and define the enemy of Lebanon as Israel and the United States. It also said it would make it a high priority to build a strong national military. …

Juan Cole has a good analysis.

March 14 consists of a section of the Sunni Arabs, led by Saad Hariri, who is supported by Saudi Arabia and who has unsuccessfully attempted to develop his own militia with Saudi funds. Another component is Walid Jumblatt’s constituency among the Druze minority (an esoteric, folk offshoot of Shiite Islam). Jumblatt is notoriously mercurial and had been anti-American before 2005, and cannot be relied on to remain in the March 14 Movement. Then there is the Lebanese Forces, which is a revival of a rightwing Christian group that played a very sinister role in the Lebanese civil war and after, led by Samir Geagea,who was convicted of terrorism. (BTW, Geagea’s Wikipedia entry is pro-Geagea propaganda and an example of why wikipedia is worthless when it comes to controversial subjects).

Gen. Aoun would be preferable to Geagea politically on virtually any dimension a normal person could choose.

But anyway, March 14 is the majority and will form the government, though it may be a national unity government that includes Hezbollah and its allies.

Cole also slams the Obama administration’s “blatant interference in another country’s election.” Of course, Juan is referring to Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Lebanon, as well as other comments made by Obama administration officials, including Sect. Clinton.

So, it’s good news from Lebanon. Now if Ahmadinejad could just lose.

Read full story · Comments are closed