Thursday, 1 February 2007
Vladimir Putin publicly threatens to make US radioactive - again.
Mood:
incredulous
Topic: No Truce with Terror!
More news you won't get from Big Media. Bush's eye-contact buddy President Vladimir Putin of Russia is making increasingly warlike noises toward us. Why aren't we getting this story from CBS Evening News, etcetera?
"MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin criticized Washington's plans for an anti-missile system in Central Europe and said on Thursday Russia would come up with a "highly effective" response.
(BLOGGER NOTE: Why is this man so pissed off? You'd think he was planning on nuking Poland and the Czechs or something... could be something about the unpleasantness in Prague in 1968? The crack-down on democracy in Poland at Soviet orders from 1978 to the end of the evil empire in Moscow?)
The U.S. has proposed stationing a radar station in the Czech Republic and a battery of rockets in Poland to detect and shoot down hostile missiles, which the Pentagon says could be fired from Iran in the future.
Putin dismissed Washington's arguments about defending Europe from Iran and said the anti-missile system would "directly affect" Russia.
"Our specialists don't think that anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe are aimed against terrorists or Iran. Can you really fight terrorists with ballistic missiles?" he told a news conference in Moscow.
(BLOGGER NOTE: It depends. Some terrorists actually own ballistic missiles. You know, guys who have actually put polonium-210 in other people's sushi.... )
Iran, he said, did not possess long-range ballistic missiles, only medium-range devices.
"We are also thinking about how to ensure our external security," Putin added. "All our responses will be asymmetric but they will be highly effective".
Putin said Russia already had systems capable of overcoming missile defenses but promised a future generation of weapon on which missile defense systems "will have absolutely no effect". He did not give details."
If Vladimir Putin feels the need to threaten us and our allies with "asymmetric" weapons on which our missile defense will have "absolutely no effect," perhaps it's time to place arms control on hold and return to maintaining what we used to call "a credible nuclear deterrent."
This translates into plain language as "enough U.S. nuclear weapons on enough U.S. delivery systems aimed directly at Vladimir Putin on enough of an alert to make the Russians very, very sorry they ever thought of threatening us." (You know, a stretched Mercedes limo-homing cruise missile... )
Let's give Putin what he and his people were obviously scared of, because we bargained it away during the last arms control talks - the Peacekeeper missile.
We've pulled them out of the silos, but we probably have enough that we haven't destroyed that we can place in Minuteman silos until we can upgrade the entire Minuteman force to the current state-of-the-art SERV status.
And let's ask our "mainstream media" why on earth we have to go to BRITISH news providers to learn about a clear and present danger to OUR national security. Gee, you have to wonder who they're looking out for here, don't you?
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 8:46 AM MST
Updated: Monday, 26 February 2007 4:51 PM MST
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
Iran Hears that Giant Sucking Sound... As Their Economy Dies
Mood:
celebratory
Topic: Take THAT, you...
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys....
The Iranian government is suffering from a combination of what happens when you crap on your neighbors (they crap back) and you crap on your foreign investors (your money goes away and the machines you use to make more money fall apart before you can fix them or buy new ones - because your money went away).
If you're confused by what you just read, you appear to have company.
The Iranians in charge at the present are killing their own economy. They're blaming the death of their business and financial life on the United States, but the truth of the matter is that we are simply kicking the box they are standing on after they climbed on it, tied a nice hangman's noose, stuck their head inside, and smiled.
Proof? The following article (from the Open Source Intelligence group in Yahoo.com) gives the whole story - excessive government meddling in the economy, economic warfare waged not by the US but by traditional religious foes who also happen to be major competitors in the oil business, and a megalomaniac mad dog of a leader who publicly blames foreign investors for his country's troubles:
Posted by: "Dietmar Muehlboeck" dmuehlboeck@gmx.net
Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:58 am (PST)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36348Shia-Sunni Split - Factor in Annual Budget
Kimia Sanati
TEHRAN, Jan 29 (IPS) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has submitted to Iranian parliament a budget bill for the fiscal year starting Mar. 21 that factors in the possibility of falling oil prices to "neutralise the plots of the enemies" of Iran, already under United Nations sanctions.
Oil prices have plummeted from 78 US dollars per barrel in July to 48
dollars currently and may drop further if the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) does not lower production. Basing the budget on oil revenues of 33.7 dollars per barrel for the next year is considered more realistic than last year's budget which expected Iranian oil to sell at 36 dollars per barrel or more.
"One must bear in mind the new factor contributing to the regional and Iranian economy and oil prices, namely, the Sunni-Shiite conflict. There is now every reason to believe that the Saudis, whose economy won't be seriously damaged by a drastic fall of oil prices, are deliberately avoiding to help stop the plummeting of oil prices by refusing to allow cuts in OPEC surplus production of 700,000 barrels per day," a political analyst in Tehran who chose not to be named told IPS.
"Iran's support of Shiite fundamentalists in Iraq is causing greater
concern among the Sunni Arab countries and the best way that Iran's role and influence there can be diminished without resorting to violence is making it economically impossible for Iran to sustain that support, so Iranians have to tighten their belts now. The deflationary budget for the next year, if strictly followed, can serve to reduce the effects of further more depressing U.N. sanctions and falling oil prices," he added.
Most domestic newspapers, even the reformist opposition's few remaining mouthpieces, have viewed the budget bill, submitted last week, favorably and ‘Keyhan', a hard line newspaper and staunch Ahmadinejad supporter, described it as ''bold''.
"The step taken by the government is a firm response to a new round of Western plots against Iran that mainly aim to reduce investment in Iranian oil and gas sectors and deprive Iran of its most important
source of revenues. Now one can say that the enemy has lost its last
lever to put pressure on Iran," a Keyhan editorial said.
In spite of last year's extravagant budget, the government has had to ask parliament four times during the current fiscal year to supplement the budget, from deposits accumulated in its Oil Reserve Fund from selling oil at much higher prices. Five billion dollars of the reserve have into importing subsidised gasoline alone.
"Even with oil selling above 60 dollars per barrel for several months,
the government has managed to drain all the reserves from ORF, and the balance at the end of the present fiscal year (ending Mar.20) will be nil if the government's insatiable need for money continues in the same way. Government expenditure is expected to swallow even the last drops of its estimated 56 billion dollar oil revenues in the current year whereas 50 percent of the deposits of the ORF was meant to help the private sector to develop and expand at the time of its establishment," an economic observer in Tehran told IPS.
Critics say the government may try to increase expenditure in the
proposed, seemingly austere budget, if oil sells better than the
predicted 33.7 dollars per barrel, by sending budget supplement bills to Parliament and extracting money from the ORF to meet its needs.
"When giving its approval to the budget bill, the parliament must
prevent the government from making supplementary budget bills a
tradition. Now that the government has volunteered to reduce its current expenditures, the parliament must also avoid letting government expenditures rise by approving its budget supplements," Masoud Nili, economist, was quoted by the ‘Sarmayeh' newspaper as saying. If the government is free to ask for more and more money all the time from the parliament, the budget plan will lose its function, he said.
The Iranian budget has to be planned in accordance with the country's ‘20-year Vision' -- a plan outlined by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to make Iran an economically developed country by 2021 -- as well as the country's fourth ‘Five-Year Development Plan' of which the country is now in the second year. Both of them require the government to minimise its role in economy.
Nearly a year after Khamenei directed implementation of provisions in the Iranian constitution to privatise and reduce the role of the
government, the Ahmadinejad administration maintains an overwhelming presence in the economy and continues to weaken the private sector -- a policy that is reflected in the budget bill.
If the government fails to carry out privatisation as envisaged in the
next fiscal year a huge budget deficit will result, but there are yet no
signs of surrendering control over public sector companies.
"It's now golden days for the Iranian steel industry. (But while) the
government is required to sell a part of Mobarakeh Steel Factory, it is
planning to build an 800,000 ton steel mill itself. The government could have prepared the conditions to develop the industry by the private sector instead,'' a former industries minister, Eshagh Jahangiri, was quoted by the Sarmayeh newspaper as saying.
Government interference in economy is felt in other areas, too. Last
year the government increased minimum wages which led to an increase in the prices of products. At the same time, the government banned any increase in prices of dairy products, incurring huge losses on dairy factories.
"When Ahmadinejad administration and the parliament were warned last year of inflicting the already ailing economy with the Dutch Disease, they just snubbed everyone, and parliament approved one of the most extravagant and expansionary budget bills in post revolutionary years for fear of losing popular support,'' the economic observer said.
Ahmadinejad denies inflation has risen, just as he says he is not
worried about the U.N. sanctions. The inflation rate announced by the Central Bank of Iran for the past nine months stands at 11.9 percent.
Critics say the government keeps the figure down by not including prices of certain items such as real estate and rent in the 300 item basket on which calculation of inflation rate is based.
Lower oil prices, U.N. sanctions, U.S. threats, government control and
the ever-rising inflation are not the only woes of the Iranian economy. Constant accusations levelled against private investors by the President himself have resulted in a sharp decrease in investment. This is also denied by the government.
Scaring away investors has caused the criticism of Ayatollah Shahroudi, the conservative Chief Judiciary, who defends improvement in conditions to encourage private investment by creating a safer economic environment. Nobody should be called "economically corrupt" unless the corruption is proved in court, the Ayatollah says.
Further U.N. sanctions, if Iran does not suspend its uranium enrichment programme within a few weeks, can hit banks very hard. Two of the major Iranian government-owned banks, Saderat and Sepah, have recently been boycotted by the U.S. treasury with many European banks following suit. The flow of cash in and out of the country is harder than before and many transfers are done through indirect and more costly channels.
"The boycott can be seen as part of a new U.S. policy to take advantage of Iran's economic troubles - the new policy is a much less costly procedure for the Americans and when coupled with diplomatic pressure from the international community, it can bring Iran down to its knees much more effectively than a military attack," the analyst said."
As far as it goes, that analysis may be accurate, but it neglects an even more crucial truth - a healthy economy is key to projecting military power over a significant period of time.
Israel resisted decades of military and terrorist violence from both its immediate neighbors and more distant enemies because it remains the most powerful economy in the Middle East for its size and population - and has been adept in rapidly changing that economic potency into military power.
If Iran persists in trying to use military might to become the regional power of Southwest Asia, it will soon learn that it is no Israel - and its only option may be to become a client state of Russia. In exchange for nuclear assistance and perhaps some military and civilian economic assistance, the Iranians can offer the Russian Navy a warm water port located on the most strategically valuable waters on Earth.
With their Siberian oil money, the Russians may be in a position to finally win the Great Game. If we have people in position to return the Iranian state to a semblance of sanity from within, it might be worth while to give them every sort of help we can. Otherwise Armageddon might become much closer to a reality than it ever has
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 11:31 AM MST
Congress, Please Don't Throw My Son's Sacrifice Away!!!
Mood:
sad
Topic: Martyred for Freedom
Just over two years ago, my son died with eight other soldiers when their Bradley fighting vehicle drove over a large land mine, which threw their vehicle into the air and onto its back.
I will pass over describing what happened after that except to say that the Bradley burned down and its hatches jammed, trapping everyone inside. Everyone died. Luke had a closed casket funeral.
I want to thank everyone who reached out and are still reaching out to my wife and me and Luke's widow in our time of pain. You know who you are, and we might not have gotten through losing Luke without you.
Senators Landrieu and Vitter of Louisiana, where Luke lived and in whose National Guard he served when he died, and Senators Allard and Salazar of Colorado, my chosen home, have all very solicitously asked if there was anything they could do for my wife and me.
Yes, there is something.
Please don't throw my son's sacrifice and the sacrifices of well over a thousand other Americans who died in Iraq away.
Please don't succumb to the urge to retreat from Iraq before it is a working, stable democracy, and before it is strong enough not to collapse as Afghanistan did, becoming a base of operations for terror.
Don't slink away from our obligation to destroy the cancer of terror and expanding tyranny, the way a previous Congress did in Vietnam.
Don't throw what my son died for away. Please.
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 11:13 AM MST
Iran behind deaths of five American soldiers in Iraq
Mood:
incredulous
Topic: ...Those Who Will Not See
From the "Captain's Quarters" blog. More news that the "mainstream media" is soft-pedaling. Why?
"http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009050.php
January 31, 2007
Did Iran Attack American Troops In Iraq?
CNN reports that American military investigators believe the January 20th attack on a military compound that killed five US soldiers may have either been conducted by Iran or by Iranian-run insurgents. The level of sophistication in the attack, conducted by terrorists in American military uniforms, showed too much sophistication to have originated from one of the native insurgencies:
The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.
"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.
That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.
The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports.
The investigation just started, and the Pentagon will probably look at a number of possibilities for the attack. However, given the description of the attack and its effectiveness, it seems a little over the pay grade of even the Ba'athist remnants. Since this occurred in Karbala, a predominantly Shi'ite area, Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda also seem unlikely suspects.
Earlier on Tuesday, Time Magazine reported that Iran has a motive to attack Americans in Iraq. The Revolutionary Guard wants some measure of revenge for the capture of five Iranians in Irbil, at least some of whom belong to the IRGC. Time speculates that the IRGC wanted to send a message, and that the number of casualties were specifically selected to make sure that no one misunderstood it.
What happens if the US concludes that Iran did indeed conduct this
mission against American servicemen? It would be an act of war, although the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers in support of insurgents also qualifies. The Bush administration might be tempted to retaliate with some air strikes, perhaps selected especially for the nuclear program Iran seems keen to pursue at all costs. However, one can imagine the outcry that would cause, not just among our European allies but also leading Democrats in Congress. It would not take long for at least a few of them -- Maurice Hinchey springs to mind -- to accuse the Bush administration of manufacturing the evidence pointing to Iran in order to justify an attack on that nation.
If the evidence points in that direction, there will be no big rush to
respond. It might do some good to make the Iranians sweat for a short period. However, Bush will have to confer with the Democrats and make it clear what happened, and impress upon them the need for serious action to deter the Iranians from attacking Americans in the future. We've let too many of these incidents pass without consequence to the mullahs, and every unanswered insult begets more of the same."
As if the Democrat leadership or the people in charge of Big Media give a big....
I doubt that it will be possible either to impress the gravity of this act on Clinton, Reid, Pelosi and Comrades, or to get them to admit that there is now a cause of war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
There'd have to be something stronger in the china cream pitcher with a ribbon on the handle than the usual Irish Cream for Bush to get the Congressional leadership to start acting in the interests of the American people.
In fact, the President would have to start hitting the sauce again himself before his behavior changed to the point that effectual steps get taken in Iraq. 22,000 new troops are literally a drop in a bucket - not that we have much more to spare in the cupboard without endangering our ability to respond effectively elsewhere in the world.
Hate to say it, but Rangel is right, though certainly for all the wrong reasons. We need to re-institute the military draft and build up a credible conventional deterrent to the trouble-makers of the world.
We need to convince everyone that all the spiffy hardware and "shock and awe" theatrics for which US DoD is known are backed up by men who are going to stick around and kill our nation's enemies until our nation is out of enemies.
With 300,000,000 people in the country, it's absurd that we can't maintain ten or twenty million of them under arms.
It's time to stop taking unfair advantage of our volunteers in the Guard and Reserve because we don't have the guts to raise a regular Army, Navy and Marine Corps large enough to do the jobs that need doing.
If the President and Congress had pulled their thumbs out long enough to re-institute the draft and fund DoD at adequate levels to fight and win this war, my son Sergeant Armand Luke Frickey, Louisiana Army National Guard and his squad mates might still be around instead of having died in an explosion - because our mainstream media has spent so much time destroying the public's resolve to see this thing through. Doing Al-Qaeda's work for them.
Of course, the President should have realized that making the hard choices when they would have helped would at least have trashed his political career for a purpose. Now, his career is garbage even though he flipped and flopped trying to work with people whose only priority was getting into power. Luke's blood and that of his squad mates are on the hands of a President and Congress too irresolute to act as needed to defend the nation. They can't blame the Democrats for that.
In fact, if the Democrats really want to cement their last Congressional victory, they'd show resolve where the Republicans failed to and prosecute this war to its end.
Right. That's really going to happen. We can hang ordnance on the wings of the pigs which will be flying by then and send them on bombing runs on the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Bushehr.
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 10:21 AM MST
Updated: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 11:00 AM MST
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Mood:
mischievious
Topic: minor chuckles....
Gleaned from Macworld (byline is "Macworld staff"):
"Microsoft's new Zune player may generate smutty laughter in Quebec.
A report explains that in French-speaking Canada, the word 'Zune' is a euphemism for male or female genitalia.
"The French word "zoune'' and the variant "bizoune'' typically serve as a less jolting way of referring to male or female genitalia when addressing children," the report explains.
Microsoft spokesperson Nathalie Bergeron told Canada.com that the word isn't in the dictionary, adding that the name "posed no risk of becoming known as an embarrassing double entendre," the report explains.
A Quebec resident reportedly disagreed, saying: "All of Quebec has been giggling for the last couple of days at the thought of Mr. Gates swearing that there was an 80 per cent chance that he'd whip out his little zoune before the holiday season."
Mais, what do we expect from a guy who names his company "Micro-soft," eh, Maurice? "The Yankees, they are a funny race... "
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 2:33 PM MST
Updated: Monday, 29 January 2007 1:45 PM MST
Saturday, 13 January 2007
More Bundles for Ahmadinejad....
Mood:
happy
Topic: Take THAT, you...
More news about the ass-whupping Iran is talking itself into:
The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian
facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to
several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open
"tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately
be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one
strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," said one
of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment
facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70 ft. of concrete
and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States
declined to intervene, senior sources said.
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider
military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans
could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could
range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks
against Jewish targets around the world.
Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are
believed to be involved in Iran's nuclear programme:
* Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for
uranium enrichment
* A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a
statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for
the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels
* A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough
plutonium for a bomb
Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay
Iran's nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a "second Holocaust".
The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow
nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, has declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map".
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military
action against Iran as a "last resort", leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the
2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes
have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.
Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel's tactical nuclear
weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.
Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly
unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One
source said Israel would have to seek approval "after the event",
as it did when it crippled Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak with
airstrikes in 1981.
Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the
bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.
The Israelis believe that Iran's retaliation would be constrained by
fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic
missiles at Israel.
However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close
the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world's oil.
Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: "The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 2:52 AM MST
Let's Drop The Big One... and Pulverize 'em!
Mood:
celebratory
Topic: Take THAT, you...
Israeli Military Air Forces plan nuclear strike on Iran 08 January 2007 [13:19] - Today.Az Israel plans strike on Natanz uranium enrichment center, heavy water reactor at Arak and uranium conversion facility near Isfahan.  As APA reports, according to Israeli military sources' claim, two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters". Air strikes will be realized if the United States declines to intervene. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment, but official Tehran ignores it. Iranian president Ahmadinejad said those who signed the resolution will soon regret. He said that their plans are peaceful and they will continue enrichment. |
URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/34616.html |
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 2:33 AM MST
Ahmadinejad Impeached? We can only hope....
Mood:
happy
Topic: Take THAT, you...
Just saw this today. I have absolutely no idea whether democracy in Iran works well enough for this to be more than a pathetic footnote, but it's something.
We can only hope. How interesting that Iran's opposition lawmakers manifestly have more courage than Washington's Democrats. From the Italian news agency AKI, Jan. 9:
TEHRAN - Iranian reformist lawmakers have started collecting signatures in Parliament to demand the impeachment of the country's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, 38 signatures have been collected out of the 72 required to formally summon Ahmadinejad and request his impeachment. Noureddin Pirmouzen, a deputy with the reformist minority, says it is nonetheless "positive to question" the head of the executive branch.
"Many actions of the current government and of president Ahmadinejad have led the country to an extremely worrying political and economic situation," Pirmouzen told the Iranian news website Aftab.
Referring to a resolution of the UN Security Council unanimously approved on 23 December which imposes sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme, the MP said "it is the last straw which has made Iranians loose their patience." The international community fears Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and has repeatedly asked the government to halt sensitive nuclear work - a demand ignored by Tehran which claims its programme is solely for civilian use.
"Parliament cannot sit still in front of the current situation and watch as the economy worsens because of the government's inability," he added.
Issa Saharkhiz, editor and political analyst, told Adnkronos International (AKI) that "Ahmadinejad's golden era is over."
"I don't think Ahmadinejad will leave the presidency before his mandate expires but I am also convinced he will not succeed in winning a second term," added Saharkhiz. "Many factions and personalities who supported Ahmadinejad's candidature at the 2005 presidential elections have already abandoned him and don't spare criticism, even harsh and direct, of the president and his government."
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president after an overwhelming victory in June 2005 but his then contender, Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and moderate conservative rivals of the president did far better than Ahmadinejad's allies in December polls to elect local councils and the powerful watchdog, the Assembly of Experts.
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 12:45 AM MST
Updated: Saturday, 13 January 2007 2:34 AM MST
Monday, 8 January 2007
It takes a village to smear an innocent man....
Mood:
irritated
Topic: Unintentional truths
Today's entry began after I researched something completely unrelated in one of the "urban legends" Web sites which I hadn't used before.
There was a link entitled "Al Gore vs. Christianity" which, I have to admit, I clicked on expecting to see pictures of Algore slow-roasting Pope Benedict on a spit. Instead, it was an indignant rebuttal of remarks Gore's supposed to have made along the "patronizing condemnation of you stupid right-wing Christians" line:
"Subject: AL Gore re: Christianity
THE NOTORIOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Refusing to accept the earth as our sacred mother, these Christians have become a dangerous threat to the survival of humanity. They are the blight on the environment and to believe in Bible prophecy is unforgivable."
--VP Al Gore, in his book
EARTH IN BALANCE, p.342"
Fair enough, so far. Crap like that deserves to be debunked hard enough to bounce.
But it wasn't enough to expose the ur-source of that particular myth as garbage.
One of the Web site's associates dug up what was probably got twisted around (a very, very little) to create the bogus Gore quote:
"For some Christians, the prophetic vision of the apocalypse is used — in my view, unforgivably — as an excuse for abdicating their responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation. Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who deserved his reputation as an anti-environmentalist, was once quoted as belittling concerns about environmental protection in part because it would all be destroyed by God in the apocalypse. Not only is this idea heretical in terms of Christian teachings, it is an appallingly self-fulfilling prophesy of doom. ("Earth in the Balance," p. 263)"
Wellll... that was actually the sort of patronizing crap I was expecting to see when I clicked on the link. Worse, Gore used the convenient "(victim of slander) was once quoted as" to weasel-word something into James Watt's mouth that he did not say. I can recognize this sort of thing pretty quickly, having had over a decade of Gore-isms to compare it against.
Does it seem weird to anyone else that the lady who went to all the trouble to find this paragraph in Gore's first bore-fest of a book reproduces an urban legend (and worse, a probable slander) about someone else while rushing to Al Gore's defense? It sure pegged my weird-stuff-o-meter off scale.
I decided to look into the matter and sure enough, someone else on the Web thought it was weird, too, that James Watt would suddenly start foaming at the mouth during a Congressional hearing.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php pointed out the probable provenance of the "James Watt is a millenialist weirdo" urban legend. Like so much other pernicious crap, it traveled through Bill Moyers' poison pen to the op-ed page of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. But before that, it appeared in a spottily-researched and sporadically-accurate article in grist.org, in an embellished quote from an anti-Christian tract:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/index.html
Soooo... having covered my backside with some Internet research of my own (ask.com - don't ever leave home page without it!), I wrote the urban legend page in question with the following suggestion:
"In your debunking of the "Al Gore vs. Christianity" net myth, you perpetuate another vicious, politically-motivated myth, this one about James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior.
You have Karen Eiler quoting (from Gore's "Earth in the Balance"):
"For some Christians, the prophetic vision of the apocalypse is used — in my view, unforgivably — as an excuse for abdicating their responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation. Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who deserved his reputation as an anti-environmentalist, was once quoted as belittling concerns about environmental protection in part because it would all be destroyed by God in the apocalypse. Not only is this idea heretical in terms of Christian teachings, it is an appallingly self-fulfilling prophesy of doom. ("Earth in the Balance," p. 263)"
It's no better for Gore to weasel-word a piece of diaphanous slander such as this by saying "James Watt (skip over ad hominem attack)... was once quoted as saying... " without supplying the source of the quote, its context, time, place, et cetera than to tell the lie direct.
The source of the quote was a speech given by Bill Moyers at Harvard Medical School (in acceptance of an environmental award) which was later picked up as an op-ed by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, based on erroneous information - a quote from the anti-Christian tract Setting the Captives Free by Austin Miles - in grist.org.
In fact, Glenn Scherer, author of the article in grist.org which Moyers quoted, added to the confusion by embellishing Miles's account of what Watt was supposed to have said - adding the spurious detail that Watt was supposed to have said it before Congress.
Watt actually did testify to the need to conserve natural resources before Congress before the House Interior Committee in February 1981 - the only time he ever alluded to the Second Coming of Christ in Congressional testimony - in an interlocution with Rep. Weaver of Oregon:
"Mr. Weaver: I am very pleased to hear that. Then I will make one final statement... I believe very strongly that we should not, for example, use up all the oil that took nature a billion years to make in one century.
We ought to leave a few drops of it for our children, their children. They are going to need it... I wonder if you agree, also, in the general statement that we should leave some of our resources--I am now talking about scenic areas or preservation, but scenic resources for our children? Not just gobble them up all at once?
Secretary Watt: Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.
I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."
This is the complete opposite of what grist.org reported in the article from which Moyers quoted, "The Godly Must Be Crazy - Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment,"
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/index.html
which originally contained this alleged quote from Watt and a sententious gloss afterward:
'But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism -- when was the last time you heard a conservative politician talk about that?
Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan's first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.
Today's Christian fundamentalist politicians are more politically savvy than Reagan's interior secretary was; you're unlikely to catch them overtly attributing public-policy decisions to private religious views. But their words and actions suggest that many share Watt's beliefs. Like him, many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future.'
This text was redacted from the body of the article as it now appears after grist.org had their attention called to its factual errors. It's now carried at the bottom of the Web page in insurance policy-small type, with the following comments:
" *[Correction, 04 Feb 2005: The asterisked section of the article, above, originally read:"
(text quoted above)
"In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book "Setting the Captives Free" by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation.]"
and then apparently later, after they looked into the quote's accuracy aggressively:
"[Update, 11 Feb 2005: Grist has been unable to substantiate that Watt made this statement. We would like to extend our sincere apologies to Watt and to our readers for this error.] "
I have to give the people at grist.org credit for acknowledging their mistake, although I have to say that it would have meant more if the acknowledgement had been carried in the same font and size as the article above it.
But even that verbal equivalent of a muttered apology is more than either Austin Miles, Al Gore or Bill Moyers ever did after slandering James Watt.
My point in writing this letter is that it's more than a little ironic to let the air out of one urban legend and then follow it up immediately by repeating an even more vicious piece of slander as though it were the truth.
I'd say that Gore's comment, "Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who deserved his reputation as an anti-environmentalist, was once quoted as belittling concerns about environmental protection in part because it would all be destroyed by God in the apocalypse," is a more profound indictment of Gore's character than the original urban legend which you demolished. Good guys don't repeat vicious slams on other people without trying to find out if what they're saying is true or not."
I felt like being much more definite in my comments, but people usually don't respond well to rants in their in-boxes, so I toned my remarks down a bit.
But this urban legend really had legs - a staff writer with the Washington Post repeated the substance of Gore's/Moyers's/Scherer's/Mills's lies about James Watt nearly verbatim - no fact-checking, apparently not even the casual Internet Google-check that anyone who can work a keyboard can do. More "James Watt was quoted as... " with not a bit of fact afterwards.
In fact, the only published remarks of Watt's which deal with the Second Coming and the environment directly contradict what the ecolo-slander squad say Watt said. Watt, in testimony before a House committee, basically said that since we have no idea how long we have until the return of Christ, we'd better be good stewards of the environment. No "what the heck, let's use it all up because the Rapture is coming," no "Jesus will come after the last tree falls... " - none of that nonsense.
It may take a village to raise a child, but it apparently just takes four or five thoughtless fools to tarnish someone's reputation. Maybe someday the press will repent of what it's done to James Watt's good name, in the same way it reversed its stand on his old boss - but it won't happen very soon if the past is any indication. Even after the blogosphere has shot this lie full of holes, it still reverberates down the Internet.
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 2:15 PM MST
Updated: Saturday, 13 January 2007 1:06 AM MST
Thursday, 4 January 2007
The Iraqis shoot their own dog.
Mood:
happy
Topic: Dead War Criminals
Defiant Saddam refuses hood in quick execution
By Agence France-Presse
BAGHDAD, Dec 30, 2006 (AFP) - A defiant Saddam Hussein refused to wear a hood over his head before the noose was wrapped around his neck and a trap door dropped beneath his feet, eyewitnesses to his hanging said.
The ousted leader mounted the gallows inside a former torture center in Kadhimiyah in northern Baghdad and was hanged just before 6:00 am (0300 GMT) Saturday, said National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, who was among those present.
Iraqi state television showed a brief film of Saddam being placed in a noose by masked hangmen, cutting away just before his execution.
The 69-year-old leader appeared calm, chatting to his burly, leather-jacketed executioners as they wrapped his neck first in black cloth then a thick hemp rope and steered him forward on a metal platform.
The gallows was constructed in red-painted metal and was fixed inside a dim room with blue-grey walls. The guards wore black balaclava-style hoods.
Saddam was manoeuvred forward firmly but not aggressively by the guards, the grey-bearded prisoner looking thin inside a smart, dark overcoat over a pressed white shirt but no tie.
Members of a small group of dignitaries who formally witnessed the execution said Saddam showed no sign of remorse in the final moments before being hanged for crimes against humanity.
Rubaie said in a series of televised interviews that the former strongman did not attempt to resist his executioners.
"He did not try to resist... He was holding a Koran in his hands that he wanted to have sent to someone, so the name of the person was taken down," Rubaie said.
"Saddam mounted the gallows calmly, without saying a word. He was resolute and courageous ... At one point, he turned his head toward me as if to say 'don't be afraid'," Rubaie said. "It was a very strange feeling."
Once on the gallows, Saddam "refused to allow a guard to place a hood over his head. They stared at each other briefly" before the guard stepped away, granting Saddam's wish to leave his face uncovered, said Rubaie.
Saddam had an opportunity to speak his final words.
"He said 'I hope you will be united, and I warn you not to trust the Iranian coalition, because they are dangerous'," Judge Moneer Haddad, who witnessed Saddam's execution for crimes against humanity, told AFP.
"He said he was not afraid of anyone," Haddad said.
The taunt was a last stab at Maliki's Shiite-led ruling coalition, which many Iraqi Sunnis accuse of being a front for Iranian influence.
"He was asked for his last words," said Shiite lawmaker Sami al-Askari. "The rope was then wrapped around his neck, his hands were tied, and he was immediately executed."
Rubaie said death came rapidly.
"It went like a blink of an eye. He died very, very quickly. It couldn't have been quicker."
State television prepared the ground for Saddam's execution by showing gruesome footage of his soldiers mutilating and beating prisoners, throwing a detainee from a roof and filling mass graves.
A 36-year-old engineer told AFP that he was given the opportunity view the body because members of his family had fallen victim to Saddam's brutal regime.
"I saw him after the execution," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz Al-Zubaidi. "He was inside an ambulance. His neck was broken. He was wearing black coat and a white shirt without a tie. His beard was long and his hair was long."
Zubaidi, who testified in the case that saw Saddam condemned for his role in the killings of 148 Shiite villagers from Dujail in 1982, said he had viewed the body along with some Iraqi officials.
It was a moment of "happiness for all Iraqis", he said, adding that Saddam, had "executed three of my brothers and my father".
Saddam's American jailers had handed him over to Iraqi officials and there were no US personnel in the building as the trapdoor dropped and Saddam's life was ended.
"This was a 100 percent Iraqi process," said Rubaie. "There were only Iraqis present, no foreigners. The Americans were not present at the execution."
Posted by V.P. Frickey
at 10:08 PM MST
Updated: Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:26 PM MST
Newer | Latest | Older
