They're broken men, so don't let them take us to a new war
Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have lost face at home; now others must forge peaceful settlements in the Middle East
Henry PorterSunday
January 28, 2007The Observer
There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
This is unsurprising: though not political equivalents, the two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. Neither travelled abroad much, but they both had certain views about the world and the destiny of their nations. They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them which has now earned them both the scorn of their people and rebuffs from their elders.
We think of Bush as being the more unpopular of the two. His approval ratings are at the level of Nixon's just before he left the White House. After an unconvincing performance in the State of the Union Address, his plans for the troop surge in Iraq were rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may now be voted down by the entire Senate. Senior Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and John Warner are furious that sensible suggestions contained in the Iraq Study Group Report have been ignored. Although the President looked receptive when the report was delivered to him by James Baker, there has been no progress in policy, no evidence of any kind of deeper thinking in the White House. Nothing except that familiar foggy, narrow-eyed truculence of Bush Junior in a tight spot.
This would be a depressing but for similar difficulties experienced by Ahmadinejad over the last few weeks. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran's religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. They criticise his bellicose foreign policy and the exceptionally poor record on promised reforms at home. There is a sense of embarrassment among sophisticated Iranians about their President's pronouncements, which surely rings a bell with Americans.
The most important sign-off disenchantment came in Jomhouri Islami, the newspaper owned by Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which said in an editorial: 'Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda issue gives the impression that to cover up the flaws in government you are exaggerating its importance.'
The paper also suggested that the President should speak about the nuclear issue less, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate on the daily needs of the people - 'those who voted for you on your promises'. Two weeks ago, 150 legislators sent a letter to Ahmadinejad openly attacking him for missing his budget deadline and blaming him for inflation and rising unemployment.
A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation. Although UN nuclear experts suggest the Iranians are at least five years from developing a bomb and delivery system, the Iranians are due to open a large uranium enrichment plant within a matter of weeks. If this goes ahead, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find; to decommission this new facility will require a loss of face for Ahmadinejad.
So the hawks in the West will begin the slow drumbeat for a first strike. Indeed, it has already started. For some weeks, the Daily Telegraph has been running a series of what, in my opinion, are extremely dubious stories all attributed to mysterious 'European defence officials' and 'senior Western military sources'. A front-page story last week suggested that North Korea has offered to help Iran with a nuclear test within the year. Apart from these shadowy spokesmen, it could offer no evidence, which is why the story was only seriously picked up in Israel.
In Israel, it is believed that the Iranians may be able to launch a nuclear warhead into its territory within three, not five, years. Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked who will defend the Jews from a genocidal government in Iran if they do not themselves. Israeli historian Benny Morris contributed this chilling thought to the Jerusalem Post. 'One bright morning in five to 10 years, perhaps a regional crisis, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the bomb, the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session... and give President Ahmadinejad the go-ahead.'
In Iran, 38 nuclear inspectors have been barred from entering the country in retaliation for the UN resolution introducing mild sanctions, and now the Iranians have installed a missile defence system (supplied by the Russians) to defend their nuclear facilities from air attacks. The Americans have responded by moving another aircraft carrier into the region and by offering Patriot missile systems to Iran's uneasy Arab neighbours.
Make no mistake: this a much more dangerous situation than Iraq and it is unfolding on the watch of a couple of second-raters.
It is true that few nations that have been more estranged over the last quarter of a century, but with the stakes so high, it seems extraordinary that America has no representation in Tehran and almost no contact except through the Swiss embassy. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times reminded us last week, in 2003, America rebuffed an advance made by the Iranians through the Swiss, which, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, suggested the two countries work together on the capture of terrorists in Iraq, stabilising the country after invasion and coming to an agreement on uranium enrichment as well as the financing of Hizbollah and Hamas.
The offer, made almost two years before Ahmadinejad was elected, was layered with insincerity and bluff, but professional diplomats are used to this. At least the two sides would have been talking and Tehran could have been held to account for some of the things that have been going on in Iraq.
But the situation is not beyond hope. The West must realise that if a first strike takes place we have lost. Whatever is destroyed in Iran, the Iranians will come back and produce a bomb that they may feel more entitled to use. The clash of civilisations predicted by neocon academics for years will have moved a step closer to dominating the 21st century at the very moment when all civilisation needs to concentrate on the multiple threats presented by climate change.
What we must hope for is a collective act of will in Europe, and among wiser heads in Washington DC, which says it doesn't have to be this way. This is not impossible. Only last week, representatives from 30 countries led by America and Saudi Arabia met in Paris to contribute to a £5bn fund to prop up Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government in Lebanon. This was a diplomatic action taken by both Middle Eastern and Western powers to defend Lebanon against Iran's proxies in the Hizbollah terrorist organisation, and it is exactly the right way to deal with Iran.
What can the British government do about Ahmadinejad? The first thing to is to recognise his failing support at home is an advantage that will be lost if the drumbeat to war is allowed to continue. There is no reason why Tony Blair should not add to the call from the head of UN inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a time out in which sanctions would be suspended. Blair still has a voice that is heard in the US. He should consider making a speech which insists that Bush initiates direct diplomatic relations with Tehran as well as a renewed effort to create the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He owes something to the cause of peaceful resolution and, besides, these are hardly controversial views: both have already been expressed by James Baker's Iraq Study Group
Saturday, January 27, 2007
US army describes Iraq abductions
by Mike Wooldridge BBC News, Baghdad
The militants got by an Iraqi police checkpoint before the attackThe US military in Iraq has given new details of an attack last week in which five US soldiers were killed.
Four of them were abducted by militants posing as an American security team.
They travelled in the kind of vehicles often used for US government convoys, Wore US-style uniforms and carried US-style weapons.
Initially the military said all five soldiers were killed repelling an attack on an Iraqi government compound in the Shia holy city of Karbala.
According to the new account, US military officers were attending a meeting in the compound when the convoy of at least five sport utility vehicles impersonating Americans entered and killed one US soldier.
There was a series of explosions and in the melee, the attackers then set off again with four captured US soldiers.
'Brazen attack'
They drove into a neighbouring province and then abandoned the SUVs.
The attack on the US troops is believed to be unprecedentedIraqi police, by now in pursuit, found the vehicles.
Two US soldiers were found handcuffed together in one of the SUVs, shot dead.
A third American soldier lay dead on the ground.
The fourth was still alive despite a gunshot wound to the head but died shortly afterwards.
Such a brazen attack is believed to be unprecedented, and the US military say the militants bypassed Iraqi police to reach their goal.
The Americans say they are not only trying to determine who carried out the attack but also the reason for the breakdown in security at the government compound.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
This is an awfully interesting tactic. Instead of asking us to leave, they decide to help us draw our own rational conclusions. Those troops did not deserve to die such a death.
The Iraqi people have made themselves crystal clear. A genie is not necessary to understand the depth of emotion used in wanting the removal of Americans from their land.
We, the people of America, have also clarified our thoughts on this particular war.
Our trusted leader has made his position of the Iraqi war translucent to the nth degree, though he seems to be costing the American people more than he is serving them.
What can possibly be done to heal both countries intact without losing any political standing?
Nothing can be done to repair the lives of the troops involved nor their families.
It is a shame that guidance is given freely by Congress, the American people and the Iraqi people, the international community who was against from the start.
After 3 years, Mr. Bush still has not gained any additional insight other than what he had upon the initial theft of the presidency.
by Mike Wooldridge BBC News, Baghdad
The militants got by an Iraqi police checkpoint before the attackThe US military in Iraq has given new details of an attack last week in which five US soldiers were killed.
Four of them were abducted by militants posing as an American security team.
They travelled in the kind of vehicles often used for US government convoys, Wore US-style uniforms and carried US-style weapons.
Initially the military said all five soldiers were killed repelling an attack on an Iraqi government compound in the Shia holy city of Karbala.
According to the new account, US military officers were attending a meeting in the compound when the convoy of at least five sport utility vehicles impersonating Americans entered and killed one US soldier.
There was a series of explosions and in the melee, the attackers then set off again with four captured US soldiers.
'Brazen attack'
They drove into a neighbouring province and then abandoned the SUVs.
The attack on the US troops is believed to be unprecedentedIraqi police, by now in pursuit, found the vehicles.
Two US soldiers were found handcuffed together in one of the SUVs, shot dead.
A third American soldier lay dead on the ground.
The fourth was still alive despite a gunshot wound to the head but died shortly afterwards.
Such a brazen attack is believed to be unprecedented, and the US military say the militants bypassed Iraqi police to reach their goal.
The Americans say they are not only trying to determine who carried out the attack but also the reason for the breakdown in security at the government compound.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
This is an awfully interesting tactic. Instead of asking us to leave, they decide to help us draw our own rational conclusions. Those troops did not deserve to die such a death.
The Iraqi people have made themselves crystal clear. A genie is not necessary to understand the depth of emotion used in wanting the removal of Americans from their land.
We, the people of America, have also clarified our thoughts on this particular war.
Our trusted leader has made his position of the Iraqi war translucent to the nth degree, though he seems to be costing the American people more than he is serving them.
What can possibly be done to heal both countries intact without losing any political standing?
Nothing can be done to repair the lives of the troops involved nor their families.
It is a shame that guidance is given freely by Congress, the American people and the Iraqi people, the international community who was against from the start.
After 3 years, Mr. Bush still has not gained any additional insight other than what he had upon the initial theft of the presidency.
International Taxation
Sneaky Tax Invasion
by T. Grinston
Normally, I have thought that my computer was a private entity. Since, I have no need of any overt actions which may bring attention to myself until this blog. Even then I imagined that unless I publicly declared thoughts and actions, they would remain private.
There is a new program on the market called Xenon. This program allows all personal information to be uncovered and taken. The Xenon program is currently being used by five nations. It actually serves the international governments using it the ability to monitor businesses which may not report all transactions for taxation.
Sweden will implement this particular program for their usage later this year. Sweden is taking its time since it has already implemented a program of its own which serves a similar purpose. While the United States neither denies nor claims to utilize this program.
No longer will anyone's actions remain private if they choose to shop online, visit porn or poker websites. Also, anyone who purchases from an auction may reveal their purchases without being aware of it. This program comes at a particularly inconvenient time.
Considering all of the identity hackers, reissuance of credit cards, cancellations of credit cards, aside from the fact that someone whom you did not give your personal information will gain it anyways, without regard for your privacy. Public outcry may be the reason the United States is not declaring usage of it. What do you think of the all this?
by T. Grinston
Normally, I have thought that my computer was a private entity. Since, I have no need of any overt actions which may bring attention to myself until this blog. Even then I imagined that unless I publicly declared thoughts and actions, they would remain private.
There is a new program on the market called Xenon. This program allows all personal information to be uncovered and taken. The Xenon program is currently being used by five nations. It actually serves the international governments using it the ability to monitor businesses which may not report all transactions for taxation.
Sweden will implement this particular program for their usage later this year. Sweden is taking its time since it has already implemented a program of its own which serves a similar purpose. While the United States neither denies nor claims to utilize this program.
No longer will anyone's actions remain private if they choose to shop online, visit porn or poker websites. Also, anyone who purchases from an auction may reveal their purchases without being aware of it. This program comes at a particularly inconvenient time.
Considering all of the identity hackers, reissuance of credit cards, cancellations of credit cards, aside from the fact that someone whom you did not give your personal information will gain it anyways, without regard for your privacy. Public outcry may be the reason the United States is not declaring usage of it. What do you think of the all this?
Iran installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, MP says
Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:41pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, a senior Iranian member of parliament was quoted as saying on Saturday, defying U.N. calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
"We are now installing 3,000 centrifuges," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
The centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale of nuclear fuel, which the West fears could lead to atom bombs.
Boroujerdi's remarks followed reports earlier this month from diplomats, who said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that Iran was ready to start installing the centrifuges.
America is the greatest superpower in the world. Why should we take advantage of the disadvantaged for trying to improve their own country and themselves? At the same time, we are occupying Iraq which had become so pathetic with need of help. Now, we are "helping" Iraq.
During the same occupation, we dare Iran, another country in need of electricity to remain at that level. While we deny Iran the financial resources which had been promised by the United States.
Should third world countries be offered technology to help themselves and stopped from maximizing the ability to use their own knowledge to make their country comfortable? Who gives us the right to become so superior that we shall order them to remain in the dark?
Maybe I am misguided, war seems to strongly exude itself from our wonderful leadership at any cost, regardless of the quality of anyone else's life.
Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:41pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, a senior Iranian member of parliament was quoted as saying on Saturday, defying U.N. calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
"We are now installing 3,000 centrifuges," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
The centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale of nuclear fuel, which the West fears could lead to atom bombs.
Boroujerdi's remarks followed reports earlier this month from diplomats, who said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that Iran was ready to start installing the centrifuges.
America is the greatest superpower in the world. Why should we take advantage of the disadvantaged for trying to improve their own country and themselves? At the same time, we are occupying Iraq which had become so pathetic with need of help. Now, we are "helping" Iraq.
During the same occupation, we dare Iran, another country in need of electricity to remain at that level. While we deny Iran the financial resources which had been promised by the United States.
Should third world countries be offered technology to help themselves and stopped from maximizing the ability to use their own knowledge to make their country comfortable? Who gives us the right to become so superior that we shall order them to remain in the dark?
Maybe I am misguided, war seems to strongly exude itself from our wonderful leadership at any cost, regardless of the quality of anyone else's life.
Russia defends Iran
Russia queries US presence in Mideast: agencies
Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:03pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
By Tom Miles
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expects the United States to explain its growing military presence in the Middle East when the countries next meet to discuss the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies on Saturday.
"I have seen no change in Washington's fairly aggressive rhetoric," Lavrov said.
"It continues, just like its actions to increase the military presence in the region. It will be one of the questions which we want to clarify in Washington. What's it all about?"
Lavrov is expected to attend a meeting of the so-called Quartet of international mediators in Washington on February 2 to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Russia, the United States, EU and United Nations make up the Quartet.
The United States is in the process of sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, which it invaded in 2003, in an effort to quell an insurgency. It already has 134,000 troops in Iraq.
Washington has said it is deploying a second aircraft carrier group in the Gulf as well as Patriot missile defense systems -- steps widely seen as a warning to Iran and Syria.
The United States, which has accused Iran and Syria of being destabilizing influences in the region, maintains a significant military presence in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, base for the U.S. Navy's Fifth fleet.
Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Is this not an odd predicament for the United States? What became of the bargaining chips we had from conducting ourselves in an admirable political stance? Have we used them all defending Israel? Or does the goodwill in Iraq speak for itself? This shall be an interesting development considering the controversy surrounding the country and the "real" issues which shall hopefully be displayed to the international community during this meeting. What do you think about it? Let me know.
Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:03pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
By Tom Miles
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expects the United States to explain its growing military presence in the Middle East when the countries next meet to discuss the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies on Saturday.
"I have seen no change in Washington's fairly aggressive rhetoric," Lavrov said.
"It continues, just like its actions to increase the military presence in the region. It will be one of the questions which we want to clarify in Washington. What's it all about?"
Lavrov is expected to attend a meeting of the so-called Quartet of international mediators in Washington on February 2 to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Russia, the United States, EU and United Nations make up the Quartet.
The United States is in the process of sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, which it invaded in 2003, in an effort to quell an insurgency. It already has 134,000 troops in Iraq.
Washington has said it is deploying a second aircraft carrier group in the Gulf as well as Patriot missile defense systems -- steps widely seen as a warning to Iran and Syria.
The United States, which has accused Iran and Syria of being destabilizing influences in the region, maintains a significant military presence in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, base for the U.S. Navy's Fifth fleet.
Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Is this not an odd predicament for the United States? What became of the bargaining chips we had from conducting ourselves in an admirable political stance? Have we used them all defending Israel? Or does the goodwill in Iraq speak for itself? This shall be an interesting development considering the controversy surrounding the country and the "real" issues which shall hopefully be displayed to the international community during this meeting. What do you think about it? Let me know.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Pelosi urges political reconciliation in suprise Iraq visit
Jan 26 10:06 PM US/Eastern
The new Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, made a surprise visit to Baghdad where she urged Iraqi leaders to pursue political solutions to end spiraling sectarian violence.
But US and Iraqi officials announced tough new tactics to starve sectarian violence of outside support with US forces now targeting Iranian agents in Iraq for capture or killing.
Despite US and Iraqi efforts to increase security in the capital, bombers on Friday killed 15 people in Baghdad's famous pet market.
Pelosi, 66, the first female Speaker of the House who is known for her strong anti-war stance, arrived in Baghdad along with several other senior Democratic lawmakers.
Pelosi is the spearhead of Democratic opposition to US President George W. Bush, who asked critics of his new Iraqi strategy Tuesday to "give it a chance."
But in meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US officials she advocated the Iraqis reaching political solutions rather than relying on a surge in US troops to end sectarian violence.
"The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence," the lawmakers said in a statement released by Pelosi's office after the meetings.
They said that in their meetings they stressed their belief that Iraqis must take "primary responsibility" for the country's security.
"The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders."
Maliki assured Pelosi the that Baghdad was determined "to assume security missions currently handled by US-led forces in Iraq," but asked that the training and equipping of Iraqi forces with modern weapons be speeded up, a statement from his office said.
The California Democrat is second in line to assume the US presidency, behind Vice President Dick Cheney.
The US Senate, meanwhile, confirmed Friday Lieutenant General David Petraeus as the new commander of US forces in Iraq, replacing General George Casey.
Bush said on Friday he had issued orders to confront those who target Iraqis or US forces in Iraq, as US and Iraqi officials confirmed tough new tactics against Iranian agents there.
"If somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, we will stop them," Bush said.
At the same time, Bush said as he met with Petraeus that it would be wrong to think that such efforts mean a coming war with Iran.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington had made clear it fears that Iran was supplying Shiite Iraqi insurgents with technology to make sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack US forces.
"We have every right to go after those Iranian paramilitary intelligence agents engaged in this activity inside Iraq," Burns told reporters.
In Baghdad, Maliki outlined to Pelosi his plan to quell violence in Baghdad, a necessity underscored by the bombing earlier Friday of the Al-Ghazil market that killed 15 people, the latest in a bombing spree targeting shopping areas that has killed more than 150 people this week.
The bombing was another gruesome example of the current trend followed by insurgents to attack markets to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Elsewhere on Friday, five more Iraqis were killed in violence, while police in Baghdad discovered 27 bodies bearing bullet wounds.
"The prime minister underscored his government's determination to deal with terrorist groups. This confrontation will not be based solely on military force however, but also on political means," Maliki's office said.
US and Iraqi authorities stress their new security plan will target militiamen involved in sectarian killing, and its focus was expected to be the Mahdi Army, the armed unit headed by anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
All of this reminds me of grade school where the teacher quizzed all of the students on our addition tables. Should you decide to add all of the articles pertaining to Iran in any particular order the common denominator from the United States would be violence, as far as our wonderful leader is concerned. Violence begets violence. It gives new meaning to the persona of our illustrious leader of the "United" States. When is enough of bullying enough. There is not going to be any redemption for America in the eyes of the international community should the plotted path be allowed to make any more gains. However, our republican leader is nothing if not headstrong and "intelligent". How many times must the same mistake be made in order to regain equilibrium? Balance is a delicate action which is essential to any meaningful dialogue with anyone even family members. Although, it is dependent upon the role models on which you choose to uphold. Well, I guess the Katrina comment by the maternal role model displayed a great deal of the delicacy of manners our "chosen" leader was exposed to during childhood. Why should anyone expect him to outshine his own guidance? Pelosi is trying to ensure that the divided factions realize that working together would allow Iraq to become self-sufficient and head towards greater strides as a whole nation. If I can remember correctly, this was one of the main issues regarding the aftermath of the brief war. Now, civil war reigns supreme. Partly due to conditions being worse than when Saddam was reigning. There is so much division and chaos, it shall be interesting to see if the Iraqi people can learn to trust again.
Jan 26 10:06 PM US/Eastern
The new Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, made a surprise visit to Baghdad where she urged Iraqi leaders to pursue political solutions to end spiraling sectarian violence.
But US and Iraqi officials announced tough new tactics to starve sectarian violence of outside support with US forces now targeting Iranian agents in Iraq for capture or killing.
Despite US and Iraqi efforts to increase security in the capital, bombers on Friday killed 15 people in Baghdad's famous pet market.
Pelosi, 66, the first female Speaker of the House who is known for her strong anti-war stance, arrived in Baghdad along with several other senior Democratic lawmakers.
Pelosi is the spearhead of Democratic opposition to US President George W. Bush, who asked critics of his new Iraqi strategy Tuesday to "give it a chance."
But in meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US officials she advocated the Iraqis reaching political solutions rather than relying on a surge in US troops to end sectarian violence.
"The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence," the lawmakers said in a statement released by Pelosi's office after the meetings.
They said that in their meetings they stressed their belief that Iraqis must take "primary responsibility" for the country's security.
"The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders."
Maliki assured Pelosi the that Baghdad was determined "to assume security missions currently handled by US-led forces in Iraq," but asked that the training and equipping of Iraqi forces with modern weapons be speeded up, a statement from his office said.
The California Democrat is second in line to assume the US presidency, behind Vice President Dick Cheney.
The US Senate, meanwhile, confirmed Friday Lieutenant General David Petraeus as the new commander of US forces in Iraq, replacing General George Casey.
Bush said on Friday he had issued orders to confront those who target Iraqis or US forces in Iraq, as US and Iraqi officials confirmed tough new tactics against Iranian agents there.
"If somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, we will stop them," Bush said.
At the same time, Bush said as he met with Petraeus that it would be wrong to think that such efforts mean a coming war with Iran.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington had made clear it fears that Iran was supplying Shiite Iraqi insurgents with technology to make sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack US forces.
"We have every right to go after those Iranian paramilitary intelligence agents engaged in this activity inside Iraq," Burns told reporters.
In Baghdad, Maliki outlined to Pelosi his plan to quell violence in Baghdad, a necessity underscored by the bombing earlier Friday of the Al-Ghazil market that killed 15 people, the latest in a bombing spree targeting shopping areas that has killed more than 150 people this week.
The bombing was another gruesome example of the current trend followed by insurgents to attack markets to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Elsewhere on Friday, five more Iraqis were killed in violence, while police in Baghdad discovered 27 bodies bearing bullet wounds.
"The prime minister underscored his government's determination to deal with terrorist groups. This confrontation will not be based solely on military force however, but also on political means," Maliki's office said.
US and Iraqi authorities stress their new security plan will target militiamen involved in sectarian killing, and its focus was expected to be the Mahdi Army, the armed unit headed by anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
All of this reminds me of grade school where the teacher quizzed all of the students on our addition tables. Should you decide to add all of the articles pertaining to Iran in any particular order the common denominator from the United States would be violence, as far as our wonderful leader is concerned. Violence begets violence. It gives new meaning to the persona of our illustrious leader of the "United" States. When is enough of bullying enough. There is not going to be any redemption for America in the eyes of the international community should the plotted path be allowed to make any more gains. However, our republican leader is nothing if not headstrong and "intelligent". How many times must the same mistake be made in order to regain equilibrium? Balance is a delicate action which is essential to any meaningful dialogue with anyone even family members. Although, it is dependent upon the role models on which you choose to uphold. Well, I guess the Katrina comment by the maternal role model displayed a great deal of the delicacy of manners our "chosen" leader was exposed to during childhood. Why should anyone expect him to outshine his own guidance? Pelosi is trying to ensure that the divided factions realize that working together would allow Iraq to become self-sufficient and head towards greater strides as a whole nation. If I can remember correctly, this was one of the main issues regarding the aftermath of the brief war. Now, civil war reigns supreme. Partly due to conditions being worse than when Saddam was reigning. There is so much division and chaos, it shall be interesting to see if the Iraqi people can learn to trust again.
Iran's International Dilemma
UN nuclear chief calls for 'timeout' over Iran
Jan 26 9:19 PM US/Eastern
The United Nations nuclear chief has called for a "timeout" in the showdown over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the UN suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same time.
"Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in Switzerland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, ElBaradei proposed a face-saving solution in which the two steps take place simultaneously instead of in sequence.
He added that an escalation of the crisis, and possible war, must be avoided, in comments reported to AFP at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
"We need to reverse course because we are heading into a crash course," ElBaradei told reporters. "The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers."
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions to get Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive core of atom bombs.
Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States claims Tehran is hiding work on developing atomic weapons.
The Security Council has said that if Iran freezes enrichment, then sanctions could be lifted.
But Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.
ElBaradei is to report to the Security Council by February 21 on whether Iran has suspended enrichment.
If it has not, sanctions could be tightened and there is increased speculation that either the United States or Israel could eventually decide to bomb Iran in order to stop it from making nuclear weapons.
The United States kept up the pressure on Tehran on Friday, warning of "universal" opposition and more international pressure if it proceeds with plans to installing 3,000 centrifuges.
"This would be a major miscalculation and mistake by the Iranian government," US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition.
"And if they think that they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure then they're very badly mistaken," Burns said.
ElBaradei has repeatedly said the crisis must be resolved through negotiation, with Iran guaranteeing that it is not an atom bomb threat and the West taking into consideration Tehran's legitimate security concerns.
ElBaradei said Friday: "There is no reason for Iran to feed nuclear material into enrichment cascades. They can take time out to build confidence.
"We have three to eight years (before Iran can build an atom bomb), which gives us a lot of time to reflect."
Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.
A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."
The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.
Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.
Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.
But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.
The United States on Friday called Tehran's attempt to get Charlier removed "outrageous."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Iran's action "inspector shopping" and "indicative of their continued defiance."
"And this is not what the international system is looking for or, frankly, what it was hoping for in terms of Iranian behavior," he said.
This is actually some long awaited news. There are some who have ascertained that our great leader has been contemplating numerous maneuvers to incur this particular stance for Iran within the international community. There is not any instrument which can accurately measure the elation this situation must give the great leaders of our nation who have been steadily heading towards this path.
Now, that the batter is up, what shall happen to Iran in particular? Also, how will our great leader incur international wrath during this point of our extended military? Do you believe this particular endeavor will become the victory that Iraq is not? Let me know what you think of this.
Jan 26 9:19 PM US/Eastern
The United Nations nuclear chief has called for a "timeout" in the showdown over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the UN suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same time.
"Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in Switzerland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, ElBaradei proposed a face-saving solution in which the two steps take place simultaneously instead of in sequence.
He added that an escalation of the crisis, and possible war, must be avoided, in comments reported to AFP at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
"We need to reverse course because we are heading into a crash course," ElBaradei told reporters. "The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers."
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions to get Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive core of atom bombs.
Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States claims Tehran is hiding work on developing atomic weapons.
The Security Council has said that if Iran freezes enrichment, then sanctions could be lifted.
But Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.
ElBaradei is to report to the Security Council by February 21 on whether Iran has suspended enrichment.
If it has not, sanctions could be tightened and there is increased speculation that either the United States or Israel could eventually decide to bomb Iran in order to stop it from making nuclear weapons.
The United States kept up the pressure on Tehran on Friday, warning of "universal" opposition and more international pressure if it proceeds with plans to installing 3,000 centrifuges.
"This would be a major miscalculation and mistake by the Iranian government," US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition.
"And if they think that they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure then they're very badly mistaken," Burns said.
ElBaradei has repeatedly said the crisis must be resolved through negotiation, with Iran guaranteeing that it is not an atom bomb threat and the West taking into consideration Tehran's legitimate security concerns.
ElBaradei said Friday: "There is no reason for Iran to feed nuclear material into enrichment cascades. They can take time out to build confidence.
"We have three to eight years (before Iran can build an atom bomb), which gives us a lot of time to reflect."
Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.
A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."
The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.
Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.
Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.
But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.
The United States on Friday called Tehran's attempt to get Charlier removed "outrageous."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Iran's action "inspector shopping" and "indicative of their continued defiance."
"And this is not what the international system is looking for or, frankly, what it was hoping for in terms of Iranian behavior," he said.
This is actually some long awaited news. There are some who have ascertained that our great leader has been contemplating numerous maneuvers to incur this particular stance for Iran within the international community. There is not any instrument which can accurately measure the elation this situation must give the great leaders of our nation who have been steadily heading towards this path.
Now, that the batter is up, what shall happen to Iran in particular? Also, how will our great leader incur international wrath during this point of our extended military? Do you believe this particular endeavor will become the victory that Iraq is not? Let me know what you think of this.
Mississippi Katrina Victims
Judge Balks at State Farm Katrina Deal
Jan 26 9:13 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn't sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn't been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn't have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
"In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable," he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement "without prejudice," allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to "addressing Judge Senter's concerns," adding, "We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable."
Hood, in a written statement, said State Farm and plaintiffs' lawyers were responsible for negotiating the terms of the "class action" portion of the settlement. Hood added that he had "reservations" about that part of the deal.
"Nevertheless, I knew that Judge Senter would make sure that the class was a fair procedure for all," he added. "I am confident that Judge Senter will make the plaintiffs and State Farm fix the problems he has raised in his order."
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a lawyer for the 639 policyholders who have settled their lawsuits with State Farm, said Senter's ruling shouldn't have any affect on the company's settlements with his clients. Scruggs said he expects to begin making payments to his clients next week.
"Case by case, litigation over many years is in nobody's best interest," Scruggs said. "It's our hope that we can quickly address the judge's concerns."
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can't determine "how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members."
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any "guaranteed" payments to policyholders whose homes weren't completely destroyed and said he is "uncomfortable" with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration "when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure."
Mississippi's mass settlement agreement didn't involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the "class action" portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors' hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program.
Now, this seems to be an interesting perspective taken by Judge Senter. What possible reasons could exist for his denial of a proposed settlement? Is the logic behind the settlement or the insurance companies? It may be possible that parts equate to the whole solution which he concluded. Hopefully, I can be forgiven my presumption of questioning the dozens of policyholders which the judge sought to have mandatory mediaton. Is this not somewhat in the area of arbitration which he stated he is "uncomfortable" ordering arbitration for people who did not voluntarily choose to participate. Now, clarification of these two particular words may be a technical discrepancy, but they seem to be in the same ballfield. How is the situation true in one case and unnecessary in another. All of this within a two week time span. I am absolutely sure that I am missing something. Why do the Katrina victims seem to have such difficulty?
Jan 26 9:13 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn't sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn't been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn't have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
"In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable," he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement "without prejudice," allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to "addressing Judge Senter's concerns," adding, "We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable."
Hood, in a written statement, said State Farm and plaintiffs' lawyers were responsible for negotiating the terms of the "class action" portion of the settlement. Hood added that he had "reservations" about that part of the deal.
"Nevertheless, I knew that Judge Senter would make sure that the class was a fair procedure for all," he added. "I am confident that Judge Senter will make the plaintiffs and State Farm fix the problems he has raised in his order."
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a lawyer for the 639 policyholders who have settled their lawsuits with State Farm, said Senter's ruling shouldn't have any affect on the company's settlements with his clients. Scruggs said he expects to begin making payments to his clients next week.
"Case by case, litigation over many years is in nobody's best interest," Scruggs said. "It's our hope that we can quickly address the judge's concerns."
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can't determine "how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members."
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any "guaranteed" payments to policyholders whose homes weren't completely destroyed and said he is "uncomfortable" with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration "when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure."
Mississippi's mass settlement agreement didn't involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the "class action" portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors' hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program.
Now, this seems to be an interesting perspective taken by Judge Senter. What possible reasons could exist for his denial of a proposed settlement? Is the logic behind the settlement or the insurance companies? It may be possible that parts equate to the whole solution which he concluded. Hopefully, I can be forgiven my presumption of questioning the dozens of policyholders which the judge sought to have mandatory mediaton. Is this not somewhat in the area of arbitration which he stated he is "uncomfortable" ordering arbitration for people who did not voluntarily choose to participate. Now, clarification of these two particular words may be a technical discrepancy, but they seem to be in the same ballfield. How is the situation true in one case and unnecessary in another. All of this within a two week time span. I am absolutely sure that I am missing something. Why do the Katrina victims seem to have such difficulty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)