Palin is an insult to the American people - Hagel

Politics is not for the weak minded or easily upset.

These days we see politicians tiptoeing around issues, being evasive and ambiguous, and giving us party lines that obscure the real issues. There are a few exception however.. one of them is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

I give a minimal amount of respect to every elected official then I either add or subtract admiration based on their behavior. For the gold standard in today's political world for a true statesman, I turn to Senator Chuck Hagel. That being said, I listen to what he says.. and boy, did he say a lot!

Sen. Hagel may be a close personal friend of Senator John McCain but Hagel doesn't pull punches when it comes to his views on the McCain campaign and especially, as we found out, about Gov. Sarah Palin's readiness to take the No. 2 job in the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government.

His major bone to pick with Palin was that she was trying to appear knowledgeable on foreign policy and international relations. I suppose Hagel, like the rest of reasonable Americans, doesn't believe that the proximity of your state to another country counts as "experience". He had this to say:

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,' that kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

Next, he slammed her so-called international experience which includes a visit to Kuwait & Germany (to visit the Alaska National Guard troops), and a fueling stopover in Ireland. [After this interview it was confirmed that, at the request of John McCain, Sarah Palin will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York] Senator Hagel definitely wasn't impressed with her 'traveling experience' with that either:

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

His argument against Palin was definitely not one based on her domestic issue understanding or social values but more about her ability to lead. These next two quotes say it all:

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

Think about it... and tell me if you agree/disagree.


Links:

Sen. Hagel doubts Palin's ready - Omaha World Herald

Iraq and Her Suiters.. Cheating on the US

When you take your eye off the ball chances are you are gonna get a pitch thrown right into your face. When the cat is away the mice will play. Ah... you get the point.

The United States is beginning to lose its grip.. in the past couple months we've seen that allover the world things are happening that wouldn't happen at any other time except Election season in the US. You think Mugabe would be beating up his rivals, Georgia could be invaded and then partially-occupied, Serbians would muscle their neighbors, or Iraq would be openly cavorting with Iran if the United States was at full strength in terms of foreign relations? Probably not.. or at least not as openly as they are doing it now. I've said it before.. I'll say it again, this President Bush has undone so much of what his father did its like one Bush wiped out his father's legacy and then dragged it through the mud. Sad.


Back to the issue at hand... Iraq... and China. Now what would China want with a bunch of sand and Arabs? Perhaps they want one-humped Arabian camels to complement their two-humped ones? No.. perhaps they want a bunch of goo that is beneath the sand and is one of the major supplies needed to run a regional or global superpower? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right!

Iraq signed a three billion dollar ($3B) oil contract with China to export crude and service one of their oil fields as a continuation of a deal made with Saddam Hussein in 1997. The Chinese national oil company will first import oil at a laughably low amount then eventually more than quadrupling that amount. China is the first country (besides the US) to sign a deal with Iraq on oil fields and exports since the Iraq War began. Scary. It seems the best way into the "loyal" Iraqi government's heart is a whole lotta green paper. The oil contract according to officials and sources on both sides is just the tip of the iceberg with China looking to drain every drop of oil out of Iraq as quickly as it can to feed its exploding demand for the stuff. China has turned up its foreign policy charm since 2005 in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia trying to get its hands on natural resources to keep the dragon at home satiated as it grows at a phenomenal rate - an average of 9.9% since 1978! China had approached the Iraqis before but the Iraqis backed off at the last moment about the oil issue because of problems with the oil revenue sharing plan and US pressure to keep all the oil contracts coming their way (or at least to Halliburton.. which is now Headquartered in Dubai). China, however, is relentless when it sees something it wants.. even if it means waiting until the perfect moment when the US have their sights all set at home instead of abroad.

If you've read this blog in the past you might accuse me of just repeatedly attacking the Iraqi government or perhaps the Chinese one.. this is not the case. The Chinese government has every right and logical reason to seek to secure resources as it vies to become stronger and perhaps a superpower... however it is the role of the United States to if not deter competition to keep up and stay far ahead for their own national interests. The Iraqi government deserve my complaints and ire because they are seemingly getting a free pass only because they were installed by a country that just happens to have 130,000 troops around and it would look really bad to throw them out after you hailed them as modern saviors to democracy and Thomas Jeffersons of the Middle East.... they are more like Benedict Arnolds, and even he had more honor and dignity.

Iraq has taken advantage of the loss of American focus to sign deals with Iran, Russia, China, and a withdrawal plan with the US. Sounds like someone is ready to move out.. and play with the big boys. Some call the US an empire and Iraq a colony but it looks like this colony is already cheating with our adversaries.. and all it has left for the US is a flirty "good bye!"

Links:
China hails three-billion-dollar oil deal with Iraq - AFP
China, Iraq reach $3 billion oil service deal - AP

Kick Russia out of G-8? Bad Idea

Big Bad Russia. The New Russian Empire. The Crazy Bears. Sovietskis. The Cold War is Back.

All these things are currently being said about Russia in the continuing aftermath of the Georgian invasion and South Ossetian conflict. We've learned something about the character of today's Russia that we previously suspected but didn't have solid actions as proof for: Russia is being reborn and it is hungry. The Russian Bear is ready to tussle with anyone who gets in its way. Currently the Russians are keeping it local and safe, preying on breakaway provinces and nearby neighbors who aren't a part of NATO and aren't too close to China or the US.

So... how do we punish Russia? Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Graham (R-SC), both surrogates for Sen. McCain's Presidential bid, are advocating removing Russia from the G-8. Hmm.. seems reactionary and not very well thought out. This is the kind of politics that could have worked eighty or more years ago but nowadays you need to do like the mafia and keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We need to basically be sleeping with Russia (and China) so we can monitor them and be able to influence their actions more. I know that for you academics out there it sounds like I've taken a liberal (in the Kantian use of the word) position however my realism is still intact, worry not.

One of the many lessons taught to us by the successful foreign policies of the Reagan Administration was that engagement doesn't have to mean capitulation or even compromise. When Reagan and H.W. Bush met with Gorbachev it created a personal connection that kept a dialogue open and both sides were open with their criticisms of the other. Much the same must exist for the Russians and Chinese. In Russia's case it was a lack of effective dialogue and a distracted Administration that allowed the Georgian Crisis to come to a head without US intervention of any kind. In the end French President Sarkozy looks like a hero brokering the peace deal that exists. The US did not even send an serious diplomatic mission or a contigent of Senators until long after the deal was agreed to on both sides. Sad.

Kicking the Russia out of the G-8 is not just a terrible idea, it's also impossible. Try to get the other members to agree to expelling Russia, not going to happen. First off, let's face it - Russia is sitting on an oil well and they can pump it out faster than any other country in the world. They may not have enormous reserves but they sure do have the infrastructure to get it out of the ground and into a barrel quickly. No one wants to mess with an oil country right now... especially now. Second, everyone else in the G-8 is a part of NATO. Kicking Russia severs an important international forum for Russia and NATO to keep the dialogue running. Lastly, It is just waaaay to rash. It is as if the US is throwing a tantrum whenever things in the international area don't go it's way. Just because we can't control things like we used to doesn't mean we need to go out and lose our heads. Keep your cool and try to figure out how to get back on top or maybe just further up then anyone one else...

Smart Foreign Policy will lead to a Smarter and Strong America.


Links:

Lieberman: Kick Russia out of G-8 - Think Progress

Medvedev to World: I'm just imitating Bush!

One thing you might learn about in Law School is a little something called 'precedent.' According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Precedent" is an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances and according to dictionary.com it is any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations. This isn't an English lesson though, its just a clarification. When you do something and declare that it is legitimate then in the future when someone copies you it is difficult to object without looking hypocritical. Case in point: Georgia/Russia and Iraq/US.



Both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are claiming that the invasion into Georgia and the subsequent bombing campaign are very much in line with the international precedent created by President Bush in Iraq because they claim they are only protecting the people of provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia from "oppression and tyranny" of the Georgian government. Hmm... at least those two are sticking to that story instead of concocting some intelligence about a nuclear program. What can President Bush say to that? Not much.



President Bush, along with political leaders and thinkers from the Right and Left, are very worried about this military strong-arming into the Caucuses Region by Russia. The problem paritally contributed to the fact that the United States has always been looked at as a progressive leader in Human Rights and International diplomacy (which was good) and then now it seems that even with diminishing global reach we have created a precedent in a world that we are less able to control. Twenty or even ten years ago when the US wanted something to be stopped.. I mean seriously wanted an international action to stop, it could have its magic hand and threaten beligerants with something that would really hurt. Nowadays the US is mired in two international conflicts, talking about a third one, has a housing/banking crisis, dealing with record high oil prices, and has seemingly lost its grip of international organizations. Reapetedly discrediting the UN in 2003, the Bush Administration unwittingly shot itself in the foot, losing one of the best legitimizers of American power and instruments of Western foreign policy.

While the US stagnates its power (and loses some as well) the rest of the world are racing to get just a little closer to the hegemonic level the US has achieved. Russia is resurgent, China is booming, India is growing, the EU is consolidating and expanding, but still there is no greater power than US foreign policy... unfortunetly we have set a terrible precedent and it will take at least five years to undo the damage.

Links:

Georgia-Russia: Medvedev speaks to the world - CNN
Overview of Georgian Conflict - Wikipedia

Does China Regret Olympics?

It seems you cannot read a newspaper or spend more than a few minutes online without getting inundated with negative press on China and their Human Rights abuses. First it was political strife, the Tibet, then Human Rights abuse, then speech and protest censorship, then Internet censorship.. and the list goes on. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, Does China regret pursuing the Olympics bid and then trying to use the Olympics as a coming out party?

The Spin: Press

Let's start out with the press who is hounding China on these claims of abuse. Obviously with all this coverage of the Olympics it wouldn't be complete coverage if they didn't cover China's government and their actions. That being said, China should have expected a historic retelling of their rise from 1959 to today. China also could expect, like Greece, before it that the press investigates every misstep and will sensationalize anything - especially civil strife - to create a good story. China hasn't exactly been apologetic, either. They can control their own press and information but not the foreign press and so they should have known that the boys down at FOX are always fishing for a Human Rights abuse scandal (as long as its not being perpetrated by Americans.)

Freedom: Where to go?

Where is China really in terms of Freedom? According to Freedom House, China ranks a 7 and 6 (with 10 being the worst) for Civil and Political rights, respectively. That's not so good. The good news is that for the first time since the Communist Revolution major reforms and overhauls are being done. That means a lot more economic freedom and then a lot more civil rights freedoms. The Chinese government isn't doing these things out of the kindness of their heart though.. or from outside pressures, they are changing their ways mostly due to a threat from civil unrest. So, on the "Freedoms" front, while things are not so great right now they are definitely heading in the right direction. A few to dos include: allowing opposition parties, freeing political prisoners, working on corruption in government, and effectively dealing/compromising the Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regions.

Subtlety or Bravado

The Chinese obviously were overjoyed when they received the Olympic bid but a lot of work was to be done. Back when the bid was awarded in July 2001 China was a long ways away from hosting a huge international event. The effort that went into getting everything ready early (unlike Athens) and then testing and retesting every little thing to make sure things went off without a hitch was really a herculean effort. That along with the amazing economic growth and cultural revitalization of China are note-worthy and admirable without a doubt. It is also clear that while China is straining just as hard as they can to show off their goods they are trying to be subtle in pushing their image. Subtlety however has never been a strong suite of the Chinese and what was suppose to be a glorious coming out party has become an explosion of Chinese Nationalism and an ever louder beating of the drum to the tune of China's growing military, economy, and influence.

Strong Moderate

Please share your opinions on this!

Georgia invaded by Russian Military

Save the Peaches.. ok, but seriously this is a problem.

Since the mid-nineties the break-away country of Georgia has been at odds with the Russian Empire Federation. The dispute has been about an region called Ossetia, whose people believe that they are more Russian than Georgian and thus use Russian currency and speak Russian. Since their call for independence from the newly independent Georgia problems have been brewing...

This flare-up should really send a message to the Global Community, especially the European Union, that "New" Russia is just "Old" Russia with a PR department. Remember back in the day (or perhaps you've just studied it, like me) when the ol' USSR would decide it needed to crush a thorn in its side it would just roll in the tanks and claim it was just taking care of a problem in its "sphere of influence" - that was the old way... The new style of Russian foreign policy is just a little tweaked but basically the same. Let's walk through it together:

1. Russian Leader wakes up... there are problems allover the place (mostly created by his own corrupt regime and mafia control)
2. Russian Leader decides that he ought to solve a problem, scare all his rivals at the same time, and give the people something to cheer about in a nationalistic way
3. Russian leader points the a surrounding country on a map where there have been some problems and tells his military leaders to invade it
4. Russian leader and his foreign ministry fabricate a story about said tiny country's efforts to "abuse" the human rights of Russians or "interfere" with Russian interests
5. (If possible) Tie that country in with the War on Terror
6. Issue strict ultimatums and impossible conditions and call it all 'diplomatic talks and failing to find a diplomatic solution due to a lack of cooperation on the opposite side'
7. Remind people that all Russia is doing is just protecting its people and their interests
8. Russian Leader waits for the opportune time (preferably while everyone else is watching some kind of global spectacle) to launch the invasion
9. Invade
10. Try to block out the news, deny anything wrong is going on, , and then ignore foreign criticisms
11. Repeat claims of protecting interests
12. Continue blasting the living daylights out of target country
13. At some randomly decided time: stop, declare victory, and have a massive military parade through Moscow

There you go! The "New" Russian model for invasions of neighboring sovereign countries. In the USSR you just had steps 1, 9, 10, 12, and 13.

The truly sad thing about this new Georgian incursion is that Russia has been harassing this poor little country for years including cutting off their gas and oil supplies. That's harsh! In the age of live coverage and hyper-media reactions it seems the Olympics have acted as an override switch to the news of hundreds, possibly thousands, of villagers and civilians being slaughtered by nearly round-the-clock bombings of civilian and military targets. The airports and roads have been crushed and a long line of at least two hundred tanks and armored personnel carriers have been seen entering the country according to recent reports but hey... I'd rather talk about Micheal Phelps or that Chinese hurdler! I guess Russia still knows when to orchestrate an attack when no one will care about some 'insignificant' country... sad. Very sad, indeed.

I will try to keep track of this story and keep you all posted if possible.

Whelp.. I guess I'll just sit around here and wait for the KGB to come and eliminate me. Until next time, please leave some comments for you comrade in arms.

Fareed Zakaria is wrong on Turkey

Fareed Zakaria and I are good friends.. ideologically. I love his book, The Post-American World, which you can (and should) purchase - from Amazon dot com for a heavily discounted price (40% off). As I was saying, he is one of the few political minds that appears on TV that actually makes sense most of the time and uses facts to justify his point, something sorely missed from most other commentators and pundits.

However.. he is just plain wrong about Turkey. Every time he gets the chance to talk about Turkey he does.. and he keeps complimenting them and showering them with his praises. I find all these adulation misplaced.

In his most recent talk on this subject he touts the Turkish Supreme Court ruling that disallows the banning of the ruling party based on their adherence to a religion. (Which I agree is good) Then he goes on about how all the Middle East could really "learn" from the "only Islamic liberal democracy." This is where he is exactly wrong.

Turkey, like France, are too secular to be democracies. Let me explain, just like Christianity or Islam can affect a democracy, state or society so can ultra-secularism. The cult of ultra-secularism treats religion not as an integral part of people's lives but as a threat to liberty. Now, there are some religious types who see the same of secularism but in a true democracy all people must be protected from both. Both the religious and secular wish to influence others with their way of seeing the world and it is the role of a true liberal democracy (of which Zakaria refers) to allow both options to exist and not threaten the other. Neither side should over-power the other without the protections of the State and both view-points should exist within the marketplace of ideologies that exist within these liberal States.

Therefore, it should not be the place of the governments of France or Turkey to allow or disallow any amount of religiosity on the part of an individual or group either by overt or covert means. There is nothing that is inherently anti-French or anti-Turkish in wearing a scarf, yarmulke, or cross. Both countries especially Turkey are guilty of betraying their pledges to liberalism when they take secularism to an extreme where it infringes on the liberties of people to express their beliefs. This is a problem in the Western World that is continuing to create problems as immigration and the free flow of information change the structure and nature of societies throughout the world. Just as Religious Terrorists throughout the world strike out against secular targets, so does the ultra-secularists strike against any overt sign of religion.

Fareed Zakaria, my friend, now is the most important time for liberal democracies to exist in their truest form so that they may be a model of tolerance and peace between parties in the face of extremism and totalism.

Strong Moderate

Please Feel Free to Share Your Opinions!!


Links:

The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria -- Amazon.com

Zakaria: Islamic world should learn from Turkey court ruling -- CNN.com

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

Speak of the Taliban.. there they are!

Chaos in the streets. Men with automatic weapons and mortars. Attacks on diplomats and top government officials. People fleeing in terror. Military patrols and checkpoints allover.

Sounds like an average day in Baghdad, but this was in fact the scene in Afghanistan after a failed attempt on the life of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, high-ranking government officials, and diplomats during a celebration over the triumph over the Soviets. Approximately six Taliban sympathizers came out of a building or possibly were hiding behind a barricade and armed with automatic weapons and mortars began firing on the dignitaries. Most news reports say that 3 people were killed and a few dozen wounded by the attack.

The question however remains that after Karzai reacts initially to this attack how will he react to this brazen attack. This attack bears a very striking resemblance to the 1981 attack on Anwar Sadat of Egypt with killed the Egyptian leader and led to a state-of-emergency that remains until today. Will Karzai, who just two days ago told the US military to stop going after Taliban militants, gravitate towards martial law and strengthen his executive power or will he focus on pinpoint raids and arrests of Taliban militants?

Tragedy of this type puts Afghanistan at a crossroads, what will they do about militants of the opposition? Can they move beyond putting down rebellions and opposition using blunt-force or do they still have some maturation as a nation to go?

Liberal or illiberal Democracy, Karzai. You decide.


Links:

CNN Story Here
StrongModerate's Story on Karzai's demand of US military Here

Afghan President: Stop Killing Taliban

What is politics if not just a random mess of relationships and interests?

Yesterday in a interview with the New York Times, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that coalition (NATO) forces, especially US forces, stop targeting and killing Taliban militants because they are killing civilians. He suggests that the US military go after "terror sanctuaries" in the wildly unstable Pakistani frontier lands across the Afghan border.

What does this all mean though?

Does he like terrorism and the Taliban now? Has he entered some kind of unholy alliance with his enemies? The answer to those questions is No. What did happen was that like any politician when you start seeing an election coming up you must ruffle your feathers and sing to the tune of the electorate. The Afghan elections are just around the corner and one of the top issues on Afghan minds is being more independent AND reducing the number of casualties from military strikes of villages. On the issue of further sovereign independence (at least topically) Karzai absolutely needs the US and NATO troops in his country to hold it all together because his Afghan Army is weaker than most militias in Iraq, so Karzai instead of enacting real change that would anger his closest allies he has opted to try to solve the problem by changing the image of the US forces.

The Taliban are still out there and attacking Afghan targets but there is no way that any military action will oust them from their positions in Afghanistan and Pakistan . The only way to oust a political foe who is among the people is have the people turn against them, and with significant amounts of villagers and innocent civilians being killed by US air strikes the people are angry at the US military and the government for not protecting them. So, Karzai's move is partially targeted towards answering the people's cry for help and partially targeted towards bringing down the popularity of Taliban and other renegade forces in the far reaches of his country. He figures, most logically, that if the majority of Afghan casualties are caused by Taliban attacks (such as one of the most recent on a police station) the people will slowly turn against them, and according to every piece of military literature (including the US War College's study on insurgency) when an insurgency loses the backing of the people it will fade out of existence very quickly.

However, I know a few of you reading this must be outraged wondering how this "peaceful" approach would ever work against groups who are so ideologically driven to kill people. My approach to the problem would be more two-pronged, part precise military intervention and part peaceful interaction. The US military is a beautiful machine of force, capable of either leveling a country or two simultaneously or silently putting a bullet in someone with ever being detected. The military is currently using its big hammer to crush targets in Afghanistan, which is not the best instrument to use when it comes to an insurgency-like movement. Instead the US military and coalition forces should be focusing on Special Operations (even more) in order to exact scalpel-like efficiency in removing and arresting the Taliban's key members, and to keep civilians happy, publicize the Afghan Army's a role in them.

Terrorists must be dealt with no doubt, but air strikes and large show of force attacks do more to help insurgencies by scaring and killing civilians.

Links:

New York Times article: Here
MSNBC Story: On Karzai's Comments
CNN Story: On the Afghan Police attacked

Something Strange in Syria... and Suspicous in the US

Today the Pentagon, White House and CIA all came out with their report about the Israeli air strike on Syria. They now claim that the building bombed was probably a nuclear reactor meant for "non-peaceful purposes" that was mere weeks away from being operational. Something about the
whole situation is a little fishy.

First of all, it is illegal and an act of war to violate the airspace of a sovereign country (and bomb it, incidentally) but of course legality and such things are of no real concern for the Israeli government so we move on...

The real issue at hand here however is "why now?" Eight months after the "Operation Orchard" bombing why would the CIA and others suddenly come forward with this information, especially since the White House and others response to it at the time was "No Comment"? Is the White House trying to: 1) ramp up support for some kind of military mis-adventure, 2) try to sabotage their own 6-party talks with North Korea, whom they allege were the technicians behind the nuclear facilities, 3) or perhaps trying to sabotage any hopes of Syria and their neighbor, Iraq, having any positive relations (because obviously Syria is waaay worse then Iraq's cozying up to Iran). All the options seem quiet depressing and just stupid, strange, and/or suspicious.

Another question that should be posed is why, if the US Intelligence system could pinpoint a "WMD-lab truck" in Iraq back in 2003 did our intelligence services not catch this allegedly nearly finished nuclear facility until the Israelis informed us they were going to bomb it. The CIA states that they have been tracking this facility since 1997 when North Korean and Syrian officials met near the site of the nuclear facility which means this site should have been under surveillance for the past eleven years. Doesn't this mean that Syria probably would have been a better candidate for invasion in 2003? They at least had a facility supposedly being built that was almost capable of creating nuclear materials, which is much further along than Saddam ever got. I guess this just goes to prove that these neo-conservatives have been obsessed with invading Iraq ever since their 1998 letter to President Clinton asking him to intervene with troops into Iraq.

Once again we are forced to sigh and ponder how an administration could become so obsessed with their own fantasy of democratic triumph and American victory that they forgot to truly weigh the matter...

Links:

CNN Story Here

UPDATE
CNN Story on reaction to the story Here