LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 22/09
Bible Reading of the
day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to Saint Mark 3,1-6. Again he entered the synagogue. There was a man
there who had a withered hand. They watched him closely to see if he would cure
him on the sabbath so that they might accuse him. He said to the man with the
withered hand, "Come up here before us." Then he said to them, "Is it lawful to
do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to
destroy it?" But they remained silent. Looking around at them with anger and
grieved at their hardness of heart, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
He stretched it out and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and
immediately took counsel with the Herodians against him to put him to death.
Melito of Sardis (?-195), Bishop
Paschal homily, 71-73 (SC 123, p.99f.)/"Grieved at their hardness of heart"
He is the lamb that was dumb; he is the lamb that was sacrificed; he who was
born of Mary, the gentle young ewe. He it was who was taken out of the flock and
led to death, slaughtered at evening, buried at night..., to rise from the dead
and restore life to man from the depths of the tomb. He was put to death, then.
And put to death where? At the heart of Jerusalem. Why? Because he healed their
lame, cleansed their lepers, restored their blind to the light and raised their
dead (Lk 7,22). That is why he suffered. It is written in the Law and the
prophets: «They repay me evil for good; my soul is forlorn. They have plotted
evil against me, saying: 'Let us bind up the just man since he is hateful to
us'» (cf. Ps 38[37],21; Jer 11,19).
Why have you committed this nameless crime? You have dishonoured him who
honoured you; you have humiliated him who exalted you; you have denied him who
acknowledged you; you have rejected him who called you, killed him who gave you
life... It was necessary that he should suffer, but not at your hands. It was
necessary that he be humiliated, but not by you. It was necessary that he be
judged, but not by you. It was necessary that he be crucified, but not at your
hands. Here are the words you should have cried out to God: «O Master, if it is
necessary that your Son should suffer, if that is indeed your will, then let him
suffer – yet not through me.»
Free Opinions, Releases, letters &
Special Reports
Seven reasons for healthy
skepticism-By:
Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris
21/01/09
The meaning of the Gaza
war-Jerusalem
Post 21/01/09
Leaping into the
Crocodile Cage-By James G. AbourezkMedia Monitors Network 21/01/09
Inaugural Address
Failed to Inspire.
Gaza Children
Sacrificed to a Malevolent God.by Rand Simberg 21/01/09
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for January 21/09
Israeli troops complete
Gaza withdrawal-CNN
International
Israel partially
reopens three Gaza crossing points
World leaders welcome
Barack Obama-Los
Angeles Times
Obama Seeks Halt to
Guantanamo Trials-Voice
of America
Obama to Name Lebanese-Irish as Mideast Envoy-Naharnet
Suleiman: States Should Deal with Lebanon through Official Channels-Naharnet
Long-Awaited Jumblat-Raad
Meeting Will Finally Take Place-Naharnet
Jumblat Fears Bargain over Hariri Tribunal, Phone-Tap-Naharnet
Mughniyeh Retaliation Still Haunts Israel-Naharnet
Influx of Russian Hardware
Boosts Lebanese State Control-Naharnet
Lebanese Army, UNIFIL Look
For Suspicious Objects-Naharnet
Belgian Contingent to
Close Field Hospital-Naharnet
Qassem: Defense Strategy
is to Strengthen Lebanon and Not Score Political Points-Naharnet
The Druze Sect Supports
Suleiman-Naharnet
Nasrallah Congratulates
Hamas-Naharnet
Hizbullah Welcomes Hamas
Victory in Gaza-Naharnet
Iran Urges New Middle East
Foreign Policy From Obama, Waiting to See 'Practical Policies' on Iran-Naharnet
Iraq Willing to See U.S.
Troops Leave Early-Naharnet
IAEA to Investigate Gaza
Uranium Ammunition Allegations-Naharnet
Iran Warns BBC Tehran
Staff Not to Help Farsi Service-Naharnet
Jumblat Fears Bargain over Hariri
Tribunal, Phone-Tap
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist party leader Walid Jumblat was concerned that
some sides would consider hindering the work of the international tribunal to
try suspects in the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri and related
crimes. Jumblat also expressed concern over the establishment of a new wiretap
monitoring department at the ministry of telecommunications which he said "could
aim at bugging calls and blocking efforts by the International Commission
probing the Hariri crime." "Do they want to block the international tribunal?"
he asked. Telecommunications Minister Jibran Bassil retorted that "what is
happening is a center to detect phone calls."A well-informed source told the
daily Al Liwaa that the PSP would follow up reports on the matter "to make sure
there are no bad intentions aimed at blocking the international tribunal."
Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 10:06
Mughniyeh Retaliation Still
Haunts Israel
Naharnet/Israel was still worried
that Hizbullah would avenge the assassination of its top military commander Imad
Mughniyeh ahead of the first anniversary of his killing which falls on Feb. 12,
al-Manar TV said on its website. It quoted Israeli media as saying that latest
intelligence assessments still believed that Hizbullah was planning a
retaliatory attack. Mughniyeh was assassinated in a car bombing in Damascus Feb.
12, 2008. Hizbullah, which blamed Israel for the killing, said it will avenge
Mughniyeh's death. Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 12:31
Suleiman: States Should Deal
with Lebanon through Official Channels
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman
told Lebanese community members in Kuwait on Wednesday that foreign countries
should deal with Lebanon through official channels. "States should deal with
Lebanon through official channels regarding major issues that are of interest to
Lebanese," he said at the Lebanese embassy in Kuwait. The president also
stressed that only a strong state is capable of protecting the Lebanese people.
The official Lebanese stance during the Israeli war on Gaza and consensus on the
need to avoid any Israeli attack on Lebanon prevented the expansion of the
Jewish state's aggression into Lebanese territories, Suleiman said.
"Every time the Lebanese unite around their national institutions, led by the
Lebanese army, they overcome all challenges facing their nation," the president
said.
About the reconciliation among Arab leaders and the Israeli war on Gaza,
Suleiman said: "The Arab-Arab reconciliation at the Kuwait summit unfortunately
was not met with a brave Arab stance against the Israeli enemy."The president
also thanked Kuwait for helping Lebanon and supporting the government.
Suleiman left Kuwait Wednesday after holding talks with Emir Sheikh Sabah
al-Ahmad al-Sabah. Suleiman said Tuesday that Arab and Palestinian interests are
achieved through solidarity, adding "Arabism is the common denominator for Arab
dignity." In an address at the closing session of the first Arab Economic Summit
in Kuwait, Suleiman said: "This conference is a start. We shall remain true to
our promises that every fruitful initiative allows us to further establish
awareness. Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 11:53
Long-Awaited Jumblat-Raad
Meeting Will Finally Take Place
Naharnet/The long-awaited
reconciliation between the Progressive Socialist Party and Hizbullah will
finally take place on Wednesday, a first step toward resolving problems of the
past and patching up differences. Press reports said Lebanese Democratic Party
leader Talal Arslan, who has been acting as a broker, will host a meeting at his
residence Wednesday evening between PSP leader Walid Jumblat and Hizbullah
official Mohammed Raad. The daily As Safir said the meeting is aimed at ensuring
a peaceful and calm climate following the events of May last year when Hizbullah
seized most of west Beirut during fighting between opposition and government
supporters. The governing March 14 coalition said Hizbullah's battle was a
"coup" aimed at restoring the influence of Syria and Iran. Hizbullah-allied
Christian leader Gen. Michel Aoun said at the time that Hizbullah's actions had
helped to restore Lebanon's political equilibrium. Al Liwaa newspaper, however,
said Jumblat and Raad are also expected to tackle Hizbullah's defense strategy.
Raad told As Safir that the meeting will be a continuation of efforts made in
the past in order to have "political clam and soft political speeches."Arslan,
meanwhile, expressed satisfaction with the meeting that will take place at his
mansion in Khalde on the coastal highway south of Beirut.He said in remarks
published by As Safir that the meeting is "itself a major achievement." Beirut,
21 Jan 09, 08:45
Influx of Russian Hardware Boosts Lebanese State
Control
Naharnet/With Israel in a fragile cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza to the south,
the Lebanese army is for the first time getting some serious military muscle,
including its first fighter jets in decades. The influx of hardware begins with
Russia, which is trying to increase its influence again in the Mideast. Moscow's
decision last month to provide Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets comes at a
sensitive time, with Israel just out of its second major armed confrontation in
two years against neighboring militant groups. The offer was made before Israel
launched its offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers on Dec. 27 to stop rocket
fire from militants on southern Israeli communities, but the conflict has made
it all the more significant. Separate cease-fires declared by Israel and Hamas
went into effect Sunday, ending fighting that has killed about 1,300
Palestinians, according to Palestinian medical officials. Thirteen Israelis also
have been killed.
Lebanon says it needs more hardware to ensure control of its southern border.
During the Gaza fighting, militants fired rockets from southern Lebanon into
Israel, prompting Israeli artillery fire.
The United States and Europe have long had an ambivalent attitude toward
Lebanon's 60,000-member army — wanting to beef it up as a lever against
Hizbullah.
At the same time, the U.S. and Europe fear that too much military hardware could
enable the Lebanese to use it against Israel.
Either way, Russia's military grant to Lebanon triggered an immediate reaction,
with Washington promising Beirut a few days later to deliver tanks.
"Support for the Lebanese armed forces remains a pillar of our Lebanon policy,"
said David Hale, a deputy U.S. assistant secretary of state. "We are working ...
to deliver modern M-60 tanks to Lebanon by the spring of 2009 and we're
preparing a new package of assistance including close air support capability
with precision weapons and urban combat gear."
The U.S. has committed $410 million in security assistance to Lebanon since
2006. Most has gone to logistics, communications, equipment, flak jackets,
vehicles and training. In late December, the U.S. delivered 72 Humvees to
Lebanon, bringing the total to 350 since 2006. A U.S. Embassy statement said 275
more Humvees will be sent by the end of this year.
For years, Lebanon's military was dismissed at home and abroad as little more
than an internal security force. The army was rebuilt after splintering along
sectarian lines during the 1975-1990 civil war and has primarily taken the role
of paramilitary police.
It has largely stayed out of the frequent battles between Israeli forces and
Hizbullah in southern Lebanon. But after the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war, the army
sent thousands of troops to southern Lebanon alongside U.N. peacekeepers in the
border zone.
Lebanon has virtually no air force — about 30 unarmed helicopters and several
1950s-era British-made Hawker Hunter jets — and no effective air defense system.
Israel routinely flies reconnaissance missions over Lebanon unchallenged. But
Mideast analysts don't believe that 10 Russian-made fighter jets will tip the
regional military balance, which remains heavily in Israel's favor. "The
acquisition of 10 aircraft has more morale impact than material impact in the
field," said retired Lebanese general Amin Hteit. The Russian offer gives Moscow
an opportunity to play a role in the Middle East, where its influence waned
after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many Lebanese see the move as a sign of international commitment to their
government as it seeks to control the south.
"Russia wants to be on the Mediterranean. It seeks to play a role, but it also
wants to stress Lebanese sovereignty," Charles Ayoub, a former air force pilot
and publisher of Addiyar newspaper, said in a TV interview. Israeli analyst
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said
Moscow's move "is part of the distancing of Lebanon from the West."
Nevertheless, Israeli government reaction has been supportive because Israel
would prefer to have the Lebanese army and not Hizbullah in charge of the south.
"The Lebanese state needs to be able to meet the challenges of armed militia,
who under U.N. resolutions need to be disarmed," Foreign Ministry spokesman
Yigal Palmor said in Jerusalem, alluding to Hizbullah.(AP) Beirut, 21 Jan 09,
10:36
Belgian Contingent to Close Field Hospital
Naharnet/The Belgian contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
announced on Tuesday that the 2nd field hospital at the southern village of
Tibnin would close next month. "The Belgian hospital has been serving the
Lebanese since 2006, up to the time when the Belgian government decided to shut
it down by the end of February 2009," the contingent said in statement. It added
that the Belgian government is to invest $4 million to rehabilitate the public
hospital of Tibnin.
According to an agreement between the Belgian and Lebanese governments, the 2nd
Field Hospital would stop receiving cases that require long care beginning
February 15. The hospital is to fully cease providing medical services and
consultations beginning March 6. Moreover, the Belgian-Luxembourg contingent
that would replace the current contingent by mid-February would drop down to
only 220 elements. The Belgian government last November decided to move the
field hospital with its equipment and personnel to another location in the
second half of 2009. Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 11:05
Qassem: Defense Strategy is to Strengthen Lebanon
and Not Score Political Points
Naharnet/Hizbullah's Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naeem Qassem has said
Lebanon's defense strategy is aimed at making the country stronger.
"The defense strategy is to strengthen Lebanon and not for achieving political
gains that major states, Israel and conspiracies failed to confront or achieve,"
Qassem said during a celebration honoring media figures on Tuesday. "Gaza is
victorious because it resisted and was steadfast. Its victory cannot be measured
by the number of martyrs, wounded, destroyed homes and missile attacks on it
(Gaza) but through the failure in achieving Israeli objectives," he said.
"Israel lost because it did not achieve its objectives. The real problem in our
region is with the Zionist occupation and not with the act of resistance,"
Qassem said.
He added that the reconciliation of Arab leaders in Kuwait would serve
Palestinian rights. Qassem addressed Arab leaders, saying: "When you allow your
peoples to freely speak as they (Israelis) allow their people to freely speak,
then you will be stronger through us in facing … Israeli schemes." "Today in
Lebanon we are operating under clear foundations, we speak our mind openly. As
you are aware there were many attempts to tarnish our relationship with the
president of the republic. I previously mentioned that we have good relations
with him, let no one play with this issue," Qassem said. "If we have something
to say, then we will do so in front of friend and foe," he added. Beirut, 21 Jan
09, 09:53
The Druze Sect Supports Suleiman
The Druze sect on Tuesday declared that only President Michel Suleiman has the
right to speak of Lebanon's national interests. The spiritual head of the Druze
sect Sheikh Naim Hassan made the stand in a statement that also praised the
stance adopted by Suleiman during the Doha meeting and Kuwait Summit. Such a
stand "reflects the national principles that mirror Lebanon's determination on
playing a role of entente in the Arab World," Sheikh Hassan said. He welcomed
the inter-Arab reconciliation achieved on the sidelines of the Kuwait summit,
saying it had a positive impact on the Arab peoples. "We look forward to a
lasting cease-fire in Gaza," Hassan concluded. Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 21:38
Nasrallah Congratulates Hamas
Naharnet/Hamas on Tuesday said Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has
congratulated its politburo chief Khaled Meshaal for the "victory achieved by
confronting the Zionist aggression on Gaza." The statement said Nasrallah made
his greeting in a telephone call to Meshaal who is based in Damascus, the Syrian
capital. "Nasrallah recalled that "it is the second Zionist defeat in two years
and a half," the Hamas statement said in reference to the "divine victory" that
Hizbullah says it scored in its 2006 war with Israel in Lebanon. Nasrallah also
praised the "heroic confrontations by heroes of the Palestinian resistance who
were united in the field, spearheaded by Hamas," according to the statement.
Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 20:15
Hizbullah Welcomes Hamas Victory in Gaza
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Tuesday said the 22-day war on Gaza resulted in victory
for the "resistance in Palestine" that would be reflected on the region. Bilal
Naim, member of Hizbullah's Central Council, praised the "historic steadfastness
by the Palestinian people in Gaza." Such self-declared victory would "be
reflected on the region, and its reflection would be similar to the victory
achieved by the Islamic resistance (Hizbullah) in Lebanon." Beirut, 20 Jan 09,
20:01
Iran Urges New Middle East Foreign Policy From
Obama, Waiting to See 'Practical Policies' on Iran
Naharnet/Iran's Foreign Minister is urging President Barack Obama to change
American Middle East policies. But he says Iran will wait before making any
specific judgments about Obama's positions on Iran. Manouchehr Mottaki is quoted
by the official IRNA news agency as saying Wednesday that Iran will wait for
"practical policies" from the new American president before making any judgment
about Obama's stance on Iran. The minister also said George Bush's
administration followed a policy of waging wars that created hatred. Tensions
between the United States and Iran are high with U.S. accusations that Tehran is
seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The two countries have not had diplomatic
ties since the 1979 overthrow of U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. (AP
Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 12:34
Iran Warns BBC Tehran Staff Not to Help Farsi
Service
Naharnet/Iran on Wednesday warned the BBC Tehran bureau against contributing to
the network's newly launched Farsi-language television channel, which is banned
from operating in Iran, Fars news agency reported. "BBC English channel will be
confronted if it abuses its legal rights by producing reports for BBC Persian
and we are continually on watch for that," Culture Minister Mohammad Hossein
Saffar Harandi said. "This Persian channel is not planned with good intentions
and they reflect the same issues differently in Persian and English services,"
said Harandi, whose ministry is in charge of licensing and monitoring foreign
media.
He reiterated that the Farsi-language BBC channel is banned from "presence and
making field reports in Iran" and warned local journalists against cooperating
with it.
"BBC and Britain have a clear record of inciting unrest and provoking different
groups against each other in countries," he said, according to the ILNA news
agency.
BBC Persian TV began broadcasting on January 14, aimed at around 100 million
Farsi speakers in the region -- 70 million in Iran, 20 million in Afghanistan
and 10 million in Tajikistan and central Asia. The BBC has had a radio service
in Farsi since 1940 and has a Farsi-language website used by 700,000 people
worldwide, the British public broadcaster said. The British government is
providing 15 million pounds (23 million dollars) a year for the Farsi service.
Despite a ban on satellite television, dishes dot Iranian rooftops with dozens
of U.S. and Europe-based Farsi channels -- including the Voice of America
Persian service -- broadcasting a daily dose of politics and entertainment to
Iran. International news agencies, a number of foreign television networks and
newspapers have correspondents based in Iran. "News agencies are different from
BBC Persian and the issue is a medium launched in our language and focused on
Iran," the minister said. "They (BBC Farsi) want to carry out some operations
and we should not naively allow them."(AFP) Beirut, 21 Jan 09, 11:55
The meaning of the Gaza war
By YOSSI ALPHER
Jerusalem Post/The Gaza war rendered an Israeli-Palestinian two-state peace
agreement more difficult and more distant. And it probably changed the incoming
American president's order of priorities in ways the government of Israel - both
this one and the next one - will have to adjust to quickly and flexibly.
The Israel-Arab related issues that Barack Obama will face upon assuming the
presidency now begin, unexpectedly, with the ugly unfinished business of Gaza.
The efforts being made to ensure that rockets and other ordnance can no longer
be smuggled into Gaza have yet to bear fruit. It is lamentable that it took an
ugly war to prod Egypt and the international community - led by the United
States, which signed a memorandum of understanding with Israel in this regard on
the eve of Obama's presidency - into acting on this issue. But nothing has
happened yet, and if Obama wants to avoid another round of fighting in Gaza, he
will have to ensure that the effort succeeds.
By the same token, there is only a temporary cease-fire in and around Gaza, the
IDF is still deployed inside the Strip, and the Gaza passages remain closed to
all but humanitarian aid. Here too, the road to renewal of the fighting is
short. One way to ensure that the ceasefire holds is for Obama to reevaluate the
heavy restrictions that Israel and the Quartet, with Egyptian and PLO support,
placed a year and a half ago on contact with Hamas and on open commerce with
Gaza. This war demonstrated that Hamas, even if (hopefully) defanged, is here to
stay. Obama, the new leader on the block, is well situated to effect a new
departure with regard to engaging Hamas - just as he intends to engage Iran and
Syria - and opening the Gaza-Israel passages to commerce, thereby reversing a
foolish and counter-productive policy.
The Gaza post-war humanitarian situation, too, will need Obama's attention. As
matters currently stand, the provision of western aid - intended not only to
help Gazans rebuild but to counter Iranian aid and influence - requires a PLO
presence in Gaza, which Hamas may or may not be persuaded to concur with. This
issue may dovetail with Egypt's hopes to bring Hamas back into unity government
talks with Abbas' PLO. If those talks succeed, they could within the year
produce new Palestinian elections that Hamas might win, thereby putting paid to
any near-term aspirations to negotiate a two-state solution. Those who speak
approvingly of "Palestinian unity" should now beware of what they wish for.
THE CONVENTIONAL wisdom in some quarters holds that the Gaza war will oblige
Obama to award the Israeli-Palestinian peace process higher priority on his
Middle East "to do" list than he originally might have intended. I doubt it.
Obama will quickly discover that the war weakened Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas (Abu Mazen). And Israel's Feb. 10 elections are liable to produce a new
Israeli government less interested in removing settlements and negotiating a
final status agreement than its predecessor or, if interested, no more capable.
Meanwhile, Syria beckons. The prospects for a Syria-Israel peace process
weathered this war well; the only casualty may have been Turkish mediation,
reflecting the vociferous anti-Israel pose struck during the war by Turkish PM
Recep Tayyip Erdogan. If the ranks of militant Islam in the Middle East were
struck a blow in this war by the damage done to Hamas and by Hizballah's refusal
to open a second, northern front, a successful Israeli-Syrian peace process
would make a far larger contribution by blunting Iran's drive for hegemony in
the Levant, weakening Hizballah, contributing a quiet Syrian-Iraqi border to
facilitate a US withdrawal from Iraq, and removing Hamas' headquarters from
Damascus.
This would be good for Obama's Iran and Iraq agendas and, by weakening Hamas,
good for his Israeli-Palestinian agenda. Of course, success with Syria and
Israel is far from a certainty. But it is definitely more feasible under current
circumstances than success with Abu Mazen and the next Israeli government.
Apropos Turkey's performance during this war, Obama now confronts a Middle East
even more divided. Egypt, backed by Saudi Arabia and the PLO, cooperated closely
with Israel and reestablished its traditional claim to courageous Arab
leadership, while Israel reinforced its role as primary regional military power.
On the other hand, Qatar and Turkey seemingly sided with the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas
camp and Jordan sat on the fence. Obama's Middle East strategy requires a large
measure of regional cooperation; in this regard, his job just became a little
harder.
**The writer is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at
Tel Aviv University.
Bitterlemons.org
Leaping into the Crocodile Cage
by James G. Abourezk
(Tuesday, January 20, 2009)
"I tend to think Obama is up to the task of repairing all the destruction
brought about in a mere eight years by George Bush. But, as we always must ask,
does he have the political will to do so?"
One wonders, looking at America after eight years of George W. Bush's
destructive policies and actions, why anyone would want to go through the
struggle to win the presidency. A quick survey of the United States among the
world's nations should be enough to discourage anyone from wanting to wade
through the cesspool of a presidential campaign only to find a congregation of
crocodiles waiting at its end.
From its high point shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when the sympathy of the
civilized world was with us, America's image around the world has been
systematically shredded by Bush and his cabal of neocons, along with other
assorted right-wing policymakers.
There is no nation worth mentioning that has a favorable opinion of us as a
country. Although other countries still admire us as a people, and long for the
same freedoms we have had, thanks to Bush's policies we are stuck with the
vision of America as an arrogant bully, throwing our military weight around,
seeking to vanquish any small country that dares to defy us. Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo have become America's brand names around the world.
Our leaders have refused to discuss anything at all with countries we consider
to be misbehaving. Iran is most likely pursuing nuclear weapons, although it
vehemently denies it. We have given political support and money to Israel to
plunder and destroy its neighbors, and we have invaded and occupied Iraq, with
the result that the entire Middle East has become more unstable than ever.
Bush's war in Iraq has negatively affected millions of people inside Iraq with
the resulting ethnic hatreds that have been stirred there, causing the movement
of millions either to other parts of Iraq, or to Syria and Jordan, where more
than two and a half million Iraqis have sought to escape the violence brought
about by our invasion. As a footnote, we have taken in fewer than 1,000 Iraqi
refugees.
Domestically, as everyone knows, our economy has completely tanked, leaving
millions of elderly people who once had adequate retirement savings looking for
jobs, something not easy to do at their age. The same is true for families who
had been saving for their children's college. Before the economy dealt everyone
a blow, I had been saying, "I wonder what else George Bush could do before he
leaves office?"
Now we know.
The president's policy of tax cuts for the super-rich, always supported by
cowardly Democrats in Congress, caused a massive shift of money from the middle
class to giant corporations and rich individuals. His attitude toward regulation
of the financial markets, again supported by congressional Democrats, brought
about the massive bank failures we have recently witnessed, largely because
these giants were allowed to operate without any regulation whatever. They
bought subprime mortgages without thinking, packaged them and sold them to
investors, along with worthless insurance policies, which they ingeniously
called "credit default swaps." When investors could no longer collect on the
mortgages with rapidly increasing interest rates, those holdings slid into
bankruptcy. The giant banks and brokerages then begged the U.S. government for a
socialist remedy—that is, for the government to buy shares of their stock in
exchange for a "bailout."
During all this, Bush was as invisible as he was during the first hours of the
9/11 attack, leaving the front work to be done by his Treasury secretary, Henry
Paulson.
Domestic Challenges
Added to all this is the work that must be done on America's crumbling
infrastructure, such as the nation's bridges, roads and other public fixtures.
One issue that most politicians are loath to discuss is the crucial need for a
national railway passenger system. Most likely, political leaders are silent
because they are beholden to the airline industry and the highway lobby.
It's hard to explain how Europe can afford national health care for all its
citizens, as well as efficient rail transportation, and we cannot. Perhaps it's
because Europeans, since WWII, have been intelligent enough to stay out of
costly wars when we have not.
On occasion, American political leaders will stumble over one or two solutions
to what is going to be a major energy crisis by chanting, "drill, baby, drill."
But with only 3 percent of the world's energy here in America, and with us using
24 percent of that same energy, the only real solution that Barack Obama will
have to come up with is to develop, in a big hurry, all the alternative sources
of energy he talked about during his campaign. But in order to use less oil,
reduce pollution, provide public service jobs to put the nation back to work, he
will have to promote a national rail system similar to those in Europe and in
Japan. They are shining examples of what a nation can do when the need for
transportation arises. For the money to fund a rail system, we could easily use
the $10 billion a month that is currently being spent on the destruction of
Iraq.
Such a system has been blocked here due to cries of "socialism," a cry that has
worked so well so far that we have been deprived of a rail system, not to
mention national health care. Interestingly, the complaints about socialism are
now drowned out by the giant banks' begging and pleading for government money to
save their own necks.
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist, has estimated that before we are
finished in Iraq, the total cost to the American taxpayer will be around $3
trillion. That's enough for a couple of national rail systems.
Calming the Warhawks
Obama will also be required to calm the warhawks in our society by opening
negotiations with Iran and Syria. And he must, first of all, tell the Israelis
that if they intend to invade Iran, they will get no support from America. It's
fairly easy to see what the Israelis are up to there—they want to start
something militarily with Iran, expecting America to come to their aid when Iran
starts to retaliate. That, of course, would be an even bigger mistake than
invading Iraq, and we can only hope Obama sees it that way.
Our new president could take up Syria and Iran on their offer to make the Middle
East a nuclear weapons-free zone, which would mean that Israel would have to
destroy its more than 200 nuclear warheads. With that, Obama could end the
Middle East arms race in one fell swoop.
He could also get serious about making peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, unlike the phony peace efforts both Bill Clinton and George Bush
embarked upon, knowing they would be without success.
The problem is that during the campaign Obama kowtowed so deeply to the Israel
Lobby that we can't be certain he would be very insistent that Israel actually
get serious about a peace deal. Looking at his campaign advisers doesn't give
much reason for hope in that area. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz,
three dozen or so Zionists joined both the McCain and Obama campaigns.
I tend to think Obama is up to the task of repairing all the destruction brought
about in a mere eight years by George Bush. But, as we always must ask, does he
have the political will to do so?
To avoid being eaten by the crocodiles, he will have to use some fancy
footwork--but, as we saw during his campaign, he apparently knows how.
**James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD) and founder of the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He gets featured on Media Monitors
Network (MMN) with the courtesy of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Gaza Children Sacrificed to a Malevolent God
Hamas manipulated the deaths of their own offspring to appease the ravenous
media.
January 18, 2009 - by Rand Simberg
Pajamas Media;
Thousands of years ago, in the Middle East, cradle not just of civilization but
of many gods, was a deity named Moloch. Today, he would be considered a pagan
god by those of the one God of Abraham, with whom he long coexisted. But in that
time, he prevailed for centuries. Like the God of Abraham, he was an angry god
(though not clearly a jealous one). But the God of Abraham was more complex, and
— at least later — merciful, and also loving.*
Moloch was a lot simpler. He was purely malevolent, and basically an
extortionist — one that any modern gangster would recognize and admire.
His deal was basically this: “I am the bringer of the sun. Nice little city you
have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, like the crops dying
because the sun didn’t show up. I can make sure that doesn’t happen. I don’t ask
much — a temple with priests and ritual prostitutes, and an occasional
sacrifice.”
His representative in the temple was an upright bull with horns and crown,
gaping mouth, and outstretched arms. On sacrifice days, within him raged a fire.
The crowds would gather around and chant, and the drums would beat, and the
ungodly din would drown out the screams of unknowing infant terror and keening
mothers. Babies were brought up to the arms of Moloch, and through an ancient
ingenious mechanism, raised up to his mouth to cruelly plummet them to the
inferno below.
And to reinforce the tradition, the sun continued to shine.
But eventually, the God of Abraham became dominant in the Middle East, with
three major religions worshiping him. Moloch was abandoned.
Fast forward to the early twenty-first century in the Middle East. There is a
new child-sacrifice cult in the ancient land, albeit one that claims to be of
the God of Abraham.
This time, the purpose of the sacrifice is not to keep the sun shining and the
crops growing. This sacrifice is to placate the gods, or devils, in the news
media and to help the people achieve a much different and less laudable goal —
the extinction of another people.
In 2009, in the “Gaza strip,” one of the ancient Philistine cities, an Islamic
group called Hamas has the goal to, as part of its charter, destroy all Jews in
creation.
It lacks the military resources or competence to do so for now, but it satisfies
itself with merely attempting, however ineffectually, to kill whatever Jews lie
within the range of its unguided rockets. While few of them hit their marks
(which, were they to satisfy their wont, would apparently be kindergartens and
ice-cream parlors, or wherever young Jews would most likely be present in the
highest density), they are of sufficient danger to continually disrupt the lives
of those at whom they are aimed, if such a word can be applied to so crude a
weapon.
But the crudity of the munitions is beside the point, isn’t it? What is
important is the intent.
Hamas wants Jewish children to die. The Jews want their children to live. Beyond
that, the Jews even want the children of Hamas to live. This is evidenced not
just by the pains and risk to their own troops they take to carefully target
those trying to kill them, and to minimize (though they cannot be eliminated,
for reasons explained shortly) the number of Hamas children hurt, to the point
of issuing warnings when they will be attacking their parents thus decreasing
the probability of killing the actual enemy. It is also demonstrated by their
willingness to take the wounded into their own hospitals for treatment when
permissible.
But herein lies the real asymmetry between the two sides. Hamas doesn’t merely
want to kill the Jewish children (though of course they do want to kill them,
for no other reason than that they are Jews, in accordance with their diabolical
charter). They are also willing and eager to sacrifice their own.
How?
In any way imaginable. They set up rocket-launching bases in schools, which will
become targets for retaliation. They establish military quarters in family
homes, where children can be counted on to be present. They even go so far as to
establish military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s largest hospital,
which will ensure that if they are attacked, not just children, but sick and
injured children, as well as sick and injured adults and their caregivers, will
be maimed or killed.
And they do not do this simply to protect themselves by using the young, sick,
and otherwise helpless as human shields, though that would be bad enough and is
a major war crime in and of itself. But apparently, it is a war crime that the
media dare not say its name.
No, they do it in the hope that those young — down to the babies, sick and,
helpless — will in fact be killed so that they can be paraded before their
allies, witting or otherwise, in the western media, to aid them in their goal of
at least temporarily ending the Jewish defensive onslaught upon them. This is
all done in the hope that that their enemy will, once again, be politically
defanged, and that once again, it will buy them time to rearm, with better
weaponry, and take up again their ultimate genocidal cause.
That they are not merely cowards, hiding behind infants’ diapers, but rather
actually desirous of the death of their own offspring is revealed by their own
words of indoctrination, in which they encourage their own children to become
martyrs to their evil cause. As further evidence that death is the intent, news
stories are offered by them to show the deaths, even when they didn’t
necessarily happen.
Moloch has returned to the Mideast, after millennia. Except this time, the maw
of the bull is the eye of the camera lens, into which the slaughter of the
innocents is fed to a complicit press to be passed on to a gullible world.
And this time, those sacrificing the children don’t want to drown out the noise
of the terrified screams of those tossed to the fire. The screams, and (as
always) the terror, are the whole point.
But at the rate things are going, perhaps the media’s sun, unlike Moloch’s, may
start to dim. If so, and if this behavior continues, those of us less morally
challenged will not fear the eclipse, but rather, will welcome it.
* Yes, no need to comment. I know about the sacrifice of Abraham. Please…
Seven reasons for healthy skepticism
By: Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris
January 20, 2009. … Even in a city of cynics, the Inauguration of a new
president — and the infusion of new ideas, new personalities and new energy that
comes with it — summons feelings of reverence.
Barack Obama, especially, is the object of inaugural good feelings. He has
assembled an impressive White House and Cabinet team. The country is clearly in
his corner. With the economy gasping, and two wars dragging on sullenly, even
many Republicans who ordinarily might enjoy seeing Obama fail now root for him
to succeed. The stakes are simply too great.
Amid all these high hopes, it may seem needlessly sour to point out why
expectations must be kept in check. But it is also realistic.
Here are seven reasons to be skeptical of Obama’s chances — and the Washington
establishment he now leads:
1. The genius fallacy
There is no disputing Obama has built a Cabinet of sharp and experienced public
officials. His staff, especially on national security and economic matters, is
often praised as brilliant — and that’s by Republicans.
But recent history teaches us to be wary of the larger-than-life Washington
figures supposedly striding across history’s stage. Consider the economy.
Everyone seems to agree Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner are smart, vastly
qualified to manage and repair the economy.
Everyone was saying the exact same things about the two economic geniuses of the
1990s: Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Now Rubin has been reduced to making
excuses for his involvement in high-risk investments and for helping oversee the
demise of Citigroup, which lost $10 billion in the past three months alone. The
onetime oracular Greenspan has admitted to Congress that his once-revered
economic philosophy had “a flaw,” and many blame him for turning a blind eye to
the housing bubble.
As it happens, the Obama economic team is full of Rubin protégés, including
Geithner and Summers. Geithner had to recently admit he failed to pay taxes on a
big chunk of income — as part of his confirmation process to run tax policy and
the Internal Revenue Service. As president of the New York Fed, he was
integrally involved in the decision not to rescue Lehman Bros., which many see,
in retrospect, as a grievous error.
The reception of the Obama economic team recalls the reception of President
George W. Bush’s foreign policy team eight years ago. Many Democrats applauded
the experience of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
As Bush named his national security team in 2000, The New York Times
editorialized: “Putting superstar players on the court does not always guarantee
harmony or success.” In retrospect, that was an understatement, indeed.
2. The herd instinct
The most bipartisan tradition in Washington is to laud bipartisanship, even
while lamenting that there is not enough of it.
But the instinct for bipartisanship overlooks an inconvenient fact: Some of
Washington’s biggest blunders occur when the government moves to do big things
with big support. Bush won the much-regretted Iraq war resolution of October
2002 with strong Democratic backing.
The current economic crisis produces similar pressure to get on board the train
— never mind for sure where it’s going.
It is easy to sympathize with the temptation. Top officials on Obama’s team told
us in recent days that things are much worse than most people appreciate. The
Obama staff and top lawmakers are getting stern warnings that the banking system
in particular is extremely fragile and could collapse. So they are moving with
amazing speed to pump money into the economy.
First up is the stimulus package that could top $900 billion. It is a
mind-numbing number rarely contemplated in U.S. history — and yet it might not
work. There are no guarantees people will spend money the government doles out
or that it will be enough to offset miserable economic performance elsewhere.
The history isn’t encouraging.
Rewind just a few months back. Republicans and Democrats alike said the best of
many bad options was to approve $700 billion to prop up banks, mainly to thaw
the credit freeze and juice the economy. Half the money is gone now. Many banks
took the cash and sat on it. Some used it increase lending. But much of it was
wasted or unaccounted for. Now Washington wants to spend the rest of it.
And a top Hill aide told Politico’s David Rogers that Democrats will probably
need to request even more.
3. We are broke.
The past several months have produced a rare convergence. Something that
politicians of both parties find pleasurable — spending money — has overlapped
with what economists and policy experts of all ideological stripes said is
urgently necessary. As “Saturday Night Live’s” Church Lady used to say, “How
convenient.”
One month from now, Democrats will likely have passed the massive stimulus bill
and Obama will have signed it into law. The new Treasury Department will be well
on its way to spending the second $350 billion chunk of the $700 billion bank
bailout fund.
After this rush of activity, the ability to spend during the balance of Obama’s
first term — never mind if there is a second — will be sharply constrained.
Instead, the new administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill will awaken to
another first: the prospect of the national deficit approaching $2 trillion. For
most, these numbers are simply too big to ponder. But ponder this: This country
has never reckoned with deficits like these.
Wait, it gets worse. Remember those entitlement programs the elderly and poor
need more than ever: Social Security and Medicare? In budget terms, they are
more troubled than ever.
Social Security’s surpluses “begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly
growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires,” according to one recent
report. “Medicare’s financial status,” the report said, “is even worse.”
Basically, the government needs more money than ever at a time when people are
losing jobs, income and confidence.
4. Words, words, words
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, though starkly different men, both viewed the
presidency as pre-eminently a decision-making job. Clinton often waved away
speech drafts bloated with lofty language by saying: “Words, words, words.”
Obama seems to have a different view of the presidency. He thinks that the right
decisions can be reached by putting reasonable and enlightened people together
and reaching a consensus. He believes his job as president is to educate and
inspire, largely matters of style.
He knows he is good with words. He knows he has great style. So that’s why he
projects exceptional confidence in his ability to do the job.
We don’t know yet how justified Obama is in his self-confidence — or how naive.
But he is almost certain to face many tests, probably imminently, in which the
test will be Obama’s ability to act quickly and shrewdly — and not merely
describe his actions smoothly or impress people with nuance. And an unlike a
governor — who must decide what’s in a budget and what gets cut, or whether a
person to be executed at midnight should be spared — Obama has not made many
decisions for which the consequences affect more than himself.
5. He rarely challenges the home team.
Obama frequently talks of the need to transcend partisanship. And he invokes his
support for charter schools — a not-terribly-controversial idea — as evidence
that he is willing to challenge Democratic special interest groups.
In fact, there are few examples of him making decisions during the campaign or
the transition that offended his own party’s constituencies, or using rhetoric
that challenged his own supporters to rethink assumptions or yield on a favored
cause.
Has Obama ever delivered a “Sister Souljah speech”? Ever stood up to organized
labor in the way that Clinton did in passing North American Free Trade
Agreement?
This is not a good sign. By Obama’s lights, the national interest usually
coincides with his personal interest. Back to you, Church Lady.
6. Everyone is winging it.
No matter how much confidence Obama or other politicians project, the reality is
the current economic crisis has totally scrambled the intellectual assumptions
of almost every policymaker. People who used to bemoan deficits want to spend
like crazy. Improvisation is the only proper response. But the chances that
improvisation will take the country to exactly the right destination — without
some serious wrong turns along the way — seem very slight.
7. The watchdogs are dozing.
The big media companies that once invested in serious accountability journalism
are shells of their former selves. The Tribune Co. — in other words, the Los
Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune — has slashed its Washington staff by more
than half. Newspaper chains such as Cox are fleeing D.C. altogether.
The end result: There are few reporters in this country doing the kind of
investigative reporting that hold government officials’ feet to the fire. Think
back eight years to the pre-Iraq war reporting and consider the words of Scott
McClellan in his otherwise humdrum book.
“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent
months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise,” McClellan
wrote. “In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If
it had, the country would have been better served.”
Rigorous reporting is even more important when you have one-party rule in
Washington. Democrats, like Republicans, are simply less likely to scrutinize a
president of their own. The end result here: Don’t expect the Democratic
Congress to investigate the Obama administration or hold a bunch of tough
oversight hearings. That means the only real check on Obama is the same one it’s
always been — the voters.