Overseas Roundup

Good Morning!

I haven't done one of these in a while...

If you haven't found your way to the wondrous website, "Watching America", you're missing one of the great treasures of the internets.

Starting in England, there's a story about Bush leading the charge against Burma now. If you haven't been following along, check out the news about this regime. You might have heard about Tibetan Monks leading a massive protest; I saw last night that Burmese authorities have begun a crackdown. Of course, with the United States that 'shining city upon a hill', I guess our side feels it necessary to ramp up the rhetoric. Without actually helping the opposition, of course.

George W. Bush, the US president, led a growing backlash against Burma's military regime yesterday, announcing new sanctions against its leaders and their financial backers.

The move came as the junta threatened to use force to quell growing demonstrations in Rangoon, the former capital, that were led by 10,000 Buddhist monks chanting "democracy".

Vehicles with loudspeakers toured the city declaring a 9pm-5am curfew and a ban on assemblies of more than five people.

"People are not to follow, encourage or take part in these marches. Action will be taken against those who violate this order," the loudspeakers blared.

On state media the night before, Brigadier-General Thura Myint Maung, the religious affairs minister, said young monks who persisted in fomenting opposition to military rule would face retribution "according to the law".

In New York, Mr Bush said the US would tighten economic sanctions and impose an extended visa ban on the worst human rights offenders and their families.

He urged UN member states to use diplomatic and economic leverage to "help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom".

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear," he told the UN General Assembly.

The US had previously imposed a wide range of sanctions on Burma. Other measures already included a ban on all imports from Burma, a ban on new investment in the country, a ban on the provision of financial services to the country, a visa ban on certain named government officials and an asset freeze of certain Burmese institutions.

In London, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, urged the European Union to tighten its sanctions "as soon as possible".

Asian analysts said that the latest threats against demonstrators, led by monks, echoed a warning issued before the crackdown against a monks' protest movement in Mandalay in 1990 when a handful of monks were shot, many were injured and hundreds more forcibly disrobed.

"I am really worried that there will be bloodshed soon if the international community does not intervene," said Win Min, a Burmese academic at Chiangmai University in northern Thailand.

At mass demonstrations in the heart of Rangoon, the capital, yesterday, young monks carried banners with pacifist slogans such as: "Loving kindness must win everything."

Although authorities again made no effort to intervene, military vehicles were parked a few hundred yards away at Bogyoke Market and near the goldencrusted Shwedagon Pagoda, Burma's largest and most venerated religious site.

"The stakes have been much higher today," said a western diplomat. "It is very difficult to know how [the military] are going to react. It is an amazing feeling, but the reality is that they are strong and ready to crack down."

Looking to the Middle East, I'm struck by a pair of dueling stories out of Israel, both on the recent visit of the Iranian President to Columbia University here in New York.

First, "Columbia was Right"

“What chutzpah, what hypocrisy!” said everyone: Politicians in Jerusalem and Washington, American-Jewish leaders, students at Columbia University – how dare a distinguished university invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to deliver a lecture? He must be silenced!

The calls to curb speech have become familiar and tired. Politicians are allowed to say this, and in any case it would be naïve to expect them to display openness to other views or the expression of views that contradict popular sentiment. Yet it’s irritating to hear the representatives of two leading social groups join this demagogic campaign: Academicians and journalists.

First of all, academicians: They should be the first ones to recognize the fact that universities are the only place that still maintains genuine commitment to the freedom of speech, and are at times an island of openness amid the wave of calls to curb speech – and it doesn’t matter whether the calls are directed at radical views on the Right or Left.

Therefore, it was unfortunate to hear serious and distinguished professors speaking out against the Columbia University president’s decision.”

The enthusiasm of editors and newscasters in the broadcast media and press who spoke out against Columbia University should also raise concerns. Journalists should be at the forefront of the struggle for the freedom of speech. It is good that they directed tough questions at Columbia University, but they should also direct such questions at those objecting to the Ahmadinejad visit. It would be appropriate for journalists to leave the populist statements for politicians.

Notably, freedom of speech is not meant to protect common and agreed-upon views. The objective of the freedom of speech is mostly to allow the voicing of different and annoying opinions. This is one of the most important rights given to a minority in a democratic regime, and this is the essence of democracy: Granting rights to minorities.

When is it proper to limit the freedom of speech? When there is substantive danger that the words will encourage listeners to engage in violent or racist acts. Does anyone believe that Ahmadinejad’s American audience was convinced that their country is the “kingdom of evil” and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth?

Therefore, the Columbia University dean was right to say that had it been possible, he would have invited Hitler as well. It would have

been appropriate, in the 1930s, to allow the Nazi leader to express his disgusting views within an academic framework, lecture on his doctrine, and confront the tough questions. This would have allowed the listeners to better understand him and assess the seriousness of his intentions regarding the Jews (as you may recall, many doubted that he intended to realize his fiendish plans.)

And now, the other side...."Columbia was Wrong"

The Iranian president, clearly enjoying every moment of the uproar he provoked in American discourse, parried the tough questions posed him at the end of his speech to 600 students and faculty Monday, Sept. 24, by throwing questions back, longwinded evasions and barefaced lies.

From his first words, Ahmadinejad showed that, far from being a potential partner for dialogue, he incarnates the arrogant, intolerant certainty that there is only one correct path, the one pursued by the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran. Even so, his glib, hectoring style of speech is known to grate on more than one of his colleagues at home.

As demonstrators rallied outside the campus, the Iranian president was asked if he supported terrorism. He replied that Iran was itself a victim of terrorism. He did not mention the US, but cited the camps in Iraq housing terrorists responsible for 4000 Iranian deaths, a transparent reference to the opposition Iranian Mujahedin Qalq. The Americans banned this group for many years, reactivating it last year in response to Iran’s massive aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting US troops.

Asked about his government’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said its intentions were peaceful. Therefore, he said: “Iran does not want the bomb.”

Ahmadinejad dodged the question about his declared wish to wipe Israel off the map by saying the Palestinians must have the freedom to self-determination. But at the end of his speech, he said: Iran has always sought friendly relations with all nations except for two, “the South African apartheid regime (which no long exists) and the Zionist regime.”

He thus obliquely reaffirmed his wish for the latter to go the same way as the former, off the map.

Regarding his denial of the Nazi Holocaust, he declared piously: “We academics must always pursue more research.”

Women are free and respected in Iranian culture, said the Iranian president with great solemnity, when asked why Iranian women were denied human rights. As to the execution of homosexuals, “We do not have homosexuals in our country like you,” said he with a straight face.

Interestingly, the Iranian president was not heckled or interrupted even once, even at his most outrageous. Some of his comments were greeted with applause. He clearly attained his main objective: a respectful hearing in the heart of a prestigious American center of learning in New York.

Ahmadinejad showed he was skeptical not only of the “Holocaust myth” but America’s affirmation of the “real hands” behind the 9/11 atrocities when he asked: “Who really did execute the attack?” This question will be understood in Arab and Muslim bazaars as echoing the anti-Semitic libel current there that the al Qaeda attack was a Zionist plot.

Even though Columbia University President Lee Bollinger greeted the Iranian visitor as “a cruel and petty tyrant and terrorist,” there is no gainsaying that he granted a coveted platform to a world figure who abused it to disseminate a creed which preaches the superiority of the Iranian race, culture and religion and whose highest objective is the downfall of Big Satan America and Little Satan Israel.

So.

I'm betting you won't find this anywhere else today.

Ask a Vet

Good Morning. I'm glad you found your way here....given all the recent website troubles, I think it may just be easier for me to stay here and link this to other places I've been blogging recently...

In any case, we'll start this morning as we always do, with the latest casualty figures from the warron terra, courtesy of Antiwar.com:

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03):									3798
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):									3337
Since Handover (6/29/04):									2939
Since Election (1/31/05):									2361

Other Coalition Troops	299
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan	441

Since I have the running tally of the Cost of War at the top of my blog, I won't be linking to it directly....but please check out the website for some real eye-opening statistics.


Checking in with our friends over at IAVA, we find some news about a petition for better mental health for our soldiers. The sponsor is Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA), who is the first Iraq veteran to serve in Congress.

NEW YORK - Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and platinum rock band Drowning Pool are on a mission to get U.S. troops and veterans the mental health care they deserve. IAVA and Drowning Pool teamed up to launch the "This Is For The Soldiers " campaign and asked supporters to sign an online petition urging Congress to pass The Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007, bipartisan legislation which requires mandatory mental health screening for returning troops. Today, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., they presented Representative Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq veteran to serve in Congress, with a petition containing 25,000 signatures in support of this legislation.

"It's exciting to be on Capitol Hill with a rock band to raise awareness about this urgent issue. Tens of thousands of people from across the country have stepped up to help us support the troops," said Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA Executive Director. "More than 1.5 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and almost a third of them will face a serious mental health issue, ranging from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to depression. It's critical that we get these troops the help they need now and the Lane Evans Bill is a major step in that direction. We are honored to work with Representative Murphy and Drowning Pool to get this important legislation passed."

Representative Murphy is the first Iraq veteran to serve in Congress. He served in Baghdad in 2003-2004 as a paratrooper with the 82^nd Airborne Division. Representative Murphy is a cosponsor of the Lane Evans bill.

Drowning Pool is a longtime supporter of the troops. The band's current single "Soldiers" pays homage to our Armed Forces and their current "This Is For The Soldiers Tour" donates fifty cents of every ticket sold to IAVA and fifty cents to the USO, while encouraging young fans to support the cause. The band is a favorite of U.S. servicemembers, and has performed USO tours in Iraq, Kuwait and South Korea. Drowning Pool's lead vocalist Ryan McCombs said "It's an honor and a privilege to work on something as important as this legislation."

The Lane Evans Bill would help troops and veterans get mental health care in the following ways:

• Require in-person mental health screening for returning combat veterans
• Extend the window of eligibility for mental health treatment from two to five years
• Establish a registry to monitor the health of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and track their benefits use
• Improve the transfer of military records from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs

Won't you call your own Congressman and ask him to support this bill?

Lastly this morning...you may have heard that the Iranian President is in New York City for a speech at the United Nations. He's already spoken at Columbia University, and he's called the United States the real threat. Like most things we don't want to hear....he's probably right.

President Ahmadinejad said yesterday that talk of American military strikes against Iran threatened world security, as he tried to soften his image in the West.

Greeted in New York by headlines that he was an evil madman, Mr Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran “will not attack any country”. He also ducked a chance to accuse the United States of preparing for war, telling a questioner: “That is not how I see it.” Such talk in America, he said, arose from anger, electoral purposes and “a cover for policy failures over Iraq”.

On the first day of a controversial visit to the US, he refused to give an inch on Iran’s nuclear plans, saying that his country had a right to pursue a civilian programme. In comments guaranteed to enrage a significant part of his audience in New York, he also reasserted his refusal to recognise Israel, saying that the Jewish state was “based on occupation and racism”.

At an appearance at Columbia University yesterday he complained of “insults” as he was on the receiving end of a rousing lecture on freedom, Israel and the Holocaust from Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University.

Mr Bollinger told the Iranian leader: “Mr President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” To cheers the Freedom of Speech scholar told Mr Ahmadinejad that his denial of the Holocaust made him look “brazenly provocative or extraordinarily uneducated”.

He also challenged the Iranian President for cracking down on academics and students, calling for the destruction of Israel and aiding terror groups, including insurgents killing American troops in Iraq.

The Iranian leader stunned the audience by denying that homosexuality existed in Iran. Asked about his government’s persecution of gays, Mr Ahmadinejad said: “In Iran we do not have homosexuals like in your country. We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who told you we have it,” he said.

An annoyed Mr Ahmadinejad complained about Mr Bollinger’s “unfriendly treatment”. He said: “In many parts of his speech there were many insults and claims that were incorrect unfortunately.”

Jewish groups picketed the Iranian leader’s appearance at Columbia University – which had cancelled a similar invitation last year.

Even before he arrived, his visit stirred anger after he sought permission to visit Ground Zero, which was refused. Before his Colombia appearance he answered reporters’ questions from Washington via video link. He brushed off questions about human rights abuses in Iran, saying that people there were “very joyous, happy people” and that the women were “the freest women in the world”.

Asked about comments last week by Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, that the world should prepare for war with Iran if nuclear negotiations fail, he said: “It’s bad whenever logic fails . . . to engage in military threats.” He added: “We think the talk of war is basically a propaganda tool.”

Confronted with an accusation yesterday by the US military that Iranian surface-to-air missiles were being used to attack American troops, he said: “Are you telling me the US military is defeated [in Iraq] as a result of two or three weapons here or there? We think the US military should seek an answer for its defeat elsewhere.”

And so another day goes by...the 1,652nd day we've been in Iraq.

Libertarian Saturday

Good Morning!

Well, an early Saturday blog can only mean one thing...your loyal TriSec is off to donate platelets again.

If you're already a blood donor, why not consider taking the next step?


Let's take a look at the Libertarian corner of the Internets....


I've recently renewed my membership in the National Libertarian Party for another year...Imagine my surprise to learn that I've been a member since 2003. (I thought it was a year later.) But that's right, I didn't vote for Bush OR Kerry last time around. And bonus points to anyone except the hardcore that can name the Libertarian candidate now...

Of course, the NLP has been busy, denouncing Hillary's latest plan for heathcare reform.

Washington D.C. –Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent healthcare plan is a flawed strategy that "fails to meet the basic requirements of pragmatic reform" says the Libertarian Party after Clinton announced her second attempt at universal healthcare policy. "Clinton's healthcare plan is the wrong approach to healthcare reform both on a logistical and moral level," says Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, Shane Cory. "Clinton's plan is simply a new prescription for 'Hillary Care' that she prescribed more than a decade ago. It wasn't good then, and it isn't good now."

"Neither Democrats nor Republicans are approaching healthcare from the direction that offers a real solution to its current problems," says Cory. "Both parties wish to put a government-subsidized Band-Aid on the healthcare system, which the government injured in the first place. Instead of calling for universal healthcare or implementing tax credits in the health industry, such as both parties have called for, government simply needs to butt-out and let the market correct itself."

"As far as the logistics," says Libertarian Party Media Coordinator Andrew Davis, "there are obvious reasons why healthcare costs have soared in recent years. On one side, you have demand for healthcare at an all-time high because few people actually pay out of pocket for doctor visits; a problem that government-subsidized healthcare programs exacerbate. Because people pay only a fraction of every dollar spent on healthcare out of pocket, demand for health services has soared and the market price has adjusted. Additionally, artificial price limits set by the government on the maximum amount Medicaid/Medicare will pay for medical services naturally causes the cost of these services to rise to meet the maximum. These are clear examples of how more government regulation has been a direct catalyst of skyrocketing healthcare costs."

"This push for more government intervention is coming from both sides of the aisle," says Cory. "Governor Mitt Romney is just as guilty as Clinton for increasing government regulation despite the traditional ideological positions of their parties. Clinton wants to force the wealthy to pay for services they won't be receiving, and holds a gun to the heads of businesses while telling them they have to cover their employees regardless of the expense. Clinton calls this a 'moral' solution to healthcare?"

Checking the party platform, curiously there is nothing mentioned about healthcare. So, I must infer that the LP position is no position, and a completely unregulated free-for-all in the healthcare system. Which of course isn't the solution, but I don't know what is.


I'll leave you today with something to think about. Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat? Well, Patrick Buchanan of all people, doesn't think so. Of course, he does get some digs in on immigration at the end.

It may have been politically incorrect to publish the thoughts on the sixth anniversary of 9-11, but what Colin Powell had to say to GQ magazine needs to be heard.

Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America.

"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Powell asked. "People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.

Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered – as many as we lost in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic.

Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and detonate it.

Horrible and horrifying as that would be – perhaps 100,000 dead and wounded – it would not mean the end of the United States. It would more likely mean the end of Iran, or whatever nation at which the United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.

Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one-tenth the size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost an empire. Germany lost a third of its territory. Both were put under military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and Japan were the second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of their respective continents, Europe and Asia.

Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up our freedom.

For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not equal to Spain's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Finland's.

Afghanistan and Sudan, under Islamist regimes, were basket cases. Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Iran is unable to build modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of the United States, at best. While we lack the troops to invade Iran, three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in weeks, smash Iran's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its population to destitution. Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on Israel, it would invite annihilation.

As a threat, Iran is not remotely in the same league with the Soviet Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's Italy.

And why would Tehran, which has not launched a war since the revolution in 1979, start a war with an America with 10,000 nuclear weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed suicide in 30 years by attacking us or Israel?

What makes war with Iran folly is that an all-out war could lead to a break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al-Qaida recruitment and training.

So, there you go. It's going to be a beautiful day around here at least, so if you're in the Northeast Corner of these United States, make sure you get out and enjoy the last 'true' weekend of summer...