Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Thought of the Day

Under the headline Sinking in the Polls, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes wrote an uplifting article in the Washington Post yesterday. I first thought it revealed a positive trend then I had second thoughts. She quoted surveys in several Muslim countries that clearly showed a decline in support for al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden. I hope the terrorists would sink to the point of drowning. The numbers and percentages, however, are misleading. Even if 90 percent of Turks and 86 percent of Egytpians now oppose bin Laden, there are still seven million Turks and nine million Egyptians who support him. After the 7/7 atrocity in London surveys showed that 75 percent of British Muslims opposed the terror attacks. In other words, almost half a million British Muslims support killing innocent people in buses and trains. The only acceptable figure when dealing with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is 100 per cent of Muslims and all people opposing them.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Rogue Regulator

Today’s column was written intermittently over 10 days after a I read a Washington Post editorial about Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei that left me puzzled as I trust the newspaper. The editorial contradicted what I knew about the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, so I took my time and sought more information and consulted people in the know.
Under the headline Rogue Regulator the editorial reflected views more associated with the Wall Street Journal and the extremist and neocon writers and contributors to its opinion pages than the liberal and highly respectable Washington Post.
The first paragraph claims that ElBaradei “has made it clear he considers himself above his position as a U.N. civil servant.” I say this is not true. Simply put, ElBaradei will not play the role of a cat’s-paw on behalf of this particular U.S. administration. This is not thwarting leading members, above all the United States, as the editorial asserts.
The second paragraph recognizes that ElBaradei, with a handful of assistants in Vienna, succeeded in denying the existence of an active Iraqi nuclear program while American intelligence, 16 agencies in all, failed or colluded with the Bush administration in its push for war. The editorial writer then claims that IAEA director wants to stop the “crazies” in Washington while he considers them more sane than Ahmadinejad. Maybe this is true but it does not change the fact that there is a war party in Washington intent on unleashing another catastrophe in the Middle East and the editorial is silent about the warmongers while it concentrates on a U.N. official with no comparable influence on war and peace.
Two paragraphs follow and present Security Council sanctions against Iran like a universal verdict when they are American positions passed only after pressuring allies and threatening or bribing other members of the council who watered down the two sanction resolutions to the point of making them ineffective. The editorial then complains about the very short period of time the IAEA has given Iran to answer questions about its program while admitting that the questions are important. I don’t accept that the time given Iran is too long, considering that its nuclear program is about 17 years old and was only uncovered by Iranian dissidents, not American intelligence, in 2002
What is the alternative to questions and answers within a short period of time? Another war or a third round of sanctions? War will be calamitous and sanctions will not stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
The last paragraph complains that ElBaradei wants to wait until the end of the year when it may be too last and all “thanks to a diplomat who apparently believes he need not represent anyone other than himself.”
ElBaradeil will not represent the Cheney team and the editorial is walking on thin ice, considering the failure of the Washington Post in challenging the lies and fabrications of the administration leading up to the Iraq war. My favourite newspaper is not the Washington Post of the Vietnam War or the Watergate scandal.
When I started seeking additional information about the subject I found the Washington Post in the same boat as Militant Islam Monitor, The Jewish Blog Network, and JBlog Central or the Jewish and Israeli Blog Network. They are all happy with the Washington Post editorial claiming “WP shishkabobs ElBaradei: Rogue Regulator.” If anything is rogue it is the uncharacteristic editorial.
I don’t need AEIA to tell me that Iran is persisting in its nuclear program and will not stop. The U.S. is free to try to stop it by any means other than war. We have seen the results of its misadventure in Iraq, and Iran will be a far worse scenario. Ahmadinejad is an extremist revolutionary but he is no worse than the warmongers of Washington who killed a million Iraqis and about 4000 U.S. and allied troops and are still clamouring for more death and destruction. Ahmadinejad has not killed anyone and war is threatened on the strength of suspicion about future intentions..
The Washington Post should, and can, do better. All the water of the Potomac will not wash away the blood of innocent people from the hands of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and company.

Jihad Khazen

Friday, September 14, 2007

Thought of the Day

I stayed up all night Thursday to hear President Bush's speech on Iraq and comments on his new-old strategy. I'll spare the reader the agony of another protracted view on the subject, only saying that the misadventure in Iraq will not be solved by one speech or a hundred. There is, however, noticeable progress in another area. In Sydney about a week ago, Bush thanked his Austrian, rather than his Australian, hosts. In Washington, he knew enough to address the Americans, not the Armenians. In Sydney, he walked the wrong way off the stage and Prime Minister John Howard had to guide him. In Washington, he found his way without the help of Dick Cheney. The last time the vice president helped him he fell in the quagmire of Iraq. He is still trying to speechify his way out of it.