25
Dec
This was a rather heavy read for a late Christmas night:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could disappear by 2015, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found.
And, I stumbled on this while trying to find the actual source document for the above information:
"The budget allocated to the government will run out by the end of (the Iranian month of) Azar (December 22)," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"We are going to put forward a supplementary budget bill to cover the three remaining months (of the Iranian year, ending on March 20 2007) and the first two months of next year.
The president did not give a reason why the budget had run over.
Now, Roger Stern ( NAS ), assumes we can peacefully wait out the current Iranian crisis. However, I don’t think it’s going to be quite that simple. Apparently the Iranian government realizes it’s hitting a crisis already, hence the rush for nuclear power. Now, with Iraq totally destabilized, Pakistan almost always destabilized, and several other Middle Eastern countries in a proverbial mess, I’m not sure a destabilized Iran is a good thing. Althought the government may go belly up, that doesn’t mean a lot of individuals have made a gazillion bucks already. I am assuming Stern thinks that once the Iranian coffers are bare, they’ll peacefully enter the civilized world and quit doing the bad things the US is fighting against. I think Stern, if that is truly his thinking, is horribly naive. Even with the total collapse of government rule in Iraq, with the offer to assist them in forming the government of their choice, the Iraqis have chosen to a large degree to endorse total chaos based on very selective religious preferences. It’s not good enough that they are all Muslem, you have to be a certain KIND of Muslem to avoid the car bombs and death squads. That’s how deep these fanatic convictions go. I can’t see how Iran is any different than the Cradle of Mankind. If the Iranian government does go broke, and the military collapses with it, we’ll just get more fanatical chaos. That hasn’t done the US any good at all. It was the chaos in Afghanistan that allowed one individual to garner so much influence and power that he could destroy the World Trade Centers in New York CIty, USA, while never leavind his cave. So, I can’t go along with Stern’s conclusion that the Iranian situation could resolve itself peacefully if we just wait it out. Chaos has never benefitted the US or the world and only leaves voids for tyrants and radicals to fill.
Now, what I think will work is to allow the Russians to give the Iranians all the energy, via nuclear power, they want. However, until Iran is more stable and world-friendly, just run lines INTO Iran.
And until those lines are finished, bomb the hell out of any nuclear plants Iran builds.
20
Sep
Wanna see? Here’s his speech to the United Nations:
PRESIDENT CHAVEZ DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006"Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, ‘Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.’" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.]
"It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.
It reads easily, it is a very good book, I’m sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.
"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself]
"And it smells of sulfur still today."
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil’s Recipe."
As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The world parent’s statement — cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.
They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.
What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.
What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?
The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."
Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother — he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.
The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.
I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
The president then — and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."
That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.
But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.
It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela — new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is crossfire? He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.
This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’
The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples — to the peoples of the world. He came to say — I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.
And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.
And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed — fully, fully confirmed.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I don’t think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let’s accept — let’s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.
Oh, yes, it’s good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel’s (ph) yesterday, or President Mullah’s (ph). Yes, it’s good for that.
And there are a lot of speeches, and we’ve heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.
But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.
Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.
The first is expansion, and Mullah (ph) talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That’s step one.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.
Point three, the immediate suppression — and that is something everyone’s calling for — of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.
Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.
Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we’ve always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.
Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.
Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.
Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar’s home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.
Let’s see. Well, there’s been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.
The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.
And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there’s no need to announce things.
But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.
Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.
And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela’s thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.
Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.
As Sylvia Rodriguez (ph) says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?
What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.
We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.
Venezuela joins that struggle, and that’s why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.
And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.
And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.
And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.
And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.
And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.
Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I’m here today.
But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.
And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it.
But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter — more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.
And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.
And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned.
So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.
With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I’m now closing my file. I’m taking the book with me. And, don’t forget, I’m recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.
CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.
And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We’ve proposed Venezuela.
You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.
May God bless us all. Good day to you.
(APPLAUSE)
Hugo doesn’t seem to be too concerned with the idea that calling someone a "devil", and then chastising them for not trusting you is his fault, not the accused. I don’t even understand what his point is. What is he hoping to accomplish with all this anti-US rhetoric? He tries to separate our President from the common US citizen, but, we elected him. And, about half the country is quite glad we did. So, if he’s got issues with Bush, he’s got issues with about half the voting country. The more he runs his mouth, the better that Saudi oil looks to me. Or even better, Mexican or Canadian. We’ve proven we can tolerate gas about 25% more expensive than it is now, let’s get it from somewhere else. If the Gulf keeps panning out, we can probably tell Hugo to take a leap and let Venezuela return to the third world status it enjoyed before we started investing there. I like doing business with my friends, I don’t do business with my enemies. If he thinks we smell like sulfur, he can sell his oil somewhere else. It won’t bother me. As long the we prop up his regime with our "imperialist" money he so gladly accepts, he needs to be a little more appreciative.
Bush of course took a much higher road than I have to. He totally ignored Chavez’s speech. I’m sure he probably even got a small chuckle from the fact that according to Chavez the US is the only thing that matters in the whole world. Forget Darfur, forget the fact people in Lebanon attacked Israel first, forget the fact Iran says it wants nukes to destroy Israel, forget the fact people are killing innocent people all over the planet, it’s all the US’s fault and as long as people believe that, they won’t turn on their pathetic spineless incapable rulers. Which, are pretty much all non-aligned countries Chavez calls friends.
September 21, 2006 UPDATE: Meredith Vieira interviewed Bill Clinton yesterday regarding Chavez’s speech. It never ceases to amaze me how in any confrontational situation, there are people more than ready to give up and run ( read handringing ). Per Vieira:
"Now, it’s easy to dismiss somebody like Chavez — and some have — as a nut. But do you think he is giving voice to to wider frustration in the developing world about this country and this country’s policies? Do we need to change the way we act?"
Now, she couldn’t have rung her hands with anyone more sympathetic than Bill. But, to me, Meredith and Bill both miss the big picture. When people leave Chavez’s country to look for a better life, where do they go? That’s right. They come here. In droves. So many people are kicking down the borders we’re trying to build a wall. So, whatever we’re doing here must be appealing to a LOT of people in those third world nations. The proof, Meredith and Bill, is in the pudding. We don’t need to change how WE act, THEY need to change how THEY act. We can’t do it all over the world. And, it’s not our obligation to do so. It is the obligation of the Chavez’s of the world to make their country a place were people want to stay instead of pointing fingers at the countries where their people want to be. And, it’s the obligation of the Vieira’s to look at the facts, and it’s the obligation of the Clintons to quit pandering to those that refuse to do so.
Nancy Pelosi immediately commented that this is yet more evidence that Bush’s failure to secure guns in Brazil has increased the risk to people in Brazil and around the world who might be targets of terrorists. She continued: The chaotic security situation in Brazil today is a direct result of mistakes the President made by not invading Brazil in wake of their recent elections. The missing high explosives, nuclear equipment that doesn’t exist, and other materials I can’t remember unfortunately demonstrate that the worlds security will be diminished by those mistakes for years to come.
( This is parody. I really do think I have to state that CLEARLY any more. I am, however, waiting for someone to draw the correlation between the number of people dying in "civilized" countries daily and those dying in Iraq that signifies to them what we are doing there is a failure. Whatsayou New York Times and CNN? If more people are dying in Sao Paulo than Baghdad due to lawlessness and ethnic and cultural violenece, what do you think caused that? How, in your minds, is that the fault of George Bush? I’m not holding my breath. )
In wake of DPW withdrawing from the ports deal amid a basically unanimous political backlash against the deal, a lot of people are once again speculating Bush got himself in more political hot water because he made a strong-armed decision that no one else supports. I personally have supported this deal based on my lack of knowledge that I HOPE some legislators have that I don’t, and, because if we are going to fight an international war on terror, we need to reward those that help us in that fight. This would have sent a huge signal to the Middle East that helping us DOES have rewards.
And you know what, looks like I’m not alone in that thinking:
I mean, so far, that’s not even close. And what’s more important to me, that’s not even remotely close to the message we’ve been getting from ALL major media. Including Fox as well.
Now, Ann Coulter I think it has noted that they think a little different in Dubai. That they respect a strong decision and power. That, because they were told "no" sternly, they’ll respect the US just the same. And, because of that, nixing this deal would not have the ramifications people like me feel it will.
Let’s hope she’s right. However, having the President say "yes", and his senate say "no", and the media say "no", but the people say "yes", just doesn’t strike me as the display of power Ann Coulter is suggesting has occurred.
And, yeah, Bush didn’t communicate why this deal was good to the people before the firestorm erupted. However, he was probably thinking like I am that this was no big deal in the first place. And, I personally still feel this way. Hopefully the debate put more focus on port security. If it did, then maybe something good will come from it. However, what I think people will realize if that focus does occur is that this whole flap over DPW was a misguided Islamophobic knee-jerk reaction coordinated by Democrats and media and the Republicans fell for it hook line and sinker, probably because they have the same issues.
Folks, isolationism gave us WWI AND WWII. And "economic nationalism" is just another word for isolationism. If we are going to drag the Middle East out of the dark ages, we’re going to have to engage them, sometimes on their terms. Just buying their oil ain’t going to cut it much longer because Asia will be buying more if they’re not already. If we want an open dialogue, we’re going to have to put our actions where our mouths are. Telling Dubai we expect them to help us in the war on terror and then telling them we don’t trust them enough to do business with them ain’t the action our mouths are selling. And, contrary to Ann, I don’t think the message we sent was the message she thinks they got.
- Technorati port security, DPW, Ann Coulter, economic nationalism, isolationism
21
Feb
Here’s one headline:
Carter Says Hamas Will Be Peaceful, Advocates Giving Money to UN (VIDEO)
In a released statement, Carter elaborates further:
"During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles," Carter wrote in a piece in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post.
"Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
Here’s another:
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
Lookin good? Not quite so fast:
"Hamas is talking about the end of the occupation as the basis for a state, but at the same time Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist," he said. "We cannot give up the right of the armed struggle because our territory is occupied in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is the territory we are fighting to liberate."
Now, what exactly is Carter’s evidence Hamas is a good thing? What exactly makes him think that if the US and Israel play good guys Hamas end their only purpose of an autonomous state where Israel used to be? Why exactly is anyone still listening to him?
- Technorati Jimmy Carter, Hamas
30
Jan
OK, here’s the headline:
One of the things they cite is that cutting financial aid would lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Well, that’d be a shame IF they continue to encourage the violence in Palestine. You see, The US, especially Rice, are in a bit of a jam. We took out Saddam Hussein, and justified it to the rest of the world because the guy was attacking his neighbors. Although the WMD debate hijacked the issue, those of us supporting taking him out pre-2002 were more concerned about the destabilizing effect Hussein was having on the region. Now, the problem Hamas has is they have condoned destroying Israel, supported terrorist attacks, and done every single thing Saddam Hussein did. I mean, a lot of people should be putting pressure on Bush for being a hypocrite for allowing them to stay in power. The debate should not be about giving them more money, the debate should be removing them from power. They should be glad the only thing people are discussing is cutting their aid.
However, as is noted in the same article:
We in Hamas are ready to meet and have an open dialogue with the Quartet," he told a news conference in Gaza City. "We assure you that all the money will be spent under your supervision."
That might get them somewhere. Rather than coming across as terrorist thugs, civilized discussion would encourage the people that have what they want to be a little more receptive to debate. However, no sooner than that quote was made, so was this one:
A senior Hamas official in Lebanon, however, brushed aside warnings that Western aid to the Palestinians could dry up. "Cutting off funds now will be a punishment of the Palestinian people, not of Hamas," said Mohammed Nazzal, member of Hamas’ decision-making political bureau, which is based in Syria.
"If the European Union countries and the American administration see this as a means that could lead to a change in Hamas’ strategic position then they are dreaming and are mistaken. Hamas will never accept that," he said in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV.
Well, the problem here is the people of Palestine elected Hamas. I’m not sure the American administration sees this as a means to lead to a change in Hamas’ strategic position, we’ve just got an issue with supporting terrorist organizations in the 21st century. Sure, the people would suffer, but IMO, if they see how the world responds to Hamas, they might not be quite as convinced Hamas is doing what’s right for them and choose a path of peace and civility as soon as they can. The world made its offer to help Hamas with strings attached. Those strings will ALWAYS be attached. It’s OUR money and we have the right to expect something in return for it. If the Palestinian people choose not to accept those strings, then they are choosing their own destiny to suffer, we’re not doing it to them.
I was uncomfortable supporting aid to Palestine in the first place. I’m sure a lot of Americans were as well. Give me some evidence that it has led to some good and I’ll be less reticent. Electing terrorists to run their government is not what I had in mind.
- Technorati Hamas
This has got to be the ultimate in political pandering:
Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi is famous for his ambitious promises, but he is unlikely to be called to task if he breaks his latest pledge: not to have sex before the April 9 general election.At a party rally in Sardinia on Saturday, the media tycoon received the blessing of television preacher Massimiliano Pusceddu, who thanked him for opposing gay marriage and defending family values.
Thank you dear Father Massimiliano, Ill try not to let you down and I promise you two and a half months of complete sexual abstinence until April 9, Berlusconi replied, in comments reported on Sunday by the daily Il Giornale.
Now, the guy has a history of sexual innuendo, so I can see the basis for this act. However, I think I would have just promised to tone it down. Some things are just more important than politics. The question I’m left with is who is going to verify his promise?
21
Dec
In the last 24 hours, the Democrats:
- Returned us to the intelligence agenda that led directly to 9/11.
- Told the Middle East that we’re not willing to do what it takes to lessen our reliance on them. Keep sending those terrorists, it’s no biggie.
- Didn’t mind too much cutting benefits for the poor, but were willing to stop the Senate dead in it’s tracks sending homeland security statements to the world.
In the last few days, the Germans have released an infamous terrorist citing he was "something normal". No Democrats have protested.
Thank your locally elected Democrat Senator for returning us to September 10, 2001. This is surreal to me.
"This is something normal that happens every day," she said.
Something normal that happens every day. During the hijacking in 1985, Robert Stethem was beaten, shot in the head, and dumped on the tarmac of the Beirut airport.
That may be something normal in Germany, but it’s not here. It may happen, but it’s dealt with harshly. I am sincerely disgusted with the Germans. It was Hussein cooperating and abetting terrorists/terrorism that was a prime factor in me supporting Bush’s decision to oust Hussein. How are the German leaders any different now?
What Ms. Schmierer is telling us is that atrocities like that are "something normal", and, that letting terrorists go free is "something normal". It’s not. There is something BAD wrong in Germany. And, it ain’t "something normal". If nothing else, Hamadi committed crimes against the US and US citizens. They should have turned him over to us. Then, we would have given her an example of what "something normal" here is.
With friends like these…….
- Technorati Germany, Hamadi, terrorism, Eva Schmierer
15
Dec
Apparently the elections in Iraq have gone quite well. You can take my word as an unprofessional hack living in rural Kentucky, OR, you can take the word from Iraq the Model who has all kinds of first hand comments, second hand comments, and, very good pictures. I’ve said it before, that’s just one heck of a good blog. Helps to have so much content to work with. But, his writing is easy to digest. He’s got a link to vote for his blog as the Blog of the Year. I’ve voted for his blog for his political commentary that seems to run in the face of US media. What he does do, that media here doesn’t, is provide visuals to support what he’s saying. He’s saying turnout’s going to be high. I believe him more than CNN or any US media.
Good job Iraq. Good job ITM.
- Technorati Iraq
- Google blogs for Iraq
- Technorati blogs that link here
