Important updates at the bottom of the post.

Censure Carter has sent me three emails today with information that the Bin Laden family gave $1 million to the Carter Center. What that’s particularly news is beyond me, but let us look at the CFP article that has the Censure Carter folks all riled up.

Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden.

A paper trail shows that more than $1 million has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden on behalf of the Saudi Bin Laden Group to The Carter Center.

That’s an impressive bit of investigative journalism that comes your way, not courtesy of the New York Times and company, but from Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Censure Carter Committee (Censure Carter Committee ).

“An investigation by the Censure Carter Committee into the financing for The Carter Center of Atlanta, Georgia founded by President Carter and his wife to advance his “Blame America First” policies reveals that over $1,000,000 has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden for the Saudi Bin Laden Group to the Carter Center,” says Censure Carter.Com in a mainstream media-ignored recent media release.

“In fact, an online report accuses former President Carter of meeting with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000, Carter and his wife, Rosalyn followed up their meeting with a breakfast with Bakr Bin Laden in September 2000 and secured the first $200,000 towards the more than $1 million that has been received by the Carter Center.”

The outrage seems to be really centered around the film by Michael Moore called Fahrenheit 911 that makes the same type allegations with the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. No, Moore certainly did not include that information, assuming he knew it of course, but does anyone in their right mind actually believe even half the drivel that Moore says, writes or puts into his films? Fahrenheit 911 was one-sided? That’s not exactly news as the film has been debunked numerous times over.

What gets me about the Censure Carter movement and this CFP article is that it leads with “Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden.” Says who? The CFP article says so, but the details in the actual article never make such a connection. The only connection made is from the Bin Laden family to Jimmy Carter. (more…)

The White House has invited a panel of experts to discuss Iran and how to effectively go about a regime change inside Iran. One of those experts is Amir Taheri. Taheri is now known for his report that a bill was proposed in Iran that would require all non-Muslims to wear badges. The story was quickly deemed false and now Taheri’s credibility is in the gutter with some.

It’s easy to remember Taheri’s latest story and listen to Jews inside Iran claim the story was not accurate, it does throw a major credibility problem Taheri’s way, but the calls that Taheri’s invite to the White House is laughable are not quite accurate either. Taheri has been and remains one of the anti-Iranian regime leaders throughout the world.

But back to the Iranian badges story. After all, that’s the one story that has some in a tiff over Taheri’s invite to the White House. There is a bill circulating, or at least was as of a week ago, in the Iranian Parliament that would implement an Islamic dress code. Based upon the excerpts provided by the Associated Press, there is no mention of any badges.

It should shock no one that Ahmadinejad has at least a little animosity towards Jews, but Ahmadinejad has also been quoted saying he wants to stop Christianity in Iran. Animosity aside, would the Supreme Leader of Iran implement such a law? There would have to be a basis behind such a law requiring non-Muslims to wear badges for Khomeni to accept such a law and justify it by Sharia or whatever other term he wishes to throw out. Actually, there is such a precedent.

Taheri continues to stand by his story and provides more historical reasoning that badges identifying non-Muslims have been used in Iran before being banned in 1908. Taheri also notes that the Iranian regime has yet to come out and say the story is false. A Jewish Iranian MP, Maurice Motammed, called the story false and said no such law was even being discussed.

For all reactions there must be at least a shred of logic behind them. Something has to crank the wheels, right? In that tune, if there isn’t a shred of credibility to the badges why would a spokesman for Iranian Jews thank the world’s reaction? Saying the report was likely a trial balloon, Sam Kermanian says the story might not be over.

“I am not sure if we have the whole picture. The person who originally reported this, Amir Taheri, is someone with fantastic credibility. In my heart, I think there must have been something that triggered this,” Mr. Kermanian said.

We clearly don’t have the full picture of what goes on inside Iran, and isn’t that the exact reason why the White House has invited people to discuss Iran? Taheri has written extensively in the past concerning Iran’s nuclear program, a program that was deemed farcical yet his reporting remains solid to this day. Taheri has covered the mass riots and protests we have seen all this week and last inside Iran’s universities while no one else seems to get the story. Covering the protests, Taheri has written why Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs don’t have full control over the nation of Iran, giving those who are unaware of the intracacies inside Iran a better understanding, but most importantly, the story is accurate.

That hasn’t stopped some people from asserting that Taheri is full of it. A blog named Lenin’s Tomb (the name should give it away) calls a few items into question that Taheri has written. Lenin states that Taheri’s interpretation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush is to “provoke a clash of civilizations so that the Hidden Imam would return.” We’ve written extensively on the Twelth Imam and Ahmadinejad’s profound beliefs in this day of reckoning healer before so I will not do so again here. But if one were to actually read the letter written by Ahmadinejad they would notice that the supposed ‘cure’ for the entire Iranian nuclear program is if President Bush would just revert to Islam. Don’t just take my word for it. Read the full text yourself, or you can read what Ahmadinejad said of his letter himself. With all due respect, Lenin seems not to actually know what the Twelth Imam is or that Ahmadinejad’s desire to pave the path for the Twelth Imam is as high as it is so I’m not going to try to debate that exact argument of Lenin’s.

(more…)

Iason Athanasiadis writes in the Washington Times how Iran has begun to transform its military in correlation to the nation’s nuclear program and the threat of an international assault.

Iran’s military planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with technologically more advanced U.S. armed forces would be rapid and multifronted, unlike the static and slow-paced 1980-88 war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Therefore, a series of war games have been carried out since late last year to test the army’s readiness.

In December, more than 15,000 members of the regular armed forces participated in an exercise in northwestern Iran’s strategically sensitive Azerbaijan border provinces that focused on irregular warfare carried out by highly mobile army units, according to the official MENA news agency.

A second exercise was conducted in the majority-Arab province of Khuzestan in September, according to the Iranian press, aimed at quelling insurgencies in areas subject to ethnic unrest and prone to foreign influence.

Knowing that a conventional war would be lost, Iran has made movements to strengthen guerilla style warfare.  The case laid out by Athanasiadis is weak; very weak in fact.  He leaves out the several other signs that Iran is preparing for war that go well beyond the rhetoric used with regards to the Iranian nuclear program.  Speaking of which, isn’t it ironic that Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but it is that nuclear program that has caused all this tension?

Amir Taheri wrote in the Arab News of several other steps in which the Iranian regime has taken to prepare itself for war including the appointment of military leaders to local government positions in towns and cities around Iran.  Taheri also noted that Iran has built up military and nuclear facilities in close proximity to religious centers knowing that any strike on either compound could damage those religious structures.  I wouldn’t put it past Iran to damage its own religious structures and blame it on the infidel.  And who can forget the many parades filled with potential suicide bombers?
I certainly don’t blame Iran for preparing itself for war.  With the nation’s take on their nuclear program and the cooperation and sudden non-cooperation with the IAEA, something drastic would have to happen to avert war in this scenario.  I’m hoping that drastic measure would be from internal pressure to change the regime in Iran.  It is that reason why Iran has staged war games near restive areas of their nation in order to try to intimidate those who might lead or participate in any uprising.

I can’t so I’m too surprised.

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America’s invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

“They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene,” Damon said yesterday. “They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition.” (source)

I can’t tell if this is the same soldier who was in the documentary Fahrenhype 911. There are similarities in appearences between the two, but Damon has a beard and has either put on a lot of weight or it’s just not the same soldier. Both were double amputees and both were used in Michael Moore’s film without permission, supported the war in Iraq and didn’t like being used as puppets. It appears Moore might finally catch his comeuppance.

If there’s one thing I hate worse than doing yard work, it’s paying taxes.  On the bright side of things, at least the taxes I currently pay go towards my elected representatives.  Whether or not I support the representative or policies they call for is another iss, but I at least have a small say in what the government does with my money.  It’s highway robbery to take 40 percent off a paycheck that goes to any number of programs I don’t support.

That 40 percent though might grow larger and start to subsidize a corrupt institution that is working against what I believe in and has propped up dictators, condemned holding terrorists in detention facilities yet hardly says a peep about Mugabe or Chavez overtaking farms in the name of progress and operates a blackmail system that enables the most corrupt in the world to ruthlessly continue to hold power.  No, I’m not talking about the Carter Foundation, the ACLU or any other number of groups that do all of the above and more.  If the United Nations has its way, citizens of many nations will start having to pay taxes to support the UN.

Cliff Kincaid, President of America’s Survival, Inc., has just published a devastating chronology of the U.N.’s sustained campaign for global taxes, noting the 2001 High Level Panel on Financing for Development as a turning-point in the debate. Not only did that meeting call for the establishment of an International Tax Organization, it blatantly outlined two major areas where globotaxation might easily be levied – a currency transactions tax and a carbon tax – both of which would disproportionately hit the U.S.

Since then, a succession of high-level meetings, summits and conferences have been busy gathering steam for this concept: the Millennium Development Goals, the 2005 World Economic and Social Survey, the World Summit on Sustainable Development,  the World Commission Report on the Social Dimension of Globalization and so on and so on; they all share this notion that globotaxation is the most ‘innovative’ solution to long-term funding for the U.N. They propose globotaxes on everything from air transportation to aviation fuel, from airline tickets to carbon emissions, from currency transactions to arms. The list is as ambitious as it is scary. The long arm of the U.N.’s IRS could be in your pocket soon.

One of the U.N.’s more fruitful attempts at global taxation is the formal plan to levy a tax on airline tickets. In November 2005, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, and Spain issued a joint statement calling for a ‘nationally applied, internationally coordinated’ tax to be levied on air transport travels. The French government has been the first one to bite the bullet, and from July onward, passengers will pay between one and 40 euros on all flights taking off in France. With enthusiastic U.N. support and much back-slapping for President Chirac, Chile has undertaken plans to do the same, with Belgium and Germany currently hovering in the wings to do so. Luckily, both Great Britain and the U.S. have resisted Mr. Annan’s calls for others to follow suit. But make no mistake: the rot has started. Britain’s Liberal Democrats are openly advocating for taxation on aviation fuel as a way of reducing climate change, and with the current spin-over-substance streak running through the Conservative Party, anything is possible from our normally reliable British partners.

Does this mean we can pay taxes to fund the UN who largely looks the other way in Sudan, East Timor, Indonesia, Iran, did so in Iraq, etc. yet comes out in brute force when it comes to how a coalition of nations are proceding with the GWOT?  Absolutely, but the UN program would call for double taxation.

The problem with this entire proposed world-wide tax to fund the UN is that we all already pay for the United Nations.  Whether you are a citizen of England, Australia, Canada or the United States to name just four nations, you pay your taxes towards your respective government who in turn pays money to fund the UN.  Now the UN is considering using the money given to them from your government and putting a tax on your paychecks . . . for what exactly?

At least with our own elected representatives, and mind you that the UN is not an elected body by the will of the people, we can vote representatives out of power if we do not like what they do with our money.  With the UN, we can’t do a thing about booting the corrupt and incompetent Kofi Annan even though he sleeps on our dime, pound or peso.

The clamor, perhaps growing clamor, that the United States engage Iran directly regarding Iran’s nuclear program might have not have hit its peak, but it has forced the White House to open up to direct talks. People making these statements have seemingly forgotten North Korea and fail to recognize that Iran has already played the talks game with England, Germany and France while they pursued their own nuclear advancement.  The inclusion of the United States into the mix is only destined for failure.
The proposed direct talks though come with a catch, a catch Iran won’t agree to.

The United States is willing to join European nations in direct talks with Iran if the Iranian government first agrees to suspend its programs to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, activities that Washington charges are part of plans to build nuclear weapons.

Will this quiet the calls for direct talks as opposed to multinational talks over Iran’s nuclear program? We all know it won’t, but the catch for Iran to first suspend uranium enrichment puts the pressure back on Iran.

Let us assume the U.S. is no longer a “silent” partner with the EU Three in talks with Iran.  Five years pass by, or upwards of ten years depending on which estimate you choose to believe, and Iran announces it has a bomb.  Who do you think the international community would blame on Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon?  If you chose France, I have some lakeside property to sell you in Lubbock, TX.

Along that same line though, if the current EU Three are unable to avert Iran’s quest for a bomb without the inclusion of the U.S., the U.S. will be blamed too.  It’s really a no-win situation.

UPDATE: Iran has called the U.S. decision “propoganda.” Funny, isn’t that exactly what the U.S. called Iran’s latest calls for direct talks too?

This statement is propoganda?  Well, no kidding, and that’s taking in the implied meaning of the word propoganda as meaning a war of words rather than the literal definition which is simply imformation.  It is a very wise move in my opinion knowing that in order for these talks to even start, Iran would have to completely suspend enriching uranium.  We all know they won’t.  Iran is a brick wall.
What this statement does is send a strong, stronger actually, message to the world that the United States is not advocating or desiring a war with Iran.  It also helps to shut the mouth of every single person who has started down the direct talk pipeline with respect to Iran.  The calls won’t stop though and will likely only ramp up, but now the White House has something to try to calm the storm with.
Are the negotiations between Iran and the EU Three consisting of England, France and Germany proceding well?  Of course it isn’t, but there isn’t anything the U.S. could offer Iran that would be better than what the EU Three have offered.  Even while the EU Three began negotiations with Iran uranium was being enriches and nuclear technology was being advanced.

The demand made to enter negotiations is what will prevent Iran from complying, thus putting the pressure back on the Iranian regime to justify its own nuclear program as opposed to the misplaced pressure on the United States.  Propoganda, even in the derogatory meaning, can be good.  This was.

MIT professor and darling of the American Left Noam Chomsky on Lebanese television:

Interviewer: Do you consider Hizbullah to be a terrorist organization?

Chomsky: The United States considers Hizbullah a terrorist organization, but the term terrorism is used by the great powers simply to refer to forms of violence of which they disapprove. So the U.S. was of course supporting the Israeli invasions and occupation of southern Lebanon. Hizbullah was instrumental in driving them out, so for that reason they are a terrorist organization.

No, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because they intentionally kill innocent civilians.  But Chomsky gets even more nutty.

It’s an interesting dilemma. Personally I’m very much opposed to Hamas’ policies in almost every respect. However, we should recognize that the policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel. So to repeat: the policies, in my view, are unacceptable, but preferable to the policies of the United States and Israel.

So, for example, Hamas has called for a long-term indefinite truce on the international border. There is a long-standing international consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement on the international border, the pre-June 1967 border, with minor and mutual modifications. That’s the official phrase. Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce. The United States and Israel are unwilling even to consider it.

Hamas refuses to recognize Israel therefore to say Hamas accepts a two-state solution is pure lunacy.  After arguing that the United States is a terrorist state, Chomsky follows up his argument stating the war in Afghanistan following 9/11 should mean the U.S. should attack itself.

The first achievement of George Bush after 9/11 was to attack Afghanistan. Let’s take a look at what happened. The attack on Afghanistan was carried out for one explicit reason, because the war aim was stated explicitly. According to George Bush, any state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state, and must be treated accordingly, by bombing and invasion.

It follows from that that George Bush is calling for the bombing of the United States. The United States harbors terrorists, violent terrorists, who are regarded by the FBI and the Justice Department as terrorists.

No, the attack on Afghanistan was carried out because the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden and they supported the entire Al Qaida network, the very same network that just killed close to 3,000 innocent civilians in the United States.   Simply amazing.

Video of Chomsky and transcript

This morning I noticed one of my most proud achievements since I started this blog almost two years ago. Search engine rankings come and go, but I am praying the rank of the ninth site under this search won’t dissapate.

It’s not a mystery how this site came up under that search considering what posts were on the front page when Yahoo indexed the site, but who would actually search for blogs that, well, you have to actually see the query for yourself.

* But I’ve never asked either.

Chris at Political Musings notes an interesting interview that appeared on CNN earlier tonight.

I would also note that in CNN’s coverage of the incident tonight, they showed one of the young girls who was alleged to have witnessed the massacre. In her statement she indicated that before the explosion, she covered her ears to shield them from the blast. It was curious that she may have known an IED would explode ahead of time. Could it have been that some of her adult family members were participants in the IED detonation and subsequent firing on the Marines? This was the first I’d heard of it and I give Anderson Cooper (I think, could have been the reporter on the scene) credit for pointing out this potentially exculpatory fact.

Chris notes that the Haditha story might not be “cut and dried” as things look now.  If that report is accurate, I’d say we’re only scratching the surface of this story.  Regardless, Chris and I share the view that if the Marines are guilty they should and will be punished, but let’s get to the bottom of the story first.

Chris offers what he believes we’ll see if the Marines are found to be innocent.

I doubt that exoneration, should one be forthcoming, will lead any nightly newscasts or show up on the front pages anywhere in America. But at this point, I’d be happy were it to appear anywhere.

Sadly, that’s right, but even if the lead story on every newscast for one month covered the exoneration would it actually matter as the arguments against the Marines would have already damaged the war effort in Iraq at home, much less inside Iraq?

Previous:

Haditha 

The provisional Somalia government has confirmed a report that Al Qaida is recruiting within the capital city of Mogadishu.  This would mark at least the second confirmed time Al Qaida has had its hands in Modadishu.

Palestinian magazine al-Manar claimed, citing anonymous sources, that Islamic militants arrive in the capital from all over the country to join al-Qaeda. The militants are reportedly first recruited by a local network linked to Osama bin Laden’s organisation before training in Mogadishu. US secret service agents are in Somalia to monitor the recruitment centres, the Palestinian magazine also said.

There are rumors that have spread concerning U.S. involvement in Somalia arming local warlords who are fighting against Al Qaida and Al Qaida aligned forces.  The Horn of Africa remains a key region in the GWOT.