SaveDarfur.org has recently taken out advertisements encouraging people to write to petition to President Bush to tell him to "stop the killing in Darfur". With all due respect, their goal is admirable, but the target of their petition should be Sudan's backers and not President Bush.

IF YOU WANT TO STOP THE KILLING IN DARFUR THAN DO NOT BLAME PRESIDENT BUSH. THAT'S TOO EASY. THE US GOVT HAS DONE WHAT IT CAN IN PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE SUDANESE GOVT. YOU NEED TO SEND PETITIONS TO SUDAN'S BACKERS AND SUPPORTERS. THE COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS SUDAN THE MOST AND ALLOWS IT TO GET AWAY WITH THE DARFUR CARNAGE IS CHINA. THE ONLY OTHER THING PRESIDENT BUSH CAN DO IS SEND IN THE MARINES. NO PRESIDENT, FROM ROOSEVELT TO CLINTON TO BUSH WOULD RISK AMERICAN LIVES FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN AFRICA. IT MAY BE UNFORTUNAT, BUT THAT'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH. PETITION CHINA'S LEADER-PRESIDENT HU . CHINA TRADE WITH AFRICA IS $40BLN AND HAS INVESTED $10BLN WITH SUDAN IN THE LAST 45 YRS. The country of 1.3 billion people also has a growing thirst for oil and Sudan provides up to 10 percent of that oil, making China Sudan's largest trade partner. China's state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. is the largest foreign investor in Sudan's oil sector. China owns oil fields in and around Darfur, buys 70 percent of Sudan's oil and allegedly has helped finance manufacturing facilities in Sudan used to build weapons.They've built pipelines. They've invested maybe a billion dollars in upgrading the Khartoum refineries. Chinese companies are building the Merowe Dam. NEXT UP TO PRESSURE Would be Russia's President Putin. Russia had supplied Sudan with military aircraft and weapons. As early as 1969 the Chinese government brought arms to Sudan. The group said arms sales rose in the 1990s as Sudan's civil war raged and that China sold Sudan antitank mines, ammunition, tanks, helicopters and jet fighters.This webpage 'SaveDarfur.org' is a good idea... but the petition is going to the wrong president. Send it to Sudan's backers - Hu and Putin.

The NY Times responds…and not so assuring…

"Thanks for the note. There was a lot of pessimism on Sunday from the different
delegations after everyone had arrived for the meetings assuming the deal was
pre-cooked.

It may also reflect the perils of negotiating with North Korea. Real decisions
get made at the last second.

Thanks for writing. "


In other words, their 100% incorrect article is not their fault but the fault of the pessimistic diplomats....isn't their job to get to the truth and report? Or do they just spit out whatever anti-Bush garbage comes their way?
Guess they just spew out whatever anti-Bush BS they can source regardless of it being true or not… they just want Bush to fail in everything he does…and that includes Iraq…even if it means Americans die..

Can the New York Times Eat Humble Pie?

This was on its front page yesterday:

“Negotiations on a step-by-step deal that the six Bush administration hopes will lead North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program appeared near collapse (my emphasis) on Sunday over North Korea’s demands for huge shipments of fuel oil and electricity before agreeing to a schedule for turning over its nuclear weapons and fuel.” –NY Times, 2.12.07

All of 24 hours later, a North Korean deal was announced whereby the North Koreans will give up their nuclear arms.

So far, under the Bush presidency, the following countries have been or will be removed as a threat to global peace:

Libya, Iraq and hopefully North Korea.

While under the eight years of the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was formed, its power grew exponentially and it attacked the US several times. North Korea grew its nuclear program in violation of a worthless 1994 “Agreed Framework” agreement with the Clinton administration. Let’s not forget that prior to 9/11/01, only on place on earth were Americans being fired upon on a daily basis: US pilots enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq.

Sometimes, as Thomas Jefferson once famously said of the Barbary Pirate (who were also Muslims) differences must be settled “through the medium of war”.

What do you think the chances are that the NY Times will give President Bush credit for this North Korean agreement in tomorrow’s editorial?
Not holding my breadth…….

Talk to Iran?Before you answer that question please consider the following quote....

"Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them (a.k.a kill, murder, etc.) wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

- -Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the "Dey of Algiers.", 1805

That quote came in response to a question by Thomas Jefferson & John Adams, ambassadors to France and Britain respectfully, asking the Algerian ambassador why his people had so much hostility towards Americans.

For years the American government paid Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages, but not long after Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, he changed the "tone" of the US' relationship with the "Barbary Pirates" from the Barbary Coast of North Africa. He dispatched the USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid to the Mediterranean. Time for "talk" and "tributes" was over.

Jefferson was opposed, proposing a settlement of the issue "through the medium of war." What transpired next is referenced in the words “…to the shores of Tripoli” mentioned in the Marine Corps Hymn and consummated in the extremists no longer attacking America.

Instead of USS Constitution the US sends USS Eisenhower, instead of USS Constellation, the US dispatched USS Stennis and the Pentagon will soon announce another-a third US aircraft carrier task force will be sent to the Persian Gulf.

Time for talk & tribute are over.

I offer these seemingly unrelated quotes from history that all will realize in the future are associated:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing- after they've tried everything else"- Winston Churchill

"America is like a boiler, once it gets moving watch out" - British diplomat in WWI

"You Americans, you are always asking why?" - French Colonel Duportail, on training American militia during the Revolutionary War

The world has existed for 6 billion years and nuclear weapons for 60 years and somehow - no that's not correct, we KNOW how, we have managed not to put humans in the same category as the other 99% of species that have ever lived -extinction.

We know how because of people who have risen to lead at a time of crisis, like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Both led by their own conscience and neither by the whims of others. Both stood on principal and righteousness which not only showed everyone else the way, but let America's enemies - some are the same ones that exist today, know where America stood.
A line was drawn in the sand and America's enemies knew unequivocally not to cross it.

Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was once awakened in the middle of a 1980 night with news that the Soviets had launched 2,200 ICBMs. Just before he was about to call President Carter-who would have all of 3 to 7 minutes to make a decision, luckily Brzezinski learned it was a false alarm. “Luck” and all of its derivatives had everything to do with humans not destroying the human race, depressing isn’t it?.

With only three minutes to make a decision, who would you want to be on the other end of some future National Security Adviser's middle-of-the-night phone call?
Clinton? McCain?
Obama? Giuliani?

Respectfully, I will answer for you by predicting an answer of 'E' -none of the above. As we either don't know, know too much or will soon know more than we wanted, about each (by summer of 2008, you'll know what I mean about this admittedly cryptic remark).

Many, including Michael Leeden argue that we have been at war with Iran for the last 30 years and just haven't been conscious about it. I believe that the for the last three decades Americans have subconsciously been asking why not try so many other options but these are sadly, running out and will ultimately lead to the right final decision. In which case, who shall lead us with the possibility of having to make an existentional decision in the middle of the night?

Mark this prediction:
Near-term, the risks and tension will only increase.
Israel, by the end of the year will not be led by Prime Minister Olmert but by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who has all but called for preemptive attacks on Iran. Unfortunately, by end of 2008, Iran will start the process to conduct an underground nuclear test.
Confrontation will seem closer than ever before.

Yaacov Ben Moshe and others may feel a sense of frustration with America's action or inaction as it were, but keep on educating "us" (humbly proffer for future American leaders) about your experiences, thoughts and advice. Then watch the American boiler move from asking questions to undertaking the right but very painful actions that will guarantee life, liberty and happiness for all.

Nader, Gore and a Bush

To those that "assign' the blame for Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 election on Ralph Nader and Florida, a bit of mathematics to create this misleading thought:

Gore would have won regardless of the outcome of Florida if he could have won HIS OWN STATE. Gore lost Tennessee, by 80,000 votes, to Bush not to mention other traditionally Democratic states like West Virginia. Gore was the first major party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. Had he won his own state, Florida would not have mattered.
He lost the people that knew him best and therefore he lost the election.

As for Florida, I would argue that Gore suffered lost votes in Florida more due to his association with the Clinton administration's handling of the Elian Gonzales affair. Ultimately, Gore even tried to pander to the Cuban community in an obvious ploy that even his supporters recognized as pandering, thus costing him more votes. In the end, many Cuban-Americans were committed to getting back at the Clinton administration by voting against Gore. The vice president got 70,000 fewer votes in Miami-Dade than Clinton did in 1996.

And finally let's not forget that the Gore campaign made a strategic blunder from the onset by distancing himself from the popular Bill Clinton, a person universally known as being one of the best campaigners ever.

Nader was a factor in Gore's election loss, but not the factor.

In summary, Nader didn't get Bush elected, Gore did.