Read the article at...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27033

...In Mike Spann’s gallantry resides a lesson for us to consider as we commemorate Memorial Day. While he died with honor, what is now incumbent upon us is to live with honor. By so doing, we will venerate his sacrifice, as well as the memory of countless men and women extending back to the Revolutionary War who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. How to live with honor is a path we must blaze each in our own personal way. Fortunately, wellsprings exist that we may draw upon for guidance. One of them is the example set by Mike Spann himself. As his wife, Shannon, poignantly recalled at his funeral in Arlington Cemetery, “Mike is a hero not because of the way he died, but because of the way he lived. Mike was prepared to give his life in Afghanistan because he already gave his life to us everyday at home.” In the soul of this one warrior we can discern the meaning of Memorial Day...

Read the entire article at...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWUzMzJiMTUxYzhhODlmMDA1OTgwMTYwZTQzZjkyMzE=

"Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell."

Links;

• Zeitgeist - The Movie
• Former 9/11 Commission Chief Philip Zelikow on Allegations He Secretly Allowed Karl Rove & White House to Influence 9/11 Probe
• Philip D. Zelikow
• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9/11 Commission"
• IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
• The truth about Zelikow and the Sept. 11 cover-up commission

U.S. intelligence agencies have announced their belief that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. President Bush has said his aggressive stance toward Iran would not change as a result of the new NIE.

Ways you can take action:

• pressure your members of Congress to use their power to demand hearings on Iran and to co-sponsor H.R.770 and S.759;
  ­
• include a call for no attack on Iran in any activities you are organizing to end the war in Iraq;
• download and distribute War Times' flyer, "Iran: Let's Start With Some Facts";­
• send letters to the editor and call into radio talk shows to explain why you oppose a military attack or war in Iran;
• invite a speaker on Iran to your school, house of worship, labor union, or to your peace or community group;
• ­order our "Do Not Attack Ira­n" postcards and send them to your members of Congress. Bulk discounts are available so you can distribute them in your communities. You can also order our "Hands Off Iran" t-shirt.

And if you haven't al­ready:­­

• Sign Peace Action's "No War with Iran!" petition to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice today!
• Sign After Downing Street Coalition's petition directed at Bush and Cheney

—Kevin Phillips

JG.

Unabashedly poached from: Paul B. Farrell at marketwatch.com

If you're going to play with the big boys, you have to play like a boy. I find it worrisome that, the moment the going gets tough, Hillary starts squealing about identity politics unfairness. Is this how she's going to deal with it when Putin, or Kim Jong-Il, or Sarkozy, or any male leader criticizes her? I therefore much appreciated Peggy Noonan's article comparing Maggie Thatcher to Hillary (and loved the anecdote with which she opened the column). It seems to me that, while I'm lukewarm about Noonan's writing generally, I "get her" when she writes about Hillary. Of course, when Noonan jumped the shark and started swooning over Obama at the article's end, I lost her, but I still give her credit for understanding Hillary.

Speaking of Obama, Dean Barnett has one of the most interesting articles I've seen about the man, since it manages to recognize his undoubted charm and intelligence, while still having serious doubts about his leadership abilities -- abilities that he's never had to prove in the real world. As for me, nothing impresses me less than a Harvard Law degree. This is not merely the knee jerk reaction of someone educated at public universities when confronted with someone from the Ivies. Nope. This is a specific Harvard animus, based on 20 years of practicing law. What I've seen is that Harvard law grads from the 70s and before are as good as any other lawyers. Harvard grads from the 80s and after are, generally speaking, not. The ones I've known (and this is just my personal experience speaking here) have been, in a word, ineffectual. Yale grads, on the other hand, consistently overawe me, being some of the most incisive legal thinkers I come across. This means that, applying my own personal biases and experiences about Harvard grads, I'm perfectly willing to concede Barnett's analysis: Obama is intelligent, but impractical and ineffectual.

(To any Harvard law grads who are reading this, my apologies if I've offended you. As I reiterated above, I can only talk about the Harvard grads I've known, and by sheer bad luck, I may just have run across Harvard grads who weren't very good lawyers, and wouldn't have been very good no matter their law school. In any event, Harvard grads have the deck stacked against them from the get-go, because my medium long experience has has taught me that, while grads from the top 20 law schools -- and my law school was in those ranks the year I graduated -- write very well, and can analyze things to death, they tend to be less effective lawyers than lawyers from the less high and mighty institutions. These differences tend to even out within 5 or 10 years of graduation, but are pretty apparent in the beginning. We write well, but we lack the smarts and practical skills to win cases!)

As you may know, there's been a big oil spill in the San Francisco Bay, fouling beaches and putting wildlife at risk. The spill left me with a question, and I wonder if any of you have an answer. It's been a fairly long time since the last oil spill in America (something I assume can be attributed to better built oil tankers). That means a lot of years have passed since the last big spills, especially the Exxon Valdez. What I'd like to know is how the wildlife has (or if it has) recovered since those spills. Do the spills create toxic nightmares going into the next millennium, or at least the next century, or does nature repair herself fairly quickly? I have no knowledge at all about this; just the question. I do have one article that says that, after a horrible oil spill in the Bay in 1971, it took 5 years for the wildlife to recover. Incidentally, I'm asking this question because, while I'm stridently in favor of preventing spills, it's nice to know that nature is resilient should one happen. (Here's a heartrending picture of one of those poor birds mired in toxic goop.)

One more thing: I've been hearing a lot of Gilligan's Island in the car lately, 'cause that's the video du jour (or make that the video du week) in the car for the endless carpooling. I'd forgotten what a stupid show it is, but the kids love it, as I did when I was a kid. One of the moments that sticks in my head, because I have to listen to all this, is Gilligan auditing a debate amongst the other castaways. At the end of each argument, he sagely opines, "You know, he's right." Eventually, Skipper turns on him and insists "Gilligan, they can't all be right," to which Gilligan, of course, replies "You know, you're right too."

I mention this anecdote because I felt exactly like Gilligan when I read Commentary Magazine's symposium about the war in which we currently find ourselves engaged. Although the contributors sometimes contradict each other, I find myself in agreement with each of them, on both major points and minor nuances. I guess I can do this because their unifying theme is that there is as clash of cultures going on here, with Islamists on the one side and the West on the other side. Each contributor takes that issue seriously, and by not dismissing it, comes up with reasoned, rational arguments and insights with which I agree.

And that's it this morning from the great randomizer in my brain.

After four weeks in New York I think it is possible that I have settled down and settled in.I purchased food for the first time from a supermarket two days ago - rather than the rushed variety that New York is famous for that fills you up and weighs you down - then even managed to cook it; I have played a game of basketball and stepped inside a gym, thus taking a neglected body for a much needed spin; I have had an internet connection installed in my apartment and also found the time to finish a book in no way whatsoever connected to my course or to journalism.

In short, I have achieved a level of normality (the Americans would have me say 'normalcy' but on my own blog I am taking the opportunity to rebel). I still live out of my suitcase, am yet to discover the laundry facilities and inhabit a room devoid of any colour or personality, but I fear that too much progress in these areas would rob me of a manliness that I am in a daily struggle to maintain.

I can largely thank Google for this unprecedented level of organisation, as they provide me with a smart online calendar that tells me where I have to be and when. Though a reassuring presence in my life, there is the concern that it will snatch away the sense of adventure that dominated the first haphazard moments among the rigid grids of Manhattan.

Right, here goes

I promised to be 'topical' and so will dive straight in to the issues that seem to dominate the media and conversation on the street; it will surpirse nobody that the Iraq war and 2008 presidential race top the list.

It is no shock that among the 'liberati' dominating the Columbia Journalism School, or the young hords of ambitious political idealists doing the trendy thing and jumping on the Obama campaign trail, the opinion is one of an awful war started by an ignorant president; a man who should strive less to salvage some sort of legacy and worry more about the lives of American soldiers.

Bush's recent attempt to reveal himself as a figure of caring humanity - "I’ve got God’s shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot. I’ll bet I’ve shed more tears than you can count as president" - did little to appease the left.

I departed Manhattan for the neighbourhood of Highbridge, in the borough of the Bronx, to gather the thoughts of some of New York's poorest residents. The response was not unexpected. Yes, it is awful that "young men are dying for no particular reason", said Abraham, a street sweeper, but inhabitants of this neighbourhood, and many like it, are more anxious about the daily toil of their own lives.

Gesturing across the street despairingly, forty-year-old Louis, peddling papers from a small yellow rack outside one of the neighbourhood’s courthouses, says he is more concerned with “the junkies, the crime, the kids getting hit by cars, the kids getting raped”, and on a level of perhaps even more immediate concern Jose, a barber, laments that since 9/11 the price of milk and other basic needs has risen dramatically. "We ain't strong enough to do anythin' about it", shrugs Jose, "nobody listens to us".

Mr Cook, stabbing at litter in a local park, thinks "Our boys should come home. Get them out of Iraq". However, when pushed on the subject he admits that "We are all just minding our own business". The most important thing for me, he growls, it "to jump up on that roof and holla for that dollar".

Recent reports from Iraq suggest that the 'surge' in troop numbers is proving effective, but senior military figures such as General Petraeus have warned the government against reducing their number in the near future.

Barack vs. Hillary?

It is likely that the the decision to withdraw American troops entirely from Iraq will be made by the next president. The race dominating public attention is currently that for the democratic nomination, with the two favourites standing firmly as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Both fiersomely effective fundraisers, the former is being billed in the media as charismatic yet inexperienced, the latter as mean yet effective. Obama stands for change, for altering the status quo and ridding America of stagnant Bush-Clinton domination; Clinton for efficient administration and tough deliverance on policy. There is of course the obvious significance that the battle could catapult the winner to the position of first black, or first female, president.

The republicans have not been forgotten. Rudolph Giuliani is campaigning as an expert on terrorism, an iron warrior forged in the blazing wreck of the World Trade Center. He promises to clean up Iraq in the same ruthlessly methodical way that he cleaned up New York in the nineties. Worryingly, though, one of his most trusted foreign policy advisers is a neoconservative named Norman Podhoretz, author of a book due to be published on, yes, September 11th, entitled World War IV: the long struggle against Islamofascism. World War III, in case you were wondering, is how Podhoretz refers to the Cold War. However, the Islamofascists, according to Podhoretz, are far more dangerous than the Soviets ever were, as there are several billion of them around the world.

Giuliani faces competion from the morman Mitt Romney, whose strong conservative appeal is tainted by his advocasy of gay rights, and John McCain, a staunch supporter of Bush's 'War On Terror'. It is easy to see why the democaratic race is receiving so much attention.

Another Obsession

I will add a short nore on a third topic of conversation, a topic that brings out passion in everyone here, from professors to park attendants: baseball. To be more precise, do you love, or do you hate, the Yankees? Many, of course, go further and idolise the Yankees, constant contenders for the coveted World [read 'American'] Series, and others liken them to the Hitler's Nazi Party. "Don't you think that they Yankee logo, on its side, looks just like a swastika?", one boozy bartender asked me by way of an explanation.

Those that despise them do so for their arrogance on the field and their avaricious tendencies off it. Like maybe a Chelsea or a Manchester United in England, I often hear the complaint that the Yankees "just buy all the best players." So, in New York you either support the Yankees and enjoy their success, or you support the Mets, New York's other, less illustrious team, and hope that the Boston Red Sox, the biggest threat to Yankee domination, can stop them winning a 27th World Series. I am yet to affiliate myself.

Sorry this has taken so long; the contents of this blog so far and most future posts are soon to be transported to my very own, yet to be created, website. Keep your eyes peeled.

2. Dezember 2006, 12:30 Uhr

1. Dezember 2006, 17:32 Uhr

Klicken Sie auf dieses Bild:

Auf einer anderen Militärinformationsseite steht, dass Asserbeidschan Interesse haben könnte an einem US-Stützpunkt in Baku.
Insgesamt also erscheint es, denke ich, nicht ausgeschlossen, dass eine Restbesatzung in der Region zurückbleibt.
Abgesehen davon wurden Flugzeugträger, Kriegsschiffe und U-Boote im Golf von Oman stationiert. Noch dazu sind die modernen Überschallflugzeuge so schnell, dass diese sogar aus den USA in wenigen Stunden im Notfall angreifen könnten.
Die Weltbank ebenso wie der IWF verfügen durchaus über Möglichkeiten, auf ein Land Druck auszuüben.

Last not least - momentan wünschen sich die Irakis, dass die USA so schnell wie möglich zurückziehen. Aber in diesem Fall würden vermutlich Schiiten, Sunniten und Kurden so derartig aneinander geraten, dass es doch eigentlich vorstellbar sein könnte, dass die eine oder andere Gruppierung doch noch von sich aus an einer weiteren Zusammenarbeit mit den Amerikanern interessiert ist.

Beim Erhalt von Militärstützpunkten spielt auch die Kostenfrage eine Rolle, weshalb ein Stützpunkt in Israel, glaube ich, nicht besonders attraktiv ist. US-Truppen in Israel - warum eigentlich nicht? Israel kauft Waffen von den USA, es lässt sich vom Weltsicherheitsrat ebenfalls von den USA unterstützen . In diesem Zusammenhang müsste es doch den Nachbarstaaten fast schon gleichgültig sein, wenn US-Truppen auch noch dort stationiert sind. Vielleicht könnten dann die US-Truppen Schwerter in Pflugscharen verwandeln, wie dies eigentlich in der Bibel steht und gemeinsam mit den Israeli das Land so durchorganisieren, sodass für alle Menschen in diesem kriegsgeschüttelten Land mehr Lebensqualität entsteht als bisher?

1. Dezember 2006, 22:52 Uhr