Friday Sermon from Iran

“Finally, I note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak at Columbia University. Have they at last agreed to include a moderate voice in their Middle East Studies department?” - Jay Nordlinger

Tehran's substitute Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami covered the love in today in the city. As is always the case politics is religion when ruled under the guise of a “religion of peace,” especially in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Khatami quoted IAEA Director el Baradei as insisting the Iran “issue” stay with the IAEA, but of course the U.S. is causing problems:

"We tell the world that this is the best evidence showing that the US is not for resolving Iran's nuclear problem but is trying to cause tension while Iran is seeking detention."

Not surprising that both Iran and the U.S. wish to “resolve” the issue; just with different results.

The Friday Prayer Leader also railed on the French Foreign Ministers recent remarks last weekend, which of course everyone took out of proportion as it was not spoken in diplomatese:

"This is not the first mistake by these French political nouveau rich. Recently, the French president named Lebanese Hizbollah a terrorist group and later had to retract his irrelevant remarks.”

Imagine doing the prophets’ (PBUH) work and being labeled a terrorist organization for it? Wow; the nerve.

Regarding a Palestinian Peace conference to be held in the U.S., the great “substitute” leader said it was doomed to failure; why?:

"This kind of conference is not going to solve the Palestinian problem rather it wants to save the Israelis. Such a connection has nothing for you but abjectness. Israel is a fake, wild and usurping regime whose tyranny is unparalleled in history."

Oddly, the U.S. had an issue with the Islamic Republic of Iran possessing “peaceful” nukes…bizarre. Well, maybe not; Columbia prefers an Ahmadinejad to the ROTC or Minutemen founder.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Big Dog's Weblog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Iranian Peaceful Nukes – Almost there on Agreement

"We do not take these statements seriously. Comments to the media are different from real statements" – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in response to recent statements from France

According to the Director of the IAEA, Mohamed “Neville Chamberlain” El Baradei:

“there is no reason to go beyond diplomacy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program.

The international community needs to keep the process of dialogue open in order to restrict the idea of using force against Iran, he said.

Underlining the need for clarifying and moving forward within the framework of a timetable agreed upon by IAEA and Iran, he said other nations should understand that the issue has been tied with the security of the region, therefore, they are expected to be more patient.

Taking a page from Ahmadinejad, we should add; we do not take these statements seriously, comments by diplomats never speak beyond the process of negotiation.”

The “secular pope” is seeing to it that the entire region/world sits back while he takes care of us all. A diplomats job is never done, their daily work accomplishes countless negotiation points each day; forget the fact that the art of diplomacy being practiced by El Baradei with Iran is wholly intended to avoid a military confrontation with Iran at all costs. One cost of this avoidance? A nuclear Iran.

El Baradei’s further advice to belligerents itching for a fight:

“If the parties involved in the dossier of Iran's nuclear program hold talks around a table, the result will be better than speaking about who should use force against Iran.”

Lunch included.

El Baradei also used Iran’s neighbor, Iraq as a lesson; citing that it is an example in which “innocent people are killed every day and thus, all parties should be careful when they speak about use of force.”

For so many like El Baradei, the “lesson” is the innocents killed daily. The irony that those he negotiates with are very responsible for the deaths of the innocents escapes the professional diplomat

“He’s naïve and idiosyncratic and that amounts to being dangerous. His argument for years was that he could talk Iran out of being a nuclear threat. Then it was, ‘O.K., we’ll just let them experiment.’ Now it’s, ‘you’re never going to get them to give up.” – John Bolton referring to Mohamed El Baradei

Not so secret war

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to third world county, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, The Yankee Sailor, Rosemary\'s Thoughts, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part I

Over the course of the roughly seven years of the Bush Administration it has been the public discourse of the Democrat party, Leftists and media of this nation to see and judge in each action; the wrong action. As is the case with any action taken, whether by a government leader or individual civilian, it is naturally followed by a reaction.

This is the nature of existence; even inaction generates a reaction. The President of the U.S. must make decisive action and once that action is taken, the reaction(s) will follow. Most leaders(?), will backtrack after the fact and say ‘well it was misinterpreted,’ or ‘that’s not what my vote meant,’ or ‘I was hornswaggled.’

Where the opposition gains is the myriad possibilities that may arise upon the taking of a certain action. Any number of observations or predictions is much easier to make once someone has done the difficult work of making it so. When an action takes place parts of the outcome are apparent, at least in that moment in time. Those in disagreement have all manner of direction(s) to choose from when attacking, as those are only words or theory, whereas the action is “real” and cannot be changed.

In this vein, I offer an analysis and reaction to Senator Barack Obama’s effort to define himself as a visionary in the realm of foreign affairs, as published in the pages of Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007 issue.

Following the gushing acknowledgment of three 20^th century Democrat presidents; FDR, Truman and Kennedy, Obama enters into the reality of a U.S. that must once again “provide visionary leadership.” Where the Bush Administration has moved forward with what could be described as “visionary” as they are actions unlike the previous tactics of the status quo and don’t rock the boat attitudes; yet Obama sees this as a “conventional” response to an “unconventional” attack:

“largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.”

Obama believes we must not see our nation’s power as being in a “terminal decline” but to seize it anew. Admittedly it is far easier to see the pessimistic than the optimistic as it takes much less effort for the former; this however is exactly what the Left has done with each word spoken and each step taken by the U.S. when it has been offered by the present administration.

He speaks of being in the “wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib,” because when offered the opportunity of giving his and their own nation the benefit of the doubt the Senator and the Left pounced upon their own homeland as the one with the evil intent as did much of the world media. How is that for optimism?

With his first day in office as president, Barack Obama promises to “renew American leadership in the world.” First by ending our efforts in Iraq soon and responsibly and then to set our sights on the greater Middle East, which was diverted from with our entry into Iraq.

Regardless of any good that has come from or does come from following our actions in Iraq, Obama must toe the line in painting the Iraq Theater as pointless. Doing so however, limits the seriousness with which one can take the candidates suggestion that “we should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.” After all, this is what the U.S. is doing now, but with greater numbers than it is assumed a President Obama would envision that he has awaiting his orders just “over the horizon.” This statement also belies and reveals that there are in fact terrorists, including al Qaeda in Iraq and that not having apprehended Osama bin Laden was a dropping of the ball. Bin Laden is another needle in the haystack, which the opposition can easily conclude and state would be in custody this very day, were they in charge. No way to prove it, yet no way to disprove it either; how convenient.

Clearing up the Bush created “morass in Iraq” would free the U.S. up so that it can re-enter the Israeli-Palestinian problem in the Middle East; this “a task that the Bush administration neglected for years.”

As candidate Obama sees it, those in the Middle East and “the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace.” I would hope however, that one would be forgiven the snicker that arises with this “idyllic” revision of the recent past. One might agree that many in the world have looked to the U.S. to stick its nose in so that others could then bad mouth the U.S. as a puppet of the Zionist regime or just a partner in the continuing failure to bring peace to a region that has done as much or little as possible to actually assist. There is also the issue of those actors that wish for and work toward the obliteration of Israel; which just so happens to include those a President Obama would apply his “(T)ough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military,” to.

The commitment as offered by Barack will be to address the growing threats in the region consisting of “a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” A commitment that sounds strangely similar to the present albeit minus the “Bush,” a commitment that sounds strangely like pre 9/11, a commitment that will require the assistance of ‘allies,’ that didn’t so much dislike the Bush Administration but had very different views and economic interests.

End of Part I

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6681504559295962273

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Exposing the Neo-Right, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Israel's Prime Minister Says He is Ready to Discuss Saudi Peace Plan

From The Israel Project:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this week that he's ready to sit down and talk about the Saudi peace plan with leaders of Arab nations wherever and whenever they're ready. [1]

"We heard about the Arab Peace Initiative, and we say come and present it to us," Olmert said at a conference in Jordan Tuesday. "You want to talk to us about it; we are ready to sit down and talk about it carefully." Wherever the talks are held, he said, "I'm ready to come." [2]

The Saudi initiative - first introduced in 2002 and revived in March 2007 - calls for Israel to withdraw from all of the land it gained in the defensive Six Day War, when the armies of Arab countries amassed on Israel's borders. June 5 marks the 40th anniversary of the war, in which Israel opened Jerusalem's holy sites to people of all faiths. A key controversy in the Saudi plan is that it would encourage millions of Palestinians to move into Israel. Many experts however do not see this as practical and want to work for a stable, peaceful two-state solution so that both Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace.

Also on Tuesday, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement emphasizing the importance of the participation of Arab countries in brokering peace with the Palestinians. "Moderates on the Palestinian side need pan-Arab support for the compromises a final agreement with Israel will entail. Arab moderates can act as a catalyst for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation." [3]

Just five days earlier, Livni met with Egyptian leaders in Cairo, including President Hosni Mubarak, to discuss the Saudi plan and the participation of Arab countries in brokering peace with the Palestinians.

"I do believe that the Arab world has a very important role in order to enhance, to support both sides in order to achieve peace," Livni said. An Arab League preparatory team, including the Egyptian and Jordanian foreign ministers, is to come to Israel within the next few weeks. It will be the first such visit by official representatives of the Arab League. [4]

Since its founding, Israel has reached out its hand numerous times to make peace with its neighbors. Israel also has made numerous sacrifices solely for a promise of peace - including giving back land won in defensive wars perpetrated by Arab countries. In 1979, Israel made peace with Egypt through an agreement to give up the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel won in the Six Day War.

In another land-for-peace deal in 1994, Israel reached an accord with Jordan after returning land in the Negev border area that it held since 1967.

Most recently, Israel paved the way for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel by evacuating all 9,000 of its citizens from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank in August 2005.

Almost immediately afterwards, terrorist groups in Gaza began using the land as a launching pad for Qassam rockets fired into Israel. To date, more than 1,300 such rockets have been launched across the 1967 border into Israel, killing 10 Israelis. On Tuesday (May 15), four people, including a four-year-old boy, were wounded in the neighboring Israeli town of Sderot when Hamas bombarded the area with Qassam rockets. [5] Israel has asked the Palestinians to stop the rockets many times but not only do the Palestinian leaders allow the rockets to continue, public television in the Palestinian areas is broadcasting a version of Micky Mouse which encourages children to become terrorists.

---

Footnotes

[1] Benn, Aluf and news agencies, "PM: I'm ready to negotiate Saudi peace plan with Arab leaders," Haaretz, May 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/859863.html
[2] Prusher, Ilene R. "Israel shows new openness to Saudi peace plan," The Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0516/p07s02-wome.htm
[3] Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Behind the Headlines: Israel receptive to moderate Arab peace plan," May 15, 2007, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+
Headlines/Israel+receptive+to+moderate+Arab+peace+plan+15-May-2007.htm
[4] Ibid.
[5] Greenberg, Mijal; Benn, Aluf and news agencies, "Four wounded by Qassam rockets in Sderot; Hamas claims responsibility," Haaretz, May 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/859908.html

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -