search

This Wacky Presidential Race

2008-05-11T08:34:00.000-07:00

Iran: Nuclear News

2008-05-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

The dance continues:

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made the following statement on Friday on behalf of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany after they met to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

"We've just had a positive and productive meeting of five foreign ministers and the vice-foreign minister from China to talk about the next steps in our approach to the grave problem that we see in respect of Iran's nuclear program.

"Firstly, we are united in our belief that the threat posed by this enrichment program to stability is very serious and it's one that we want to address directly.

Big words, must mean they have finally had it, right? Well, no.....

Same tactic, different day:

"Secondly, we are united in our determination to pursue a twin-track strategy. Last month, at our instigation the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1803 setting out a range of sanctions, the third set of sanctions against Iran.
[snip]
"And our meeting today has been dedicated towards taking the offer that we made in June 2006, reviewing it and updating it, and I'm glad to say that we've got agreement on an offer that will be made to the government of Iran.

In the meantime, Khamenei has stepped into the ring. You know, just to set the record straight:

Ali Khamenei, mullahs’ supreme leader in a speech on Sunday (5/4/08) vowed that Iranian regime would press ahead with its nuclear program, two days after major powers said they had prepared a new offer to convince Tehran's regime to halt its nuclear activities.

“We will continue on our own path with strength” and “no threats would deter” us to “back down”, the sate-run radio quoted Khamenei as saying on a visit to the southern Fars province.

Khamenei's remarks came after the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia -- and Germany agreed on Friday to offer a new package of incentives to the Iranian mullahs in return for ceasing uranium enrichment activities, a major component of building a nuclear bomb.

So, it seems the Security Council is still, singing in the wind. And, Rt. Hon. Lord David Waddinton, QC, agrees:

The Iranian Regime’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to world peace. In dealing with this threat and with the Regime’s unbridled meddling in Iraq and the Middle East, the West needs to make a strategic choice.

Iran’s mullahs have managed to remain several moves ahead of us thus far, and last August Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was able to say with conviction: “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.”

The chairman of the United States’ Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen acknowledged in April that Tehran was continuing to funnel weapons and other aid to extremists in Iraq for use against Coalition troops. He highlighted in particular the “increasingly lethal and malign influence” exercised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s extra-territorial Qods Force, which is bent on destabilizing not only Iraq but the rest of the Middle East.

Admiral Mullen’s words were then backed up by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, who on Monday told the Security Council that the Revolutionary Guard Qods Force "continues to arm, train, and fund illegal armed groups in Iraq”. He then added, "This lethal aid poses a significant threat to Iraqi and multinational forces and to the stability and sovereignty of Iraq."

The Revolutionary Guard has also had a pivotal role in furthering the regime’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. The main opposition coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), claims that the Revolutionary Guard is running a secret center to build a nuclear warhead at Mojdeh, southeast of Tehran. The Guard also supervises all uranium enrichment activity at the infamous Natanz complex.

Today, the Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany meet in London to expand on an earlier offer of economic incentives to Tehran in return for a promise by the Regime to halt uranium enrichment.

The international community seems to be almost entirely unaware of the regime’s stated intention to pursue its atomic work at any cost, and yet Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been quite brazen about it.
In February he boasted that Iran had gradually managed to pacify the international community’s demands that Iran comply with UN resolutions.

“Those people who used to say Iran's nuclear activity must be dismantled are now saying they are ready to accept our advances, on condition that it will not continue indefinitely,” Khamenei said. “This is a great advance that would not have been realized except with perseverance."

Ahmadinejad is also on record as saying in February,

"If they [the Security Council] want to continue with that path [of sanctions], we will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years. ... If they continue [with this pressure], we have designed reciprocal actions." I fear that the “reciprocal actions” would be felt on the streets of Baghdad, Beirut and the Gaza Strip in attacks masterminded by the Revolutionary Guard.

Surely if the West is really determined to address the threat from Tehran, it needs to show some muscle rather than offer more concessions to a regime with no intention of abandoning its unlawful activities.

So what is the answer? Could it be Israel, again?

Israel Has Specific Inelligence On An Iranian Nuke

2008-04-29T07:43:00.000-07:00

From Real Clear Politics

Rounding Up Wright's Wreck

With his "speaking tour" over the last three days, Jeremiah Wright has managed to do the impossible this political season: unite pundits from the left and the right in agreement about how badly he's hurting Barack Obama's quest for the White House.

For a brief tour of the landscape, start with Bob Herbert, who asks the question that is on everyone's mind: why is Wright doing this?

All but swooning over the wonderfulness of himself, the reverend acts like he is the first person to come up with the idea that blacks too often get the short end of the stick in America, that the malignant influences of slavery and the long dark night of racial discrimination are still being felt today, that in many ways this is a profoundly inequitable society.

This is hardly new ground. The question that cries out for an answer from Mr. Wright is why - if he is so passionately committed to liberating and empowering blacks - does he seem so insistent on wrecking the campaign of the only African-American ever to have had a legitimate shot at the presidency.

In the Los Angeles Times Jonah Goldberg says with his performance yesterday Wright exploded the "I was taken out of context" excuse:

Wright is every bit as radical as his detractors claimed and explodes Obama's messianic rhetoric about standing foursquare against divisiveness. Which is why that chorus you hear rising up from the John McCain and Clinton campaigns sounds an awful lot like this: "God damn Jeremiah Wright? No, no, no: God bless Jeremiah Wright!"

Eugene Robinson says he's "had it" with Rev. Wright and his "egocentric" response, and deconstructs the false claim, made four times yesterday by Wright at the National Press Club, that this was not an attack on him but an assault on the black church. Robinson writes:

Historically and theologically, he [Wright] was inflating his importance in a pride-goeth-before-the-fall kind of way. Politically, by surfacing now, he was throwing Barack Obama under the bus.

Sadly, it's time for Obama to return the favor.

Read the rest here

Taliban attack Afghan president

2008-04-27T12:29:00.000-07:00

Militants firing automatic weapons and rockets attacked the Afghan president at a ceremony in Kabul, missing their target but killing three other people and wounding eight.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assault that sent President Hamid Karzai and foreign ambassadors scurrying for cover, underscoring the fragile grip of his US-backed government.

Gunmen opened fire as a 21-gun salute echoed over the capital at an anniversary event to mark the mujahedeen victory over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Hundreds of people, including army and police that had formed an honour guard inspected by Mr Karzai minutes earlier, fled in chaos as shots rang out. The president was hustled away, surrounded by bodyguards, and left in a convoy of four black SUVs.

The gunfire apparently came from a three-story guesthouse, popular with migrant labourers, about 300 yards from the stands where Mr Karzai was seated alongside cabinet ministers and senior diplomats who all escaped injury. A US Embassy official confirmed US Ambassador William Wood was also unharmed.

An Afghan MP, who was about 30 yards from the president, was among the dead.

Continued

AP reporter's account of the armed attack on Afghan president

KABUL, Afghanistan: The first shot sounded sharply. It was clear something was wrong.

I heard the second crack, and a third, fourth, fifth, and at that point all the journalists were on the ground, ducking from the whizzing bullets. The Taliban were attacking a ceremony led by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Get down! Get down!" people yelled to each other.

Karzai and hundreds of Afghan and foreign dignitaries had been preparing to take to their seats across from Kabul's largest mosque. They were marking the 16th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet-backed communist regime in Afghanistan.

The gunfire broke out as a marching band was playing the national anthem.

Two American soldiers who had been saluting in the bleachers near the president pointed to some nearby houses, from where the gunfire appeared to have come. They still put their hands back up to their caps in salute as the anthem ended.

Continued

Shrinking penis panic & Phone Rape

2008-04-24T18:59:00.000-07:00

You know, things tend to be more interesting in some parts of the world. And today, I found two uh, interesting stories at once, without even trying. And, they are both true. LOL

Shrinking penis panic causes chaos in Congo
Police arrest 13 suspected sorcerers

Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.

Reports of so-called penis snatching are not uncommon in West Africa, where belief in traditional religions and witchcraft remains widespread, and where ritual killings to obtain blood or body parts still occur.

Rumors of penis theft began circulating last week in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling capital of some 8 million inhabitants. They quickly dominated radio call-in shows, with listeners advised to beware of fellow passengers in communal taxis wearing gold rings.

Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.

"You just have to be accused of that, and people come after you. We've had a number of attempted lynchings. ... You see them covered in marks after being beaten," Kinshasa's police chief, Jean-Dieudonne Oleko, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Phone Rape

Sandmonkey say's:

A Tunisian family is suing a 30 year old man for "raping their 20 year old daughter through phone sex". It seems that while they were having phone sex, the girl kinda punctured her hymen. The argument is that the two of them had sexual relations, even through the phone, that led to the girl's loss of hymen. How that is rape, given that the girl did it to herself, I have no idea. But what do I know? But if it works and they convict the guy, await paternity suits for children conceived through cyber sex.

Iraqi Army continues their fight & Sadr threatens war

2008-04-19T18:31:00.000-07:00

Artillery fire and bomb blasts shook a militia-held district in the southern city of Basra today as U.S. and British forces backed up Iraqi troops launching a new offensive in the area.

"JAM tried to prevent them from entering, but fierce air strikes enabled the Iraqi Army to take over control of the main streets and roads in Hayaniyah," one witness said.

Hyaniyah has been surrounded by Iraqi forces for several days, but today's actions marked the first time they had attempted to take over the neighborhood.

Meanwhile,

Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia Muslim leader, has threatened to declare "open war" if a security crackdown by Iraqi and US forces against his loyalists is not called off.

He said in a statement on Saturday that he was giving a final warning to the Shia-led Iraqi government "to take the path of peace and stop violence against its own people".

"If it does not stop the militias that have infiltrated the government, then we will declare a war until liberation," he said.

Al-Sadr also accused the Iraqi government of being too close to the US military.

I say, "bring it on". Maybe then, Iraq will finally get rid of this parasite.

Obama's leaking balloon

2008-04-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

Today at American Thinker, an excellent breakdown of Obama's surrealistic trip to reality, in:

The Obama Aesthetic

Barack Obama's campaign has been all about image. The well-dressed, impeccably groomed, and elegantly articulate speaker was able to speak of hope, change, and unity, and for awhile the public bought it. Capitalizing on the huge store of guilt, compassion, and hope for better racial relations among the vast majority of Americans of all races, Obama posed as the man who might heal the wounds of the past.

The bonhomie lasted for months, as the press corps, no strangers to tObama's haloheir own guilt and hope and leftist inclinations, averted its eyes from those elements of his politics and life story that were discordant with a unifier's mission, and portayed him as almost supernaturally virtuous. Obama long ago learned how to disarm strangers who might find him an unusual or perhaps threatening figure, and as long as the scrutiny didn't get too detailed, the game worked splendidly.

But that was before Hillary Clinton's campaign took him seriously. Before the Clinton war room wizards, past masters of planting stories and themes in friendly media hands, got to work on him.

Read the rest here.

Carter's meddling again - Update

2008-04-17T18:53:00.000-07:00

How would a Democratic White House react if a former president Bush were to "meddle"? Carter is just plain wrong.

U.S., Israel criticize Carter plans to see Hamas

(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it had advised former President Jimmy Carter against meeting the leader of Hamas in Syria next week, saying it went against U.S. policy of isolating the militant group.

Carter plans to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan during a nine-day trip due to start on Sunday but gave no details of specific meetings.

"This is a study mission and our purpose is not to negotiate but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East," the Carter Center said in a statement.

"Our delegation has considerable experience in the region, and we go there with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties," it said.

Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, discussed with the State Department's point person on Israeli-Palestinian issues, David Welch, his plans to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, but the department said it went against U.S. policy.

"We counseled against it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"U.S. government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interests of our policy or in the interests of peace to have such a meeting."

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, also expressed concern over such a meeting. "The unintended consequences of such a meeting would be to embolden terrorists and undermine the cause of peace," he told Reuters.

----
"There is an agreement to hold the meeting and arrangements are under way," Hamas official Ayman Taha told Reuters in Gaza of Carter's meeting.

Taha said the meeting was to be held following a request from the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which aims to promote global peace, health, democracy and human rights.

A spokeswoman for Carter declined to comment on specific meetings. The delegation will include former first lady Rosalynn Carter and ex-Congressman Stephen Solarz.

Initially, Carter had hoped to go with a group of 'elder statesmen,' including former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former South African President Nelson Mandela, but the others decided the timing was wrong.

An encouraging update from Fox News.
h/t IBA
Lawmaker Calls for Stripping of Taxpayer Funds to Carter Center

A U.S. lawmaker introduced legislation Wednesday to strip former President Jimmy Carter's Georgia-based scholarly institution of taxpayer support because of Carter's plans to meet with the top leaders of the Palestinian terror group Hamas.

And a second lawmaker presented a non-binding resolution that would urge former presidents from "freelance diplomacy" in direct response to Carter's visit.

"America must speak with one voice against our terrorist enemies," Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., said in a statement from his office. "It sends a fundamentally troubling message when an American dignitary is engaged in dialogue with terrorists. My legislation will make sure that taxpayer dollars are not being used to support discussions or negotiations with terrorist groups."

Knollenberg said the Carter Center has received about $19 million in taxpayer funds since 2001. He named his bill the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals Act — or CARTER Act, for short. The Carter Center is housed at Emory University in Atlanta.

The non-binding legislation was forwarded by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa. If adopted, the bill would express the "sense of Congress" that it "disapproves of former President Jimmy Carter's freelance diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, which contradict the stated foreign policy position of the current Administration."

The new legislation is the latest embodiment of scorn directed at Carter over meetings he plans this week with leaders of Hamas, which both the United States and Israel recognize as a terror organization and with which they refuse to negotiate.

Also Wednesday, Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., chairman of the Foreign Affairs Mideast subcommittee, wrote Carter imploring him not to meet with any more Hamas officials.

"[T]his visit will undermine the Middle East peace process and damage the credibility of Palestinian moderates," they wrote, adding that the "legitimacy and prestige that Hamas will derive from your visit will be seen in the region as a clear demonstration that violence pays."

Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., told FOX News, "I don't think Israel should try to negotiate with Hamas because Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist." Davis added that Carter's overtures stood athwart a tradition of support for Israel in America.

On Tuesday, more than 50 House members wrote Carter urging him to not meet with Meshal, calling him the man behind the deaths of 26 Americans.

[snip]

Carter (unfortunately) has the right to meet with anyone he wishes. But, meeting with a terrorist is skirting the line, he should not be getting any funding whatsoever. The message needs to get out that he in no way speaks for the US.

I would like to see him charged with a crime.

Cut him off, he is a traitor.

The Moral Police in Egypt

2008-04-16T07:05:00.000-07:00

So, I find this post over at Sandmonkey's place. In it, he exclaims "Sharqawy’s publishing house ransaked by Vice police".

It happened an hour ago and the details are still hazy. The Public Morality Police (we actually have one) has just stormed Sharqawy's publishing house, and confiscating all of the available copies of the egyptian graphic novel "Metro".

The police are demanding the presence of Shrqawy and Metro's author Magdy el Shafey and are banning Metro from all Bookstores.

Graphic novel?!!

Go see for yourself. Metro

One Marine's View - Must read post

2008-04-13T13:02:00.000-07:00

Daddy's Poem

Pope Benedict XVI: A Lion Dressed in Sheep's clothing?

2008-04-13T08:44:00.000-07:00

It appears there may be a pattern growing in the Pope's message.

First, we have "the speech":

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

The speech caused Muslim anger:

In Britain, Gaza, Iraq, Syria and Indonesia, Muslim leaders registered their protest. The Parliament in Pakistan passed a resolution against the pope's statements and the government later summoned the Vatican envoy to express official displeasure. In Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the most senior Shiite cleric, demanded "a personal apology - not through his envoys."

Then, you have "the baptism":

Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, was baptized a Catholic by the Pope at a Vatican Easter service Saturday.

The baptism caused Muslim anger:

"The pope provokes the indignation of Muslims by baptizing an Egyptian journalist who attacks Islam and defends Israel," read a headline in the newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi. The Arabic-language newspaper said Allam is known as a "Zionist Muslim."

And now, "the prayer":
h/t Epa@IBA

Pope Benedict will pray for the redemption of Islamic terrorists when he visits the site of the September 11 attacks in New York next week.

The pontiff will call for terrorists to convert to Christianity, saying: "Turn to Your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred.

"God of understanding, overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy, we seek your light and guidance".

Muslim anger is guaranteed to follow.

Keep up the good work of God pontiff. Your the man!

A Grateful Iraqi

2008-04-11T18:10:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Ace of Spades, a must see video that will put things in perspective.

Iraqi Politicial Tells the Truth

McCain erases Obama lead

2008-04-10T19:01:00.000-07:00

Well this is some good news. Personally, I hope the Demorats continue fighting each other and making enemies. The quiet man in the corner is making headway.

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.

The survey showed the extended Democratic primary campaign creating divisions among supporters of Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and suggests a tight race for the presidency in November no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee.

McCain is benefiting from a bounce since he clinched the GOP nomination a month ago. The four-term Arizona senator has moved up in matchups with each of the Democratic candidates, particularly Obama.

Liberation Day

2008-04-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

Today, the 5th anniversary of Liberation Day, a few posts written by Iraqis.

Iraq Pundit - Alas, Poor Mookie

Iraqi Mojo - The Fall of a Tyrant

Talisman Gate - Liberation Day

May those who gave their lives, both US Soldiers and Iraqi's, rest in peace.

And may God give all involved, the strength and will to continue this most worthwhile of endeavors.

Transcript: Gen. David H. Petraeus before Senate Armed Services Committee

2008-04-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

Transcripts:

Gen. David H. Petraeus before Senate Armed Services Committee

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

John McCain's opening statement on Iraq

John McCain: Message on Iraq

2008-04-08T18:18:00.000-07:00

Today I received my weekly email from John McCain's campaign. In this letter, he explains very clearly why we must choose him over his opponents. Why he is the right person in this race with regards to the Iraq war.

I fully understand all of the reason's people don't want John McCain. I have some of his negative aspects on my list. But, I will say it again; if we are not safe and we will not be safe with a Democrat in the White House, all of the other things will not matter.

We will not be thinking about economic and social problems, if we are ducking bombs. And we will, if a Democrat is elected. The current Democrats running for president, are weak. Their foreign policy ideas are ignorant and dangerous.

John McCain is far from perfect, but he knows who the enemy is. He also understands the long-term negative ramifications of a cut & run loss in Iraq.

Following is the letter:

My Friends,

Today, I had the privilege to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the current state of the war in Iraq and the progress that has been made there. We owe these two patriotic Americans a debt of gratitude for their selfless service to our country.

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival, and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

However, rather than retreat from Iraq and face the terrible consequences that would ensue, we chose to change strategies and turn things around. I was proud to be an outspoken advocate for this change in strategy and endured much criticism from members of both parties. As I've said time and time again, I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war.

"Never despair," Winston Churchill once said. And we did not despair. We were tested, and we rose to the challenge. Some political leaders close their eyes to the progress that the surge has made possible, and want only to argue about the past.

But the question for the next president is not about the past, but about the future and how to secure it.

While the job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished - as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated - we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success - the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists - this success is within reach.

Should the United States choose to withdraw from Iraq as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wish to do; before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long lasting. Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would become a failed state that could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations.

We cannot allow this to happen.

The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always the easiest thing. But when 4,000 Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of our failure in Iraq, it is a necessary thing. In such a grave matter, we must put the nation's interests before our own ambitions.

My opponents' calls for an immediate withdraw, regardless of the consequences, is a reckless and dangerous move that would threaten the long term security of our country. Leadership is not about bowing to the political pressures, it is about thinking through the consequences and having the experience and judgment to make the tough decisions.

Senators Clinton and Obama will surely echo the sentiments of their extreme liberal supporters and call for a pre-emptive withdrawal from Iraq. The American people deserve better. I encourage both candidates to move beyond empty and destructive rhetoric and elevate the debate to a level that the country deserves. There are tough decisions ahead and America deserves leaders that are up to the challenge.

As president, I will ensure that our troops come home victorious in this war that is part of the larger struggle against radical Islamic extremism and will continue to make keeping our nation secure my highest priority.

Sincerely,

John McCain

2008-04-05T18:25:00.000-07:00

One Marine's View tells off the whiny morans in BIGGEST MISTAKE.

I heard on the radio the other day that morons are claiming that the Iraqi War was the biggest blunder of President Bush's presidency. Wow, are these guys the most ungrateful, unfocused, un-American people or what? It was a mistake, they say, to invade Iraq. Hell, let's wrap Afghanistan in that too then.

It was a mistake to remove a dictator that kills off his own people to make a point. It was a mistake to stop the possible onslaught of T-72 tanks pushing into Saudi Arabia back in the Gulf War. Ok, all you cry baby bleeding hearts out there who are going to get on your soap box now and tell me we came "here", for oil and the Honorable President Bush is doing this for money and bla, blabla, bla. Save your breath.

If that is your foundation for your argument, you have so missed the mark. You need to stop believing everything you READ in your bed wetting newspaper and talk to those who have done something in coordination to change things.

Yes, it must have also been a mistake to free the innocent Iraqi citizens who would not conform to the insurgent way of life. C'mon you know, they are the ones chained in underground torture chambers, electrocuted, whipped because they tried to resist. Families slaughtered in front of them. What? Didn't you read that in your paper?

Read the rest here.

Iran: Nuclear News

2008-04-05T07:41:00.000-07:00

The diplomatic stategy to stop Iran, continues with impunity. And of course, when you use a "soft spoken voice", singing a sweet melody you get:

Iran rejects economic incentives

Iran rejected recent European overtures to halt its uranium enrichment program in return for incentives, saying it will continue to expand, not halt, its nuclear program, the government spokesman told reporters Saturday.

And this:

Europeans had better realize new conditions - Ahmadinejad

President Ahmadinejad made the comment in response to a Kyodo reporter in an exclusive interview, adding, "If there is a side that needs to speak of preconditions for holding talks it is Iran, not the European countries, because the Western countries told lies to world nations for five straight years, took disadvantage of the international conditions and polluted the world mass media with their lies."

EUROPEANS NEED IRAN NOT VICE VERSA

Here's more:

Iran to boost nuclear capacity despite pressure

Iran said on Saturday it would press ahead with plans to expand its nuclear program, after diplomats in Vienna said Tehran was installing advanced centrifuges in its key uranium enrichment plant.

The government spokesman also rejected any idea of halting work the United States suspects is aimed at building nuclear bombs in return for trade, technology and other benefits.

Movin' & groovin':

Iran installs advanced nuclear centrifuges

Iran has begun installing advanced centrifuges in its key uranium enrichment complex, accelerating activity that could give it the means to make atom bombs in future if it chooses, diplomats said on Thursday.

What's a dance without a partner:

Russia committed to Iran N-deal

Russian President, Vladimir Putin says Moscow will honor its commitments to Tehran and help develop Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

And this partner is obviously dizzy:

Putin says Iran is no threat

This dance has been so successful, they are planning the next one:

Iran to hold second 'Nuclear Technology Day' on April 8

Iran will hold its second Nuclear Technology Day on April 8, during which the government will tout the country's new achievements in the nuclear sector.

Here's someone who wants the music stopped:

Ayatollahs’ Quest for Nuclear Weapons
By Alireza Jafarzadeh, Fox News

For the past seven years, the war on terrorism has been the focal point of U.S. foreign policy. Questions on how that policy should or could have been pursued arouse strident debate, but there is no disagreement about the urgency of the threat. Nor is there any dispute that the worst-case scenario would be a nuclear-armed state-sponsor of terrorism. So it is no surprise that there has been no let up in the international scrutiny of the Iranian regime, a documented state-sponsor of terror that candidly declares “nuclear capability is our undeniable right.” Of late, however, there have been questions about what the ayatollahs are doing, and when they are doing it.

CIA Director Michael Hayden on Sunday became the third major Bush administration official to assert that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program all along. Echoing statements made by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Hayden told NBC's Meet the Press: “Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they're doing now if they did not have, at a minimum… the desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and, perhaps even more so, that they've already decided to do that?”

Critics were quick to point to December's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which declared with “high confidence” that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” But the director of National Intelligence, Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, appeared to disavow the NIE conclusion in congressional testimony in early February. McConnell said the wording of an unclassified version of the Estimate released to the public had been careless. “So if I'd had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”

Apparently, the Brits would have changed a thing or two, as well. On March 5, the British government joined in the fray. A senior British diplomat claimed there was no serious evidence that Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon had halted: "I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed. It's an uncertain picture." His comments appeared to reflect the findings of an independent British assessment of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, completed after the American assessment was published.

For one thing, the NIE's authors noted that in deciding whether Iran was in fact pursuing a nuclear weapons program, they did not consider the uranium conversion and enrichment activities Iran declared to be for “civilian purposes.” That is almost laughable. Tehran's entire modus operandi is concealment, via shell companies or “civilian” enrichment projects.

In a news conference in Brussels on February 20, Mohammad Mohaddessin, the Chairman of the NCRI's Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that in April 2007, the Iranian regime's nuclear project had entered a new phase. A command and control center, known as Mojdeh site, had been established to head up the drive to complete a nuclear bomb. Many of the activities at the site are disguised as part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps'(IRGC) Malek Ashtar University.

Plenty of other information indicates that ayatollahs' regime has in fact expedited its nuclear weapons activities, and that the IRGC has assumed command of a much larger segment of the nuclear drive. As the NCRI revealed, the Mojdeh site in Tehran, houses a vast research and development facility where scientists are experimenting with neutron initiators and triggers for an atomic bomb; casting and machining of uranium metals; and researching fissile material needed for the production of a bomb, among others activities. At Khojir, a Defense Ministry site 72 miles southeast of Tehran, researchers are working on building a nuclear warhead. None of these activities is necessary for nuclear power generation. In his latest speech at the NATO leaders' summit in the Romanian capital on April 2nd, President Bush reiterated that "Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons."

The reasons why become obvious in the context of the ayatollahs' overall domestic and foreign policies. On March 14, engineered parliamentary elections handed the reins of power to the most militant, suppressive faction. The politico-military faction represented by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top brass and veteran commanders took control, as all pretences at “reformist vs. hardliners” were thrown out the window. The day after, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the vote as "safeguarding the right to acquire nuclear energy with exemplary prowess."

Meanwhile, on the western border with Iraq, intelligence reports reveal another escalation in the terrorist meddling of the ayatollahs, again spearheaded by the IRGC. Primarily carried out through the IRGC's notorious Qods Force, the political-military buildup by Tehran's mullahs is targeting not just the south, but the heart of Iraq, via a new command and control HQ at Kermanshah.

Last year, of course, the IRGC was “specially designated global terrorists” — the first time a branch of a national military has been deemed as such by the White House.

In this context, the IRGC's predominant role in the nuclear drive puts to rest any of Tehran's excuses about a “civilian” nuclear program. Its rise to unprecedented power in virtually all aspects of the regime does away with any pretences of civil society. The mullahs are building the bomb, as quickly as possible, as part of a broader militarization of their entire regime. Lacking domestic support (most seats were won by a vote of less than 10 percent of eligible voters, even according to inflated official figures), the clerical regime must bolster itself somehow. If Tehran joins the nuclear club, it will become a powerhouse in the region, making it much harder to discourage from international terrorism and domestic repression. A nuclear bomb will also bolster the morale of the hated IRGC, the key means to the repressive regime's staying power.

In a word, if they are not stopped, we are looking at a nuclear-armed state-sponsor of terrorism. That is a scary prospect. Washington needs to recognize this fact, with finality, and implement a shift in policy. The restrictions and embargoes currently in place are a good start, but Washington also needs to put the ayatollahs on notice that a nuclear-armed Tehran is not an acceptable option. The right policy would heighten international pressure and sanctions on the Iranian regime, while recognizing that there is deep, widespread popular hostility to the ayatollahs. The Rt. Hon. Lord David Charles Waddington, former home secretary of the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote in the Washington Times this week that the U.S. would "do well to look at the MEK, which has the means and the will to bring about change in Iran, as a solution to this entire crisis."

Martin Luther King Jr.

2008-04-04T19:01:00.000-07:00

My way of honoring Martin Luther King Jr. on this, the 40th anniversary of his murder, is to spread the truth.

And to answer the question:

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican
From National Black Republicans

By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

May he rest in peace.

Islam & Iran

2008-04-02T20:21:00.000-07:00

Islam and the Iranian Dilemma

by Amil Imani

Amil Imani is an Iranian born, pro-democracy activist who resides in the United States of America. He is a poet, writer, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.
Amil Imani's Home Page

Since its inception fourteen hundred years ago, Islam has been at war with the people of this planet. Millions of people have been literally butchered with the sword of Islam.

Some may argue that all religions at one point in time have committed crimes against humanity. That may be so, but none of the existing world religions' foundation has been based upon shedding the blood of its innocent victims. Islam lives, breaths and grows on blood. Once we take away this red element from Islam, Islam will vanish completely. Islam cannot possibly live in the hearts and minds of its believers. Islam needs to shed the blood of the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. Islam is about world domination. It is utterly part of being Muslims.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia.

Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same.
Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.

“Throughout centuries, Iranians continued to prevent Islam from making inroads into their cultural identity and divesting them of their heritage. Knowing their culture well, they influenced events and paved the way for posterity to turn the tide. From the beginning, three lines of resistance are distinct: administrative manipulation, political resistance, and intellectual nonconformity.”

Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pall over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims.

Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

*snip*

The long-suffering Iranian people must put the past behind them and use their excellent talents to not only join the advanced world, but lead it. What a shame to remain stuck in this horrid mentality of victimization. Iranians deserve better than being manipulated by a bunch of mullahs who have been having a great ride on the back of the ignorant poor. They have been deceiving the poor and the ignorant with empty promises all the goodies that they are promised in the afterlife.

Forget the afterlife and pay attention to the plight of the suffering masses. Stop playing politics with the life of the people. Those responsible for this sham have no heart and no shame. Let the bad bygones be bygones and use the marvelous human potential of Iranians to provide them with the opportunities to better themselves and their families.

The most important step in the direction of emancipation of our people is the establishment of the rule of law -- not the barbaric Sharia -- to grant all Iranians, male and female, young and old, of any and all beliefs equal rights.

We Iranians don’t have a dog in this fight. In fact we should rid ourselves of all Islamic stains, Shia, Sunni, or whatever, and with it stop playing victims of one power or another. Playing victim may give psychological relief but doesn’t solve any problems on the ground. And problems on the ground we have aplenty.

Let's look forward and do something about the sorry plight of Iranian people today so that future generation recall this generation of Iranians as trailblazers who had the courage to break from the bleak past and launch a bright future.

And another Iranian's protest against dictatorship:

I have decided to set Quran on fire as long as Islamic dictatorship of Iran:

1. doesn't commit to Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules;

2. doesn't stop executions;

3. doesn't free students and opposition from prison;

4. doesn't bring justice in Judiciary system and society.

I believe religious disobedience is the key to save Iranian people from ruling mullahs. They preach that Islam is religion of peace and freedom which is a hypocrisy in reality.

So as long as this hypocrisy goes in Iran, this fire is on Quran and I will continue to do so for unlimited time. Also I encourage you to set fire on Quran in every corner and leave the rest of it in the city because this movement should spread itself among everyday people.

I chose this date because it's Islamic sacred month in the Islamic calendar which in this month the Hajj Pilgrimage takes place. So setting Quran on fire, I am sending this message to mullahs (clergies) who live in hypocrisy that if Islam has not brought peace and prosperity in Iran for Iranians as logic suggests, we should get rid of it like what I am doing.

Also I am asking you to support this campaign.

VIDEO from Fire on quran

The Unfair Advantage

2008-04-02T07:06:00.000-07:00

The end of February, I wrote the following post:

As if politics in America weren’t mean and nasty enough. We have now “progressed” into a new realm.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we now introduce the race, gender and Islamaphobia cards.

As far as I know, we still live in a democratic country. According to the “rules”, we are not only allowed to elect our president, but question the candidate.

But, there are some new rules this year. Or rather, new advantages to be used when it is to the benefit of the candidate.

Don’t like the question? Just pull out one of your “get one free” cards.

We are facing a situation in this election, that is untested. One of the candidates is black, with some obvious connections to Islam and the other is a woman.
The “gender” trial has been faced and moved on rather quietly. In our country, being accused of sexism is a lesser sin. Almost expected, a given.

The other trial, is a whole other story. Except for white supremists, who could give a damn, being accused of racism, feels like a death sentence. And being accused of being an Islamaphobe, could get you killed.

Obama just so happens to hold the 2 best cards in the hand. He is also the most questionable (in my opinion) of the candidates. Or rather, the one who has the most to answer to.

Where does that leave us in regards to our right to a “Free and Fair Election”?
I for one, will continue to question this man and stand my ground.
We live in a democracy. And so long as we have the rights, we need to stand up for them.

If we don’t, we will lose them.
Unfair and unjust PC has no place in politics.

And today, American Thinker gives us the outcome of the above:

American Thinker: The Democrats' cul-de-sac

The current agony of the Democratic Party, which grows more acute every day, is laden with an unspoken truth. As the unending Clinton-Obama struggle drags on, the core unutterable reality for Democrats is simply this: because of the composition of the Party's domestic coalition, its continued electoral viability makes absolutely necessary perpetual capture of 90+% of the black vote.

Because of this grim fact -- of the Party's own making -- the Clinton/Obama fight is over. Obama has won, and every leading Democrat knows it. In short, because of his race, Obama must be awarded the Democratic nomination. So much for the myth of America's first major post-racial candidate.

Under no reasonably foreseeable set of future developments, including the possibility Obama's exposure as a fatally compromised candidate, can Obama be denied the nomination. Doing so would subject the Democratic Party to the unacceptable risk that it would alienate its most dependably monolithic voter bloc. Hence, the daily gnashing of teeth by Party elders and the demand, which grows more hysterical each day, that Clinton concede a contest that at present is nothing more than a hard fought stalemate.

Without keeping focused on the Democrats' self-chosen demographic cul-de-sac, the growing demands for Clinton's withdrawal would be inexplicable, indeed, outrageous.

Imagine the current situation with identities reversed: picture Clinton's having built up a small but, for nomination purposes, inadequate pledged delegate lead by winning states the vast majority of which she had no hope of carrying in November (e.g., Mississippi, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah[!], Montana etc.); imagine further that Obama were nipping at her heels in pledged delegates because he had won practically every state which the Democrats will, or can reasonably hope to, win in November. Finally, imagine that the media only recently had given serious attention to a potentially major political liability of Clinton's that called into question her electoral viability, and that a large test of that liability's weight was about to unfold in a key state for the Democrats: e.g., Pennsylvania.

Under this hypothetical scenario -- the perfect reverse of what the Party now faces -- does any even slightly knowledgeable observer of the US political scene not on drugs believe that the Party's VIPs and media sycophants would be demanding that Obama retire from the fight "for the good of the Party"? Inconceivable.

Rather than slink from the field, Obama would be rushing forward as the Party's savior, to rescue it from a candidate whose appeal is perversely concentrated in states which Democrats cannot win, and who may turn out to be terminally flawed by a recent revelation that is about to receive further critical testing in Pennsylvania. Calls for Obama's withdrawal from the fight by Clinton under these circumstances would be met with jeers and derision.

Why is it all so different in the real world set of facts? Why are the media and Party peasants, torches and pitchforks in hand, gathered at Clinton's door, and growing more menacing each day? The answer is race, race and race. Barack Obama, who risibly claims to be America's post-racial candidate, will one day be viewed as the most overtly racial candidate in the history of American presidential politics.

al Qaeda Iran in Iraq? (Updated)

2008-04-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

This just in from Talisman Gate:

Mini-Update: I just woke somebody up in Baghdad who usually ends up knowing this sort of thing and he completely dismissed the press report that Iran's 'Sardar Hajji' Qasim Suleimani, head of the Revolutionary Guard's Qarargah Quds (Force), was somehow involved in brokering a 'ceasefire' between Maliki and al-Sadr as a "naive fabrication". The original press report quoted anonymous parliamentary sources.

I do hope this is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This news coming out of Iraq cannot be good. Iran has far too much influence. Another reason why we must not leave until Iraq has "grown up".

Islamic Republic of Iraq, does not have a nice ring to it.

Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire

Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers.

The deal could help defuse a wave of violence that had threatened recent security progress in Iraq. It also may signal the growing regional influence of Iran, a country the Bush administration accuses of providing support to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

Al-Sadr ordered his forces off the streets of Iraq on Sunday. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed al-Sadr's action as "a step in the right direction." It was unclear whether the deal would completely end six days of clashes between U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and Shiite militias, including al-Sadr's.

Osama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni lawmaker who oversaw mediation in Baghdad, said representatives from al-Maliki's Dawa Party and another Shiite party traveled to Iran to finalize talks with al-Sadr.

Iran has close ties with both al-Sadr's movement and al-Maliki, who spent several years in exile there. Al-Nujaifi said the agreement was brokered by the commander of Iran's al-Quds Brigade, which is considered a terrorist organization by Washington.

Haidar al-Abadi, a Dawa legislator who is close to al-Maliki, confirmed that Iranians played a role in the negotiations. Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to al-Maliki, said he could not confirm or deny Iranian involvement in the deal.

"The government proved once again that Iran is a central player in Iraq," said Iraqi political analyst and former intelligence officer Ibrahim Sumydai.

..........

And I say ditto to The Angry American, who breaks down a day of fighting, and has this to say:

Fuck the Militia

Crazed Cleric Anjem Choudary caught on tape recruiting killers

2008-03-30T13:04:00.000-07:00

News of the World has obtained a tape of British radical Islamist, Anjem Choudary urging his followers to brainwash and recruit Britons. The authorities have taken notice but, will the dhimmi's allow them to do their job and arrest him?

He is also collecting $50,000 per year of welfare benefits. In other words, he is being paid to preach his hatred and recruit British citizens, to kill British citizens.

Tape reveals vile rants of Muslim scrounger who preaches evil

Yet, sickeningly, crazed cleric Anjem Choudary and his wife rake in more than £25,000 a year in welfare BENEFITS—while he plots to destroy British society.

Now Choudary —who once called for the Pope to be executed and described the September 11 hijackers as "magnificent martyrs" — could face arrest under anti-terror laws for his evil ranting on the tape, which was passed to the News of the World.

After hearing his latest inflammatory remarks, terror experts asked: "What more does this man need to do before he is locked up?"

Choudary, 41, was taped lecturing a secret meeting in west London earlier this month. On it he urges his Islamic followers to persuade would-be terrorists to sign up for killing campaigns.

The bearded mullah describes non-Muslims as "the enemy" and tells his sympathisers they should brainwash at least TEN Britons a month into becoming al-Qaeda supporters.

He also urges his clan to preach that:

FIGHTING jihad\against Western society is an obligation.

BRITISH Muslims should travel abroad to fight our troops.

TERRORIST wannabes should "put fear into the hearts" of non-Muslims in the UK and spread al-Qaeda messages.

........

Choudary reminds his fanatical followers: "Remember, our ultimate objective, apart from pleasing Allah, is domination of the sharia \ all over the world."

The rest of the article and the tape can be seen here.