How Much Longer Forgotten?

The media is not making a big deal out of it, but doesn't this sound like "mission accomplished"?

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

Despite the statesman-like rhetoric, with violence increasing and problems persisting on the formation of a new government Biden's comments seem to leave a lot of skin on Obama's political hide going forward.

Questions: can the administration back away from Iraq as scheduled if it's descending back into chaos with Biden's comments floating forever in cyberspace? If AQ proxies start flowing back in will it be OK to ignore their Iraqi wing while maintaining the pressure on the Afghanistan/Pockeston wing? Will the press allow that to make any sense, especially when Obama claimed he'd leave a strike force in Iraq to handle AQ?

Ah well. Biden is certainly correct that success or failure in the region will be shared by all Americans. That was true in 1991, 1998, 2003, and now. Too bad it wasn't obvious all along but it's never too late for teachable moments.


Just don't mess with Joe!

Shukrijumah Indictment

He's already on the Rewards for Justice list, now prosecutors have indicted suspected AQ operational leader Adnan Shukrijumah for an alleged role in the Zazi subway cyanide plot. Since they don't exactly know where he is it's pretty much for show be he remains a most dangerous terrorist.

For instance, read this summary by former CIA analyst Rolf Mowatt-Larssen featuring Adnan and some friends regarding AQ's history of attaining NBC weapons. By the way, a lot of that information wasn't well known before 2010, such as Zarqawi's involvement with a ring of poison operatives. That would be the same Zarqawi who went from helping AQ in Afghanistan to ordering the killing a US diplomat, to Iraq before the invasion. Mowatt-Larssen's endnotes also explain some things:

After August 2003, it is not possible to extend the chronology without excluding considerable information that is sensitive or classified. Even though the passage of time has enabled more of the story of al Qaeda's WMD efforts to be told, much detail remains too sensitive to reveal, even in the years covered by this chronology.

Who says Muslims aren't interested in science? Makes one long for the ole Bush years when such announcements were mocked and dismissed as 'the politics of fear'.

MORE 7/8/10

Much more here.

And here's another leg to the stool--from Norway (of all places):

Norwegian police said they arrested the men after a more than one year of surveillance because of concern their investigation was about to be reported in the news media.

“This would result in a considerable risk of destruction of evidence and evasion in the further investigation of the case,” police said in a statement. “Hence, (we) chose to apprehend the individuals today.”

They described the charges against the men as “preparing terror activities.”

The investigation showed the suspects planned to use portable explosives made from peroxide, a chemical found commonly in some medicines and hair care products.

Two suspects were arrested in Oslo, Norway and one in Germany with the help of German police. All of them are in their 30s.

One of them was identified as a Norwegian of Uighur origin. The others were from Iraq and Uzbekistan.

Again--don't worry about any of this, it's just the politics of fear in Bush's phony-baloney war for oil.

Aviation Update

PRAISE ALLAH

The convicted and released Pan Am 103 bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi may live another 10 years with his terminal cancer. It's a miracle! He seems to have the same doctors as Tariq Aziz and Izzat al-Douri. How must the victims' families feel about this? And doesn't Obama care, especially after BP's name was dropped in the original story as being involved in an oil deal with Quedaffy as part of the swap. Time for some more ass-kicking and boots on the neck?

CRASH INVESTIGATIONS

We await any sort of official reports on the following accidents: Afriqiyah Airways 8U771; Ethiopian 409; Air France 447; Yemenia 626 (one update here); Kenyan Airways 507. Most if not all are being investigated by the French BEA.

NOT REALLY AVIATION, BUT...

It's technically part of the air. NASA's new administrator is making some waves with the revelation of the "foremost mission" given him by Obama--to reach out for the stars...all the way up to Allah.

Now, there's nothing wrong with prodding to world of Islam to catch back up to its glorious days of Cordoba, but is that really the job of NASA? And won't some of the conspiracy-loving Arabs be reading all kinds of nefarious intentions into why our space agency chief is over in Cairo saying things like:

As we look at the Earth view on the screen behind me, we see that it is a single planet, with land masses that jut up into what is actually a single ocean covering Earth. We share one ecosystem and a thin, fragile atmosphere that protects us from the Sun. Our carbon footprints resonate across the globe. And, looking away from Earth, we see how tiny we are against a vast universe that offers endless opportunities for exploration and scientific discovery to benefit all mankind.

Sounds kind of innocuous in a Coke commercial kind of way, or one-world government-ish, or American hegemonious, depending on perspective. Some took offense to Bush 41's 'new world order' speech in 1990, after all.

But the overarching strategy is probably to bring them into the 21st century, or even 15th, by getting them more involved in western science and technology so maybe they won't indiscriminately kill us. Thing is, Obama never does anything that feels completely innocuous--there seems to always be room for inconsistencies or a hidden purpose. So it's hard to say.

For instance, in Director Bolden's (former Shuttle Astronaut and career Marine) speech it's interesting to note that the bulk was devoted to what NASA will be doing on the ground as opposed to any final frontier forays. And it ended thusly:

As President Obama closed his message On a New Beginning here in Cairo one year ago this month – “The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.” Thank you and peace be with you all!

Er, which God? Most of the Muslims targeted for reset generally believe Allah is the only way to peace through conversion, while here in America groups like the Baptists believe everyone must be converted and saved in Christ, but there will be no peace on earth until after global war. The government must take pains to recognize everyone's diversity on the matter, including the atheists, being careful not to mix religion with public policy.

Which means the government is not supposed to rule govern via any crazy religious suppositions about God wanting global peace or anything else. Sure, Obama's "work here on Earth" is probably devoted towards a global spreading the wealth sort of peace but saying it without the God component sounds a bit presumptuous. It's also hard to make the case to a religious group (featuring some using that religion as an excuse to kill us) about what God may want without using God in the argument despite the separation of church, or mosque, and state, although presuming anything to do with His will is strictly another matter. So sticky, the wicket.

Defining the Tea Party

ABC News online has a feature story about the Boston Tea Party, written by Mark Gemein (of Fortune Mag, Salon, and elsewhere) who points out the disconnect between high taxes and the real Tea Party, using it to make some observations about the modern TEA folks:

The effect of the Tea Act was not to make tea more expensive for colonists, but much less so -- and much cheaper than it was in England. The economic losers here were tea smugglers, among them the wealthy merchant John Hancock, who would go on to become the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. Yet, ultimately, this didn't matter one bit. What was at stake was no longer tax revenue and the price of tea, but the right of the Crown to tax the colonies.

He goes on to summarize:

Democrats assume that if they could only convince folks that the program of federal austerity advocated by Tea Partiers will prolong the economic malaise, that support would wither away. But to try to prove to that to Tea Party supporters today is a little like trying to prove to the original Tea Partiers that the net effect of the Tea Act was to lower the price of tea. It may well be correct, but it misses the driving force of the movement. The Tea Partiers may talk about economic growth, but what they really care about is the moral project of rewarding the Responsibles and punishing the Deadbeats. For the movement zealots, it's the principle that really counts -- and even a little Depression may not be too high a price to see it through.

But is it a fair observation or a cleverly worded partisan hatchet job? Well, he refers to Paul Krugman as something of a modern Keynsian Paul Revere; a voice in the wilderness trying to warn the stubborn TEA people of the impending Hoover-like doom (evidently compared to the successful FDR spending programs and eventual war borrowing that cut the depression to only 10 years). All in all it's one of those articles that feels like a slam without the official slam seal of approval.

For instance, he seems to paint the movement as not only ignorant of history but more a pack of closet xenophobic racists who just want to punish minorities and their entitlements at the expense of patriots ('responsibles') for our massive debt, which he never calls dangerous or unsustainable. The fact he links to Rand Paul to summarize 'their position'--as if Paul has somehow been elected as TEA president--is another clue. And the cheap shot at Hancock feels like one of those "flog a sacred cow" kind of historic revelations inserted to shock the hoi polloi.
Of course more context would have been useful but why ruin the intended effect.

Fortunately in Democracies history isn't written by one man or Wikipedia--thanks to the sex poodle there are other sources. Here's another way of looking at the Tea Act in a much less verbose summary, taken from "Social Studies for Kids", an online scholastic site:

1773 Act that gave a monopoly on tea sales to the East India Company. In other words, American colonists could buy no tea unless it came from that company. Why? Well, the East Indian Company wasn't doing so well, and the British wanted to give it some more business. The Tea Act lowered the price on this East India tea so much that it was way below tea from other suppliers. But the American colonists saw this law as yet another means of "taxation without representation" because it meant that they couldn't buy tea from anyone else (including other colonial merchants) without spending a lot more money. Their response was to refuse to unload the tea from the ships. This was the situation in Boston that led to the Boston Tea Party.

Notice the slight difference in tone in getting to the point--the Colonists saw it as a stunt along with an unfair tax, even if the price was lower--but of course the scholastic site wasn't trying to make any political points. Here's a summary from the Boston Tea Party Historical Society:

The Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.

Manipulation and monopoly. Here's yet another short take:

The Boston Tea Party was an "in your face" approach to let the British authorities know that the Patriots in the New World had their own ideas; their own agenda; and their own plans for self-government.

In other words the point was more of making a point--that the government of Britain, of which they had little say, was not going to dictate their affairs any longer, even if through bribery. And in that alone there are certainly some parallels to modern politics and the mood of the TEA folks, regardless of whether they completely parallel the original history. So here's another version of what the modern TEA party might represent in context with the original Boston Tea Party:

The Tea Act was a bailout by the British government of their state-run tea company after years of screwing the Colonists on high duties, which precipitated a black market. The act was craftily marketed as a benefit but one which the Patriots saw through almost immediately and acted valiantly to stop. Hancock was not a criminal, he was a free trade patriot. And taxation without representation is wrong; bailouts don't work over the long run; and free markets are more in line with the rights of man than artificial government manipulation.

While it's true there are some who don't understand anything except "no new taxes" and some who probably don't get the historical connection, such wasn't completely explained in Mr. Gimein's article. But before calling it a partisan shot maybe it's more a style issue. For comparison, the same writer seems to be defending George Soros in this provocatively titled older piece. It's an interesting read, pointing out Soros' war against the "with us or against us" Bush doctrine (that liberals took completely out of context) and the evils of capitalism in general. It goes on to illustrate how an enraged Soros bought his way into the Democratic machine in trying to effect change on American politics, and how he should be taken seriously not as some kind of nut.

But was he defending him or just trying to warn free-marketeers? Hard to say but there wasn't anything in there close to insinuating that Soros was a misguided socialist ignorant of history or economics, which might more parallel the above piece. One thing is sure--the closer the November elections come the more of these kind of articles will appear in the mainstream press as they attempt to pigeonhole the Democratic opposition.

Independence

Happy Independence Day. Here's a clip from the John Adams miniseries.. or what some today might describe as a bunch of old white guys in wigs talking politics..



May God continue to bless this nation.

A Sorry State

California, that is. You've probably heard the story about the giant American flag mural that was drawn as a patriotic gesture after 9/11 but recently painted away by Caltrans, the CA state transportation authority only days before Independence Day. This forced an apology from the governator:

"To do so only days before we celebrate our independence and reflect on the freedoms we are lucky enough to enjoy in America is unconscionable," he added. "I extend my apologies to the artists whose mural inspired drivers along 680 for over eight and a half years.”

It's certainly not unreasonable for Caltrans to have a no graffiti policy (aside from whether the flag qualifies or not). Surely they don't want people painting Nazi flags on some underpass and claiming equal rights, etc. Graffiti sucks in general.

But this was the flag. Who really believes Caltrans just suddenly realized the flag was on state property? Who really buys that? Sure, bureaucracies are inept and it could have been some ignoramus pencil pusher, but more likely they knew it was illegal when it was drawn but also knew treating it like normal graffiti would cause a firestorm of protests.

So why now? Well, maybe it was this.

Why was Vicky Pelaez Working with Russians?

The Peruvian-born Spanish language journalist was among the eleven nabbed by the FBI's unfortunately-timed raid on the Russian spy ring. She's married to another guy with a Latino-sounding name, a former college professor (of course) who expressed an Abraham-like devotion to his apparent lord and savior, the Russian spy service.

"Juan Lazaro" evidently isn't his real name (is he from Uruguay or Siberia?) but it's interesting--his indictment says he was passing information to his spy masters. Just what was this CUNY professor passing that would have been worth a flip? Who was he connected to?

As to his wife, why would a South American-American sympathetic to Castro, Chavez and some Maoists be working in tandem with the Russians? The modern Russians. The ones who tossed away communism? Or does she know something we don't?

And why would the 15th bestest president of all time be furtively pursuing a "reset" with these same non-communists right now after having known they were running radical agents via money transfers in Venezuela? What's to be gained from such a relationship, and if anything, why have the FBI to bust this 10 year old ring in the middle of the reset? Doesn't Holder get a briefing? Still not getting it.