Unrestricted Warfare:
China's Master Plan to Destroy America
By Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui Introduction by Al Santoli
As incredible as it may be to believe, three years before the Sept. 11 bombing of the World Trade Center a Chinese military manual titled Unrestricted Warfare touted such an attack – suggesting it would be difficult for the U.S. military to cope with.
Here is an excerpt from Unrestricted Warfare:
“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military...”
Surprisingly, Osama bin Laden is mentioned frequently in this book.
Now NewsMax.com is making the CIA translation of this shocking book available to all Americans.
On Sept. 11, 2001, Americans and the world witnessed one of the most horrific acts ever to take place on American soil.
Our media and government were quick to declare the acts of that day as simply terrorism by a nationless group known as al-Qaeda.
In reading China’s military manual Unrestricted Warfare, you will learn that the events of Sept. 11 were not a random act perpetrated by independent agents.
Instead, Chinese military planners believe that terrorism is just one of the many tools at the hands of nations and their terrorist allies to wage total war against the United States.
You will be surprised to learn:
The two PLA colonels who authored Unrestricted Warfare have been hailed as heroes in China since Sept. 11
The Chinese state-run propaganda machine is cashing in on the terror attacks ... producing books, films and video games glorifying the strikes as a humbling blow against an arrogant nation.
Chinese Communist Party officials are saying that President Jiang Zemin has obsessively and gleefully watched and re-watched pictures of the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center.
The CIA’s own translation agency reported that this book identifies the U.S. as China’s main enemy, and details how a weak nation can destroy America using unorthodox attacks – like the 9-11 attacks.
China is preparing itself and encouraging others to engage the U.S. in total war. The book is chock full of plans and strategies, from using computers, to smuggling illegal immigrants, to manipulating the stock markets, to influencing the U.S. media, to using weapons of mass destruction – all to destroy America.
Recent press reports indicate that China has assisted and continues to assist militarily and economically the Taliban and al-Qaeda – even after Sept. 11.
The doctrine of total war outlined in Unrestricted Warfare clearly demonstrates that the People’s Republic of China is preparing to confront the United States and our allies by conducting “asymmetrical” or multidimensional attacks on almost every aspect of our social, economic and political life.
The media and Congress are keeping a lid on this book because of the implications of U.S.-China economic and trade relations.
But now you can bypass them by getting a copy yourself!
Here’s what others say about Unrestricted Warfare:
“You need to read Unrestricted Warfare because it reveals China’s game plan in its coming war with America.. ... China thinks it can destroy America by using these tactics.”
Adm. Thomas Moorer Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
“The 9-11 attacks may just be the beginning. Many terrorist nations and groups will try to imitate this operation … and China’s war book Unrestricted Warfare will be their text.”
Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub Former Chief of Staff, US Forces Korea
“Unrestricted Warfare is evidence linking China to 9-11. It is also their plan for global operations against America.”
Friday, April 29, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Lebanon’s Hidden Dangers
By Daniel Byman
Posted March 2005
Removing Syrian influence is no guarantee of a peaceful future in Lebanon.
A dark specter looms over Lebanon as the democratic momentum grows to oust Syrian forces: the risk of civil war. From 1975 to 1990, a bloody civil conflict claimed about 150,000 Lebanese lives. Many of the problems that plagued Lebanon in the past may recur in different forms or, worse yet, new forms should Syrian troops withdraw. This fear should not stop the international community from pressing Damascus to end its brutal occupation, but steps must be taken to ensure that freedom and peace remain long after Syria is gone.
Lebanon was an island of democracy in the Middle East until its civil war began in 1975. The war had many causes, including political meddling by Iraq, Syria, and other neighbors; the Israeli-Palestinian border war; a frozen political system that gave disproportionate power to the country’s Christian minority; and a weak government that could not prevent minor spats from escalating into violence. The war ended only when Syria forcibly intervened, crushing dissent and imposing a brutal peace by deploying tens of thousands of troops and intelligence agents. Many Lebanese accepted Syria’s presence as the price of stability. But today, their patience is at an end.
The good news is that most Lebanese recognize that a return to civil war would be disastrous. The bad news is that few steps are being taken to prevent it. Lebanon lacks an effective army capable of quelling violence between even small groups of fighters. The most effective fighting force in Lebanon is the terrorist organization Hezbollah, a force so powerful the Lebanese army could not hope to quash it. Indeed, Hezbollah is popular as well as powerful, making it doubtful that any Lebanese government would try to crush it even if it could. If Syrian troops pull out, those who stand to lose from a Syrian withdrawal may mobilize and arm themselves in self-defense, and Lebanon’s various ethnic and sectarian communities may rearm their dormant militias, spinning the situation out of control. For example, to counterbalance Hezbollah, Damascus propped up its rival, a Shia militia known as Amal. But Amal would almost certainly be forced to cede its influence to Hezbollah in a system free of Syrian influence, encouraging the militia to turn to arms to preserve its power.
Politically, the 1989 Taif agreement corrected an imbalance that favored Lebanon’s Christians by setting up a power-sharing system. But it also imposed a new bias. Sunni Muslims hold a preponderance of political power, even though the majority of Lebanon’s Muslims are Shia. With neighboring Shiites assuming power in Iraq’s January elections, Lebanon’s Shia community may eventually come to resent their own limited influence. The stance of other critical political actors would also be put in flux. Hezbollah sponsored huge pro-Syrian demonstrations this week, but it would adapt quickly if Syrian forces left, continuing its anti-Israel activities and playing a more active role within Lebanon. The 350,000 or so Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon—one tenth of the population—are largely quiescent due to Syria’s heavy hand. Absent Syrian influence, they could easily become a player in Lebanese politics.
Israel itself is an uncertainty. After its 1982 intervention in Lebanon, which led to an 18-year war that costs the lives of hundreds of Israelis, many in Israel are loath to get involved once more. However, the possibility of an unfettered Hezbollah or a renewed Palestinian threat may prompt Israel to intervene again or otherwise meddle indirectly by supporting proxies that are hostile to these forces.
This is to say nothing of Syria itself, the biggest threat to Lebanon’s stability. Syrian leaders have laid claim to Lebanon from the very beginning, and many have exploited their dominance of the country for financial gain. Absent outside pressure, Syria would not hesitate to assassinate political rivals, as it has repeatedly in the past (many suspect Syria assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri just weeks ago). Nor would it hesitate to encourage violence as a way of convincing Lebanon of the necessity of continuing pax Syriana.
Watching freedom on the march in Lebanon gives us a heady feeling. But removing Syrian influence is only the first step in Lebanon’s renewal. To prevent a recurrence of civil war, the United States, together with its European and Arab allies, must ensure that Lebanon’s neighbors refrain from meddling in the country. Damascus in particular must be watched like a hawk. Even a complete withdrawal of Syria’s troops and intelligence presence (the latter being almost impossible to verify) would not stop it from instigating violence. The international community must make the price of Syrian meddling prohibitive. Inevitable disputes about the distribution of power must be managed peacefully, with U.S. and international assistance.
A free Lebanon would likely be a democratic Lebanon, which, even if the resulting democracy is muddled, is better than allowing Syria to carry on as a harsh overlord. But the new democracy would be weak at first. Because it cannot crack down on groups like Hezbollah, that weakness is dangerous for Lebanon, the region, and the United States. Concerned states must build up the Lebanese government’s strength first, with the expectation that it will exercise full sovereignty later. Otherwise, freedom will merely be a prologue to violence.
By Daniel Byman
Posted March 2005
Removing Syrian influence is no guarantee of a peaceful future in Lebanon.
A dark specter looms over Lebanon as the democratic momentum grows to oust Syrian forces: the risk of civil war. From 1975 to 1990, a bloody civil conflict claimed about 150,000 Lebanese lives. Many of the problems that plagued Lebanon in the past may recur in different forms or, worse yet, new forms should Syrian troops withdraw. This fear should not stop the international community from pressing Damascus to end its brutal occupation, but steps must be taken to ensure that freedom and peace remain long after Syria is gone.
Lebanon was an island of democracy in the Middle East until its civil war began in 1975. The war had many causes, including political meddling by Iraq, Syria, and other neighbors; the Israeli-Palestinian border war; a frozen political system that gave disproportionate power to the country’s Christian minority; and a weak government that could not prevent minor spats from escalating into violence. The war ended only when Syria forcibly intervened, crushing dissent and imposing a brutal peace by deploying tens of thousands of troops and intelligence agents. Many Lebanese accepted Syria’s presence as the price of stability. But today, their patience is at an end.
The good news is that most Lebanese recognize that a return to civil war would be disastrous. The bad news is that few steps are being taken to prevent it. Lebanon lacks an effective army capable of quelling violence between even small groups of fighters. The most effective fighting force in Lebanon is the terrorist organization Hezbollah, a force so powerful the Lebanese army could not hope to quash it. Indeed, Hezbollah is popular as well as powerful, making it doubtful that any Lebanese government would try to crush it even if it could. If Syrian troops pull out, those who stand to lose from a Syrian withdrawal may mobilize and arm themselves in self-defense, and Lebanon’s various ethnic and sectarian communities may rearm their dormant militias, spinning the situation out of control. For example, to counterbalance Hezbollah, Damascus propped up its rival, a Shia militia known as Amal. But Amal would almost certainly be forced to cede its influence to Hezbollah in a system free of Syrian influence, encouraging the militia to turn to arms to preserve its power.
Politically, the 1989 Taif agreement corrected an imbalance that favored Lebanon’s Christians by setting up a power-sharing system. But it also imposed a new bias. Sunni Muslims hold a preponderance of political power, even though the majority of Lebanon’s Muslims are Shia. With neighboring Shiites assuming power in Iraq’s January elections, Lebanon’s Shia community may eventually come to resent their own limited influence. The stance of other critical political actors would also be put in flux. Hezbollah sponsored huge pro-Syrian demonstrations this week, but it would adapt quickly if Syrian forces left, continuing its anti-Israel activities and playing a more active role within Lebanon. The 350,000 or so Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon—one tenth of the population—are largely quiescent due to Syria’s heavy hand. Absent Syrian influence, they could easily become a player in Lebanese politics.
Israel itself is an uncertainty. After its 1982 intervention in Lebanon, which led to an 18-year war that costs the lives of hundreds of Israelis, many in Israel are loath to get involved once more. However, the possibility of an unfettered Hezbollah or a renewed Palestinian threat may prompt Israel to intervene again or otherwise meddle indirectly by supporting proxies that are hostile to these forces.
This is to say nothing of Syria itself, the biggest threat to Lebanon’s stability. Syrian leaders have laid claim to Lebanon from the very beginning, and many have exploited their dominance of the country for financial gain. Absent outside pressure, Syria would not hesitate to assassinate political rivals, as it has repeatedly in the past (many suspect Syria assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri just weeks ago). Nor would it hesitate to encourage violence as a way of convincing Lebanon of the necessity of continuing pax Syriana.
Watching freedom on the march in Lebanon gives us a heady feeling. But removing Syrian influence is only the first step in Lebanon’s renewal. To prevent a recurrence of civil war, the United States, together with its European and Arab allies, must ensure that Lebanon’s neighbors refrain from meddling in the country. Damascus in particular must be watched like a hawk. Even a complete withdrawal of Syria’s troops and intelligence presence (the latter being almost impossible to verify) would not stop it from instigating violence. The international community must make the price of Syrian meddling prohibitive. Inevitable disputes about the distribution of power must be managed peacefully, with U.S. and international assistance.
A free Lebanon would likely be a democratic Lebanon, which, even if the resulting democracy is muddled, is better than allowing Syria to carry on as a harsh overlord. But the new democracy would be weak at first. Because it cannot crack down on groups like Hezbollah, that weakness is dangerous for Lebanon, the region, and the United States. Concerned states must build up the Lebanese government’s strength first, with the expectation that it will exercise full sovereignty later. Otherwise, freedom will merely be a prologue to violence.
LEBANON – END OF AN ERA
Prof. Eyal Zisser: ’Syrian Expulsion From Lebanon Could Spell End Of Assad Regime In Damascus!’
‘Lebanese Developments Like Fall of Bitter Enemies Such As Iraq’s Saddam Husein Are Very Encouraging
‘Putin’s Sale Of Missiles To Syria Has More To Do With Russian–U.S. Relations Than It Does With Middle East’
Broadcast April 27th, 2005 on IsraCast.com
Syrians Move Out
Syria’s expulsion from Lebanon may have far reaching ramifications in the area; that’s the assessment of Prof. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University. Zisser, a well-known expert on Syria, says the Alewite regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad could now be on its way out. Interviewed by David Essing, Prof. Zisser presents his regional analysis of the evolving situation and what he believes is behind the Russian sale of SA- 18 ground to air missiles to Syria that was criticized by Israel on the eve of President Vladimir Putin’s visit.
Prof. Eyal Zisser
Professor Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University, a leading Israeli expert on Syria, was interviewed by David Essing:
Listen to the Interview (9:26)
David Essing: Professor Zisser, after 29 years the Syrian troops are now out of Lebanon but do they have any other cards to try and continue their domination, perhaps say through Hezbollah?
Prof. Zisser: Clearly they have some cards in their hands, like Hezbollah and other forces that are still loyal to Syria. But we have to remember, it's not that Syria left Lebanon, Syria was expelled out of Lebanon under heavy international as well as Lebanese pressure. The Syrians are now in defense. The problem or the threat is not anymore to the presence in Lebanon but to the survival of the Syrian regime, and I don't think that this sensitive situation allows them to operate in the way they operated in Lebanon a year ago or two years ago. So while they have some cards I think that this is an end of an era, Syria is out of Lebanon and it will be very difficult for them to make a comeback.
David Essing: You sir actually believe that the Alawi regime, this minority cult in Syria might be at risk now, that there could be a regime change in Syria?
Prof. Zisser: Well, this is what the American administration is up to. It seems to me, reading the American newspapers and listening to the rhetoric of the current American administration, that that's actually what they are up to, to bring to a regime change in Syria. I think that the threat is external; this is to say that the Americans are now threatening the survival of the regime. Domestically, I can't see any real threat to Bashar El Assad and to his regime. There is no organized liberal opposition in Syria, so I think the Syrians know quite well that the problems are in their relations with the U.S.
David Essing: Will there be a power vacuum in Lebanon after the Syrian pull-out, and if so might Iran try and exploit it with the Shiite residents of that country?
Prof. Zisser: The Iranians might play a role but first of all we must remember that Iran is also in defense because of the international pressure regarding the nuclear issue. The Iranians are in defense, and we have also to remember that Iran may appeal to some of the Lebanese, clearly the extremist Shiite Hezbollah, but most of the Lebanese, the Christians, the Sunnis and the moderate Shiites, will not cooperate with Iran. They prefer to see Iran as well out of Lebanon like Syria is now out of Lebanon, so I don't think that Iran can become a broker in Lebanon.
David Essing: If so, if Iran supplied the arms and the arms were transported through Syria to Hezbollah, might we also be seeing the demise by Hezbollah as the military power in Lebanon today?
Prof. Zisser: This is the issue on the agenda, the future of Hezbollah after the Syrian's were expelled out of Lebanon. There is heavy international as well as Lebanese pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, to dismantle its military wing. I think the first priority of the Lebanese and the international community is to hold democratic elections in the next few months, maybe in late May or early June, and to establish a new government based on opposition elements. Then there will be, I believe, a demand backed by a wide Lebanese consensus that demands from Hezbollah to disarm. I think that Hezbollah will find it very difficult to oppose and to reject such demand, they will try to maneuver but I think that the room for maneuvering is becoming very narrow.
David Essing: At the same time we've been hearing from IDF intelligence, and in deed there was what is considered a serious Hezbollah attempt over the weekend by planting a cluster of bombs to hit Israeli troops in the Har-Dov area, do you think that Hezbollah might now try and carry out some kind of escalation on the northern border, to prove that it is still an active and important player?
Prof. Zisser: I think that they are not looking for an escalation but clearly they look to preserve the equation, to preserve the rules of the game that they were able to maintain from the last four years, this is to say we are allowed to attack Israeli positions in the Shaba farms area (U.N. has ruled that area is part of Syria not Lebanon- D.E.), we are allowed to have military presence in the south. All these limited attacks are not aimed at big escalation but at maintaining the image of the organization of Hezbollah as a militant organization that fights Israel and to preserve the rules of the game that were there for the last 4-5 years.
David Essing: But if an independent Lebanese government takes control, might there not be pressure on this Lebanese government to send the Lebanese army down to the Israeli border and take control of the bordered area? Because up until now, Beirut has more or less been able to use the excuse that we're not really in power, the Syrians are calling the shots.
Prof. Zisser: Yes, and I believe this will be the interest of any future Lebanese government and Hezbollah knows it. That's why they didn't want the Syrians to get out of Lebanon, and I will not be surprised if this might happen, the deployment of Lebanese units along the border. And I will not be surprised if Hezbollah will be ready to stop its military activities along the border because the support of the Lebanese consensus is very important for this organization. It's exactly like the case of Hamas, the Hamas is listening to what the Palestinian public opinion has to say, and that's exactly what the Hezbollah is doing.
David Essing: So from an Israeli point of view there are positive prospects ahead, perhaps if a democratic Lebanese government takes over?
Prof. Zisser: Yes, the same as with Iraq, the collapse of the Saddam regime that was a bitter enemy of Israel and the weakening of Syria and now the disarming of the Hezbollah, It's very interesting, very surprising, very encouraging from Israeli perspective, and it happens without any Israeli involvement and that's a good thing.
David Essing: But on the other hand, with Russian president Vladimir Putin now in the area visiting Israel as well, what do you make out of this Russian sale of SA-18 ground to air missiles to the Syrians at this time? Is this an indication that the Russians are really back in the Middle East, want to be considered a Middle East player now?
Prof. Zisser: That's what they would like to do and it has to do with the American Russian relations. There is an American involvement in Georgia, in Kiev, so Russia needs an answer. There's nothing the Middle East has to do with the American Russian relations, but let us remember, Russia is not anymore the super-power it used to be. What it's going to supply to Syria will not change anything in the region. The total superiority of the Israeli Air Force and the Israeli army is very clear. So I don't think we should pay too much attention to what the Russians are doing, I mean anyway they didn't stop the Americans from launching the war against Saddam Hussein, and they didn't interfere in the American involvement in Lebanon. So we have to respect the Russians, they used to be a super-power, they are an important country but for me it's like the involvement of Brazil or India, no real practical meaning in this region anymore.
Prof. Eyal Zisser: ’Syrian Expulsion From Lebanon Could Spell End Of Assad Regime In Damascus!’
‘Lebanese Developments Like Fall of Bitter Enemies Such As Iraq’s Saddam Husein Are Very Encouraging
‘Putin’s Sale Of Missiles To Syria Has More To Do With Russian–U.S. Relations Than It Does With Middle East’
Broadcast April 27th, 2005 on IsraCast.com
Syrians Move Out
Syria’s expulsion from Lebanon may have far reaching ramifications in the area; that’s the assessment of Prof. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University. Zisser, a well-known expert on Syria, says the Alewite regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad could now be on its way out. Interviewed by David Essing, Prof. Zisser presents his regional analysis of the evolving situation and what he believes is behind the Russian sale of SA- 18 ground to air missiles to Syria that was criticized by Israel on the eve of President Vladimir Putin’s visit.
Prof. Eyal Zisser
Professor Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University, a leading Israeli expert on Syria, was interviewed by David Essing:
Listen to the Interview (9:26)
David Essing: Professor Zisser, after 29 years the Syrian troops are now out of Lebanon but do they have any other cards to try and continue their domination, perhaps say through Hezbollah?
Prof. Zisser: Clearly they have some cards in their hands, like Hezbollah and other forces that are still loyal to Syria. But we have to remember, it's not that Syria left Lebanon, Syria was expelled out of Lebanon under heavy international as well as Lebanese pressure. The Syrians are now in defense. The problem or the threat is not anymore to the presence in Lebanon but to the survival of the Syrian regime, and I don't think that this sensitive situation allows them to operate in the way they operated in Lebanon a year ago or two years ago. So while they have some cards I think that this is an end of an era, Syria is out of Lebanon and it will be very difficult for them to make a comeback.
David Essing: You sir actually believe that the Alawi regime, this minority cult in Syria might be at risk now, that there could be a regime change in Syria?
Prof. Zisser: Well, this is what the American administration is up to. It seems to me, reading the American newspapers and listening to the rhetoric of the current American administration, that that's actually what they are up to, to bring to a regime change in Syria. I think that the threat is external; this is to say that the Americans are now threatening the survival of the regime. Domestically, I can't see any real threat to Bashar El Assad and to his regime. There is no organized liberal opposition in Syria, so I think the Syrians know quite well that the problems are in their relations with the U.S.
David Essing: Will there be a power vacuum in Lebanon after the Syrian pull-out, and if so might Iran try and exploit it with the Shiite residents of that country?
Prof. Zisser: The Iranians might play a role but first of all we must remember that Iran is also in defense because of the international pressure regarding the nuclear issue. The Iranians are in defense, and we have also to remember that Iran may appeal to some of the Lebanese, clearly the extremist Shiite Hezbollah, but most of the Lebanese, the Christians, the Sunnis and the moderate Shiites, will not cooperate with Iran. They prefer to see Iran as well out of Lebanon like Syria is now out of Lebanon, so I don't think that Iran can become a broker in Lebanon.
David Essing: If so, if Iran supplied the arms and the arms were transported through Syria to Hezbollah, might we also be seeing the demise by Hezbollah as the military power in Lebanon today?
Prof. Zisser: This is the issue on the agenda, the future of Hezbollah after the Syrian's were expelled out of Lebanon. There is heavy international as well as Lebanese pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, to dismantle its military wing. I think the first priority of the Lebanese and the international community is to hold democratic elections in the next few months, maybe in late May or early June, and to establish a new government based on opposition elements. Then there will be, I believe, a demand backed by a wide Lebanese consensus that demands from Hezbollah to disarm. I think that Hezbollah will find it very difficult to oppose and to reject such demand, they will try to maneuver but I think that the room for maneuvering is becoming very narrow.
David Essing: At the same time we've been hearing from IDF intelligence, and in deed there was what is considered a serious Hezbollah attempt over the weekend by planting a cluster of bombs to hit Israeli troops in the Har-Dov area, do you think that Hezbollah might now try and carry out some kind of escalation on the northern border, to prove that it is still an active and important player?
Prof. Zisser: I think that they are not looking for an escalation but clearly they look to preserve the equation, to preserve the rules of the game that they were able to maintain from the last four years, this is to say we are allowed to attack Israeli positions in the Shaba farms area (U.N. has ruled that area is part of Syria not Lebanon- D.E.), we are allowed to have military presence in the south. All these limited attacks are not aimed at big escalation but at maintaining the image of the organization of Hezbollah as a militant organization that fights Israel and to preserve the rules of the game that were there for the last 4-5 years.
David Essing: But if an independent Lebanese government takes control, might there not be pressure on this Lebanese government to send the Lebanese army down to the Israeli border and take control of the bordered area? Because up until now, Beirut has more or less been able to use the excuse that we're not really in power, the Syrians are calling the shots.
Prof. Zisser: Yes, and I believe this will be the interest of any future Lebanese government and Hezbollah knows it. That's why they didn't want the Syrians to get out of Lebanon, and I will not be surprised if this might happen, the deployment of Lebanese units along the border. And I will not be surprised if Hezbollah will be ready to stop its military activities along the border because the support of the Lebanese consensus is very important for this organization. It's exactly like the case of Hamas, the Hamas is listening to what the Palestinian public opinion has to say, and that's exactly what the Hezbollah is doing.
David Essing: So from an Israeli point of view there are positive prospects ahead, perhaps if a democratic Lebanese government takes over?
Prof. Zisser: Yes, the same as with Iraq, the collapse of the Saddam regime that was a bitter enemy of Israel and the weakening of Syria and now the disarming of the Hezbollah, It's very interesting, very surprising, very encouraging from Israeli perspective, and it happens without any Israeli involvement and that's a good thing.
David Essing: But on the other hand, with Russian president Vladimir Putin now in the area visiting Israel as well, what do you make out of this Russian sale of SA-18 ground to air missiles to the Syrians at this time? Is this an indication that the Russians are really back in the Middle East, want to be considered a Middle East player now?
Prof. Zisser: That's what they would like to do and it has to do with the American Russian relations. There is an American involvement in Georgia, in Kiev, so Russia needs an answer. There's nothing the Middle East has to do with the American Russian relations, but let us remember, Russia is not anymore the super-power it used to be. What it's going to supply to Syria will not change anything in the region. The total superiority of the Israeli Air Force and the Israeli army is very clear. So I don't think we should pay too much attention to what the Russians are doing, I mean anyway they didn't stop the Americans from launching the war against Saddam Hussein, and they didn't interfere in the American involvement in Lebanon. So we have to respect the Russians, they used to be a super-power, they are an important country but for me it's like the involvement of Brazil or India, no real practical meaning in this region anymore.
A SYRIAN WITHDRAWAL
THE LEBANESE villagers who danced with joy as the last truckloads of Syrian soldiers left their country on Tuesday had it right: They were seeing a big victory for freedom in Lebanon and the Middle East. True, the pullout was not complete -- Syrian intelligence cadres reportedly have burrowed into Palestinian refugee camps and Beirut safe houses -- and Lebanon still has big hurdles to cross to create a democratic and sovereign government. But it is worth summarizing what has occurred since Feb. 14: Responding to the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, the Middle East's first modern people-power movement coalesced to demand an end to Syria's proxy police state. The Bush administration worked skillfully with France, the United Nations and Arab governments to support that popular cause, boosting its damaged prestige around the region. Syria's 14,000 troops departed, its puppet government in Beirut resigned, its Lebanese security appointees were ousted and a new prime minister promised yesterday to hold elections by the end of May.
If those elections go forward, the world will watch as Arabs cast free ballots for the third time in 2005, an unprecedented development and one that few imagined possible six months ago. Getting there will require more of the political formula that has worked so far: popular pressure from the Lebanese and smart diplomacy by the United States and its allies.
For the Bush administration, the starting point must be continued heat on the Syrian dictatorship of Bashar Assad, which still aspires to dominate its neighbor. Fortunately, a ready instrument of multilateral leverage remains available, in the form of U.N. missions that are monitoring the Syrian withdrawal and investigating Mr. Hariri's murder. If proof can be found of a continuing Syrian presence or involvement in the assassination, the United States and France can press for sanctions. Mr. Assad is vulnerable to such pressure; as it is, his situation is so precarious that he may launch his own political liberalization in a bid to save himself.
In Lebanon, the administration is rightly pressing for parliamentary elections to be held on time and for international observers to ensure that they are free and fair. Any such vote is likely to reject the factions closest to Syria in favor of the opposition coalition of Christian, Druze and Sunni parties. Still, prospects for the far-reaching political change hoped for by many Lebanese are not favorable: The victors may include several notorious warlords from Lebanon's bloody past. The Islamic Hezbollah party, with support from the Shiite community, probably will be strengthened, and so far there is little domestic pressure on it to disarm its militia, though that, too, is mandated in U.N. resolutions.
Beyond the elections, continued progress in Lebanon will require a shift of tactics and more patience from its people and from outsiders. Syria's presence muted abiding sectarian differences that will have to be carefully managed if the country is to govern itself successfully. Hezbollah must somehow be disarmed and converted into a purely political movement, and a solution must be found for tens of thousands of disenfranchised Palestinians, some of them armed, who continue to live in refugee camps. People power and Western pressure helped restore Lebanon's independence; fashioning a stable and democratic order will require more time and more compromise.
If those elections go forward, the world will watch as Arabs cast free ballots for the third time in 2005, an unprecedented development and one that few imagined possible six months ago. Getting there will require more of the political formula that has worked so far: popular pressure from the Lebanese and smart diplomacy by the United States and its allies.
For the Bush administration, the starting point must be continued heat on the Syrian dictatorship of Bashar Assad, which still aspires to dominate its neighbor. Fortunately, a ready instrument of multilateral leverage remains available, in the form of U.N. missions that are monitoring the Syrian withdrawal and investigating Mr. Hariri's murder. If proof can be found of a continuing Syrian presence or involvement in the assassination, the United States and France can press for sanctions. Mr. Assad is vulnerable to such pressure; as it is, his situation is so precarious that he may launch his own political liberalization in a bid to save himself.
In Lebanon, the administration is rightly pressing for parliamentary elections to be held on time and for international observers to ensure that they are free and fair. Any such vote is likely to reject the factions closest to Syria in favor of the opposition coalition of Christian, Druze and Sunni parties. Still, prospects for the far-reaching political change hoped for by many Lebanese are not favorable: The victors may include several notorious warlords from Lebanon's bloody past. The Islamic Hezbollah party, with support from the Shiite community, probably will be strengthened, and so far there is little domestic pressure on it to disarm its militia, though that, too, is mandated in U.N. resolutions.
Beyond the elections, continued progress in Lebanon will require a shift of tactics and more patience from its people and from outsiders. Syria's presence muted abiding sectarian differences that will have to be carefully managed if the country is to govern itself successfully. Hezbollah must somehow be disarmed and converted into a purely political movement, and a solution must be found for tens of thousands of disenfranchised Palestinians, some of them armed, who continue to live in refugee camps. People power and Western pressure helped restore Lebanon's independence; fashioning a stable and democratic order will require more time and more compromise.
Syria Leaves Lebanon, Without
There was a time, long ago, when the world might have been tempted to thank the Syrians, who have finally withdrawn from Lebanon, for helping to end a sectarian war. But the "helping hand" quickly turned into a brutal and predatory fist. In the end, perhaps the one service Syria provided was to finally give the Lebanese a measure of unity. Now they have to build on it.
For decades, Lebanon has been roiled by the ills of the Middle East. Deeply divided among numerous Christian and Muslim denominations, it was a battleground between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, a breeding ground for Hezbollah terrorists, and, for 29 years, a fief of Syrian strongmen. If political order can emerge there, it could become a model for other Middle Eastern countries.
This is not simply wishful thinking. Lebanon once had a tradition of balancing religious communities. The Palestinians are no longer the dangerous force they were when Yasir Arafat had his bases here. Hezbollah, the radical movement supported by Syria and Iran, poses a threat if it insists on maintaining its private army. But even Hezbollah may find that its best bet is the political process.
Above all, there are the Lebanese who went out into the streets by the tens of thousands to demand Syria's withdrawal after the assassination last Feb. 14 of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Mr. Hariri's murder touched a strong national longing for genuine independence. The next major step will be a general election next month.
Lebanon's sectarian divisions need not be destructive. The Lebanese now have a chance to shape a new consensus that can lead to a real and durable democracy.
There was a time, long ago, when the world might have been tempted to thank the Syrians, who have finally withdrawn from Lebanon, for helping to end a sectarian war. But the "helping hand" quickly turned into a brutal and predatory fist. In the end, perhaps the one service Syria provided was to finally give the Lebanese a measure of unity. Now they have to build on it.
For decades, Lebanon has been roiled by the ills of the Middle East. Deeply divided among numerous Christian and Muslim denominations, it was a battleground between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, a breeding ground for Hezbollah terrorists, and, for 29 years, a fief of Syrian strongmen. If political order can emerge there, it could become a model for other Middle Eastern countries.
This is not simply wishful thinking. Lebanon once had a tradition of balancing religious communities. The Palestinians are no longer the dangerous force they were when Yasir Arafat had his bases here. Hezbollah, the radical movement supported by Syria and Iran, poses a threat if it insists on maintaining its private army. But even Hezbollah may find that its best bet is the political process.
Above all, there are the Lebanese who went out into the streets by the tens of thousands to demand Syria's withdrawal after the assassination last Feb. 14 of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Mr. Hariri's murder touched a strong national longing for genuine independence. The next major step will be a general election next month.
Lebanon's sectarian divisions need not be destructive. The Lebanese now have a chance to shape a new consensus that can lead to a real and durable democracy.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
THANK YOU MR PRESIDENT
Dear President Bush:
I am proud to say that I am an American educated and by the same token, I am from LEBANON the country of the founding fathers of the free world.
Mr. President , I have seen your interview on the Lebanese satellite channel LBC and I am grateful for all that you have done for LEBANON. I am sure that my relatives and friends in UTICA and other US locations that supported you for re-election are equally thankful for your unforgotten effort s to help free Lebanon from foreign domination .
Democracy and Peace in the region are our ultimate objectives and with your help we hope to see this accomplished and documented in history before the end of your second term.
May God bless you and America .
Bush Wants Syria to Continue Withdrawal from Lebanon
By Scott Stearns White House19 April 2005
Stearns report - CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Download 192k Stearns report
President BushPresident Bush says Syria must finish withdrawing soldiers and security services from Lebanon before Lebanese elections scheduled for next month.
President Bush says he will keep the pressure on Syria to get its forces out of Lebanon so as not to influence May elections.
“The United States can join with the rest of the world, like we've done, and say to Syria, get out -- not only get out with your military forces, but get out with your intelligence services, too; get completely out of Lebanon, so Lebanon can be free and the people can be free,” he said.
President Bush says he is pleased that Syrian troops are beginning to leave but says those embedded in Lebanese intelligence services must go as well. Authorities say about 1000 Syrian troops still remain in Lebanon and are expected to depart by April 30.
President Bush recorded the interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation before the announcement that Prime Minister designate Najib Mikati has formed a new government.
In the interview, President Bush also called for the disarming of the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah, calling it a dangerous organization that is on the U.S. list of terrorist groups because it has killed Americans in the past.
Mr. Bush says it is up to the Lebanese to decide the fate of their country, but he says they will not find freedom if a group of armed citizens can impose their will on a free society.
Asked how a new Lebanese government might meet security demands, President Bush said he realizes not every free society is capable of internal security at first and there are ways for the international community to come together to reassure people that there will be help to secure the country.
By Scott Stearns White House19 April 2005
Stearns report - CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Download 192k Stearns report
President BushPresident Bush says Syria must finish withdrawing soldiers and security services from Lebanon before Lebanese elections scheduled for next month.
President Bush says he will keep the pressure on Syria to get its forces out of Lebanon so as not to influence May elections.
“The United States can join with the rest of the world, like we've done, and say to Syria, get out -- not only get out with your military forces, but get out with your intelligence services, too; get completely out of Lebanon, so Lebanon can be free and the people can be free,” he said.
President Bush says he is pleased that Syrian troops are beginning to leave but says those embedded in Lebanese intelligence services must go as well. Authorities say about 1000 Syrian troops still remain in Lebanon and are expected to depart by April 30.
President Bush recorded the interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation before the announcement that Prime Minister designate Najib Mikati has formed a new government.
In the interview, President Bush also called for the disarming of the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah, calling it a dangerous organization that is on the U.S. list of terrorist groups because it has killed Americans in the past.
Mr. Bush says it is up to the Lebanese to decide the fate of their country, but he says they will not find freedom if a group of armed citizens can impose their will on a free society.
Asked how a new Lebanese government might meet security demands, President Bush said he realizes not every free society is capable of internal security at first and there are ways for the international community to come together to reassure people that there will be help to secure the country.
Did pope choose name to fulfill prophecy?
Catholic scholar: 'Benedict' a reference to protecting Rome from Germans
Posted: April 20, 20055:00 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Rather than purposely choosing the name Benedict to fulfill a 12th-century prophecy about the papacy, the new pope chose his moniker as a reference to sixth-century St. Benedict and his quest to protect Rome from invading German pagans, a Catholic scholar and writer says, claiming the pontiff hopes to protect the modern-day Church from destructive philosophies that originated in Germany.
Mary Jo Anderson told WorldNetDaily she is not impressed with those who point to the prophecy of St. Malachy as having been further fulfilled with the election of Pope Benedict XVI.
Malachy's prophecy labels the new pope "the Glory of the Olive." The Benedictine Order, known as the Olivetans, has as its symbol the olive branch. The new pope, though not of that order, chose as his name Benedict XVI.
A Catholic bishop, Malachy was visiting Rome in 1139 when he went into a trance and received a vision, according to his biographer. Malachy wrote down this extraordinary vision in which he claims to have foreseen all of the popes from the death of Innocent II until the destruction of the church and the return of Christ. He named exactly 112 popes from that time until the end of the church.
St. Malachy wrote a few prophetically descriptive words in Latin about each one of the popes. He then gave the manuscript to Pope Innocent II and it was deposited in the Vatican Archives where it was forgotten for several centuries. Then in 1590, it was rediscovered and published.
Scholars have matched up the descriptions with each pope since that time. According to Malachy, there will be only two more popes before the destruction of Rome, including newly elected Benedict XVI.
Anderson described Malachy's prophecy as "spotty in its accuracy."
Said Anderson: "There are some [papal prophecies] that are remarkably accurate and others that fell sort of flat, or you really have to twist yourself around to make it work.
"It has purchase power among some Catholics and some evangelicals or prophecy-minded Christians who look with great comfort toward some sort of pointer toward what the future would be."
Anderson, however, looks at the prophecy "with great caution," saying Malachy's purpose in writing was not to look into a "spiritual crystal ball" but rather as a way to point out that "God's Providence provides the right man at the right moment in church history."
Said Anderson: "Knowledgeable Catholics put far more credence in the work of the Holy Spirit than they do in anybody's prophecy," stressing that the Church does not require its members to believe in any prophecy.
Christian revelation was closed when the Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, died, Anderson asserted. "There will be no new revelation after that," she said, including prophecies – even those the Catholic Church permits members to follow.
More exciting than a purported fulfillment of St. Malachy's prophecy, Anderson says, is the reason she believes the new pope chose Benedict XVI as his name.
"The original St. Benedict helped defend Rome against the invading pagan Germanic tribes," she said. "That's the real reason. The pope is sending a message to Germany. Where did all the 'isms' come from? Nihilism, Marxism, Fascism, socialism."
In his homily opening the Cardinals' conclave on Monday, Anderson points out, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German, mentioned several "isms" that threaten the world and that the church must take a stand against.
"Far more exciting than Malachy's prophecies is to look into the mind of Ratzinger, which is far more intelligent than a popular prophecy that has been reinterpreted a zillion times," she said.
"I think this Benedict is telling us, 'I'm going to defend Rome, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, from the invading Germanic wrong-headed philosophical threats – all the "isms."'"
Catholic website SpiritDaily also mentions the connection to St. Benedict and a spiritual battle, stating, "St. Benedict was constantly assaulted by the evil one but rose above that with the monastic rule of life – just as the former Cardinal Ratzinger will almost surely face a far more open form of crushing evil at a time when there are what the late Pope John Paul II, in one of his very last writings, called 'dark shadows' enshrouding the planet."
Prophecy expert Hal Lindsey, who wrote a column about St. Malachy's prophecy on April 8, puts more credence in the saint's pronouncement about the new pope than does Anderson.
"Whatever inspired St. Malachy's predictions, they continue to be right on," Lindsey told WND. "The pope's impact will be very great in setting up the world for the coming Antichrist."
Lindsey told Joseph Farah on his nationally syndicated radio show today: " If St. Malachy is right, the glory of the olive will be imprinted on what he [the new pope] does, and secondly, he won't live very long – because we're at an advanced stage in Bible prophecy, so he couldn't live very long. We have to go to the last pope very soon in order to stay current with this prophetic scenario that's already in place."
In his column, Lindsey points out that the pope who takes office after Benedict XVI will be, according to Malachy's prophecy, the final pope before Rome is destroyed.
"I don't believe [Benedict XVI] will live long, probably about five years," Lindsey told a caller on Farah's show. "But he will have an enormous impact. … He will extend the power and influence of the church before he dies.
"And then the 112th pope, who is called 'Peter the Roman,' he is the one who is going to play a very clear role [in the End Times scenario]."
The SpiritDaily analysis also points to St. Malachy's prophecy:
"In the true way that prophecy operates, many expected that, to fulfill Malachy's prophecy, the next pope would have to be a Benedictine – when in fact it turned out to be a cardinal who meditated in Benedictine monasteries and took the name Benedict!"
Catholic scholar: 'Benedict' a reference to protecting Rome from Germans
Posted: April 20, 20055:00 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Rather than purposely choosing the name Benedict to fulfill a 12th-century prophecy about the papacy, the new pope chose his moniker as a reference to sixth-century St. Benedict and his quest to protect Rome from invading German pagans, a Catholic scholar and writer says, claiming the pontiff hopes to protect the modern-day Church from destructive philosophies that originated in Germany.
Mary Jo Anderson told WorldNetDaily she is not impressed with those who point to the prophecy of St. Malachy as having been further fulfilled with the election of Pope Benedict XVI.
Malachy's prophecy labels the new pope "the Glory of the Olive." The Benedictine Order, known as the Olivetans, has as its symbol the olive branch. The new pope, though not of that order, chose as his name Benedict XVI.
A Catholic bishop, Malachy was visiting Rome in 1139 when he went into a trance and received a vision, according to his biographer. Malachy wrote down this extraordinary vision in which he claims to have foreseen all of the popes from the death of Innocent II until the destruction of the church and the return of Christ. He named exactly 112 popes from that time until the end of the church.
St. Malachy wrote a few prophetically descriptive words in Latin about each one of the popes. He then gave the manuscript to Pope Innocent II and it was deposited in the Vatican Archives where it was forgotten for several centuries. Then in 1590, it was rediscovered and published.
Scholars have matched up the descriptions with each pope since that time. According to Malachy, there will be only two more popes before the destruction of Rome, including newly elected Benedict XVI.
Anderson described Malachy's prophecy as "spotty in its accuracy."
Said Anderson: "There are some [papal prophecies] that are remarkably accurate and others that fell sort of flat, or you really have to twist yourself around to make it work.
"It has purchase power among some Catholics and some evangelicals or prophecy-minded Christians who look with great comfort toward some sort of pointer toward what the future would be."
Anderson, however, looks at the prophecy "with great caution," saying Malachy's purpose in writing was not to look into a "spiritual crystal ball" but rather as a way to point out that "God's Providence provides the right man at the right moment in church history."
Said Anderson: "Knowledgeable Catholics put far more credence in the work of the Holy Spirit than they do in anybody's prophecy," stressing that the Church does not require its members to believe in any prophecy.
Christian revelation was closed when the Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, died, Anderson asserted. "There will be no new revelation after that," she said, including prophecies – even those the Catholic Church permits members to follow.
More exciting than a purported fulfillment of St. Malachy's prophecy, Anderson says, is the reason she believes the new pope chose Benedict XVI as his name.
"The original St. Benedict helped defend Rome against the invading pagan Germanic tribes," she said. "That's the real reason. The pope is sending a message to Germany. Where did all the 'isms' come from? Nihilism, Marxism, Fascism, socialism."
In his homily opening the Cardinals' conclave on Monday, Anderson points out, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German, mentioned several "isms" that threaten the world and that the church must take a stand against.
"Far more exciting than Malachy's prophecies is to look into the mind of Ratzinger, which is far more intelligent than a popular prophecy that has been reinterpreted a zillion times," she said.
"I think this Benedict is telling us, 'I'm going to defend Rome, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, from the invading Germanic wrong-headed philosophical threats – all the "isms."'"
Catholic website SpiritDaily also mentions the connection to St. Benedict and a spiritual battle, stating, "St. Benedict was constantly assaulted by the evil one but rose above that with the monastic rule of life – just as the former Cardinal Ratzinger will almost surely face a far more open form of crushing evil at a time when there are what the late Pope John Paul II, in one of his very last writings, called 'dark shadows' enshrouding the planet."
Prophecy expert Hal Lindsey, who wrote a column about St. Malachy's prophecy on April 8, puts more credence in the saint's pronouncement about the new pope than does Anderson.
"Whatever inspired St. Malachy's predictions, they continue to be right on," Lindsey told WND. "The pope's impact will be very great in setting up the world for the coming Antichrist."
Lindsey told Joseph Farah on his nationally syndicated radio show today: " If St. Malachy is right, the glory of the olive will be imprinted on what he [the new pope] does, and secondly, he won't live very long – because we're at an advanced stage in Bible prophecy, so he couldn't live very long. We have to go to the last pope very soon in order to stay current with this prophetic scenario that's already in place."
In his column, Lindsey points out that the pope who takes office after Benedict XVI will be, according to Malachy's prophecy, the final pope before Rome is destroyed.
"I don't believe [Benedict XVI] will live long, probably about five years," Lindsey told a caller on Farah's show. "But he will have an enormous impact. … He will extend the power and influence of the church before he dies.
"And then the 112th pope, who is called 'Peter the Roman,' he is the one who is going to play a very clear role [in the End Times scenario]."
The SpiritDaily analysis also points to St. Malachy's prophecy:
"In the true way that prophecy operates, many expected that, to fulfill Malachy's prophecy, the next pope would have to be a Benedictine – when in fact it turned out to be a cardinal who meditated in Benedictine monasteries and took the name Benedict!"
Monday, April 18, 2005
Proverbs
If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand
We’d be so simple we couldn't understand
If there is no enemy within, the enemy out side can do us no harm. (African proverb)
If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me
I have learned that the Lord didn't do it all in one day.What makes me think I can?
I have learned that two people can look at the exact same thing
and see something totally different
I laugh just like you, I cry and feel pain.When you touch my skin, we feel just the same.But you were born black and I was born white,Our prejudice formed because of our sight.But if you were blind and I couldn't see,Just think of how nice our friendship could be!
In many cases stress is caused, not by the event itself,
but rather by our response to the event
If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying? (Shantideva)
If you do your best, don't mind the rest. (Irish Proverb)
If you love something set it free....
If it comes back to you it is yours,
If it doesn't than it was never meant to be
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job,
Wait until you hire an amateur
No man ever injured his eyesight by looking on the bright side of things.
Passion: A feeling you feel when you feel a feeling you've never felt before.
If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand
We’d be so simple we couldn't understand
If there is no enemy within, the enemy out side can do us no harm. (African proverb)
If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me
I have learned that the Lord didn't do it all in one day.What makes me think I can?
I have learned that two people can look at the exact same thing
and see something totally different
I laugh just like you, I cry and feel pain.When you touch my skin, we feel just the same.But you were born black and I was born white,Our prejudice formed because of our sight.But if you were blind and I couldn't see,Just think of how nice our friendship could be!
In many cases stress is caused, not by the event itself,
but rather by our response to the event
If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying? (Shantideva)
If you do your best, don't mind the rest. (Irish Proverb)
If you love something set it free....
If it comes back to you it is yours,
If it doesn't than it was never meant to be
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job,
Wait until you hire an amateur
No man ever injured his eyesight by looking on the bright side of things.
Passion: A feeling you feel when you feel a feeling you've never felt before.
ELECTION 2008 President Gingrich?
Newt ignites speculation he's seeking White House
Posted: April 17, 20053:27 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Is Newt Gingrich running for president?
Will the 2008 presidential race be a contest between Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich?
Speculation is spreading this weekend as the former speaker of the House is reported to be "plotting an eye-catching comeback," according to London's Sunday Times.
Gingrich, the Republican revolutionary who designed the GOP's "Contract with America" in the 1990s, is spending tomorrow and Tuesday in New Hampshire, before heading next month to Iowa, two states at the vanguard of presidential campaigning with their early primaries.
In fact, he mentioned both in a comment last week, stating, "If I want to be effective at defining the idea framework for 2008, there's nothing I can do that's more effective than go to New Hampshire and Iowa. That's the place to get your attention."
But when asked about a White House run, Gingrich replied, "That's a conversation we ought to have in the summer of 2007. The minute I talk about candidacy ... everyone is going to get into horserace baloney. From now until 2007 we ought not to focus on personal ambition."
It's been seven years since Gingrich has been in office, where he served as House speaker from Georgia.
"Is there a vacancy for an outsider? I couldn't agree more," Gingrich told the Times. "I think there's a huge vacuum in the Republican leadership. We're going to have a huge struggle over the next four years, but that's good. I'm delighted to be part of that ferment."
He dismissed suggestions the GOP might split between conservative and moderate groups, given no automatic successor to President Bush.
"We are the natural governing majority party of America today," he said. "There's far greater danger of the Democrats being a desert of intellectual barrenness than there is of the Republicans splitting up."
But he also warned against overconfidence.
"I think Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee," he said. "She is professional, smart, systematic and she is moving to the center in a very rational way," noting neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have lost an election in the past 25 years.
"Any Republican who thinks we are going to beat her easily does not have a clue about the history of the last 30 years."
In New Hampshire, Gingrich is the keynote speaker a GOP state party fund-raiser near Manchester. He'll also be at book-signings promoting his latest work, "Winning the Future," and visiting editorial boards of at least three newspapers.
"Is Newt Gingrich a contender?'' New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Warren Henderson asked the Boston Herald. "He is if he wants to be. He will command attention.''
When asked Thursday by the Nashua Telegraph about a White House run in three years, Gingrich did not rule it out.
"I'm not even thinking of 2008," he told the paper. "I am interested in moving the ideas a lot more than moving Newt Gingrich."
He gave Bush high marks for addressing the problems with Social Security.
"I admire the president's courage. He has taken up exactly the right issue, but it has not been done with the right focus."
He told the Telegraph Bush needs to zero in on present-day losses for young people who could be investing their tax dollars on Wall Street.
"You can't get the American people worried about a government problem 15 or 17 years from this time," he said.
Gingrich is looking to expand the Contract with America by stopping the slide toward secularism by the courts and government schools, and put the Creator back as the source of all liberties.
He also seeks the teaching of patriotic education, incentives for students to become math and science teachers, and more investment in intelligence to combat terrorists.
"These things are going to be hard," he told the Telegraph. "There is no magic bullet. There is no survivor TV show where you sit on a beach and say, 'Gee, let's win the contest and take this thing by next Tuesday. This is real-live survival. That takes time."
Newt ignites speculation he's seeking White House
Posted: April 17, 20053:27 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Is Newt Gingrich running for president?
Will the 2008 presidential race be a contest between Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich?
Speculation is spreading this weekend as the former speaker of the House is reported to be "plotting an eye-catching comeback," according to London's Sunday Times.
Gingrich, the Republican revolutionary who designed the GOP's "Contract with America" in the 1990s, is spending tomorrow and Tuesday in New Hampshire, before heading next month to Iowa, two states at the vanguard of presidential campaigning with their early primaries.
In fact, he mentioned both in a comment last week, stating, "If I want to be effective at defining the idea framework for 2008, there's nothing I can do that's more effective than go to New Hampshire and Iowa. That's the place to get your attention."
But when asked about a White House run, Gingrich replied, "That's a conversation we ought to have in the summer of 2007. The minute I talk about candidacy ... everyone is going to get into horserace baloney. From now until 2007 we ought not to focus on personal ambition."
It's been seven years since Gingrich has been in office, where he served as House speaker from Georgia.
"Is there a vacancy for an outsider? I couldn't agree more," Gingrich told the Times. "I think there's a huge vacuum in the Republican leadership. We're going to have a huge struggle over the next four years, but that's good. I'm delighted to be part of that ferment."
He dismissed suggestions the GOP might split between conservative and moderate groups, given no automatic successor to President Bush.
"We are the natural governing majority party of America today," he said. "There's far greater danger of the Democrats being a desert of intellectual barrenness than there is of the Republicans splitting up."
But he also warned against overconfidence.
"I think Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee," he said. "She is professional, smart, systematic and she is moving to the center in a very rational way," noting neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have lost an election in the past 25 years.
"Any Republican who thinks we are going to beat her easily does not have a clue about the history of the last 30 years."
In New Hampshire, Gingrich is the keynote speaker a GOP state party fund-raiser near Manchester. He'll also be at book-signings promoting his latest work, "Winning the Future," and visiting editorial boards of at least three newspapers.
"Is Newt Gingrich a contender?'' New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Warren Henderson asked the Boston Herald. "He is if he wants to be. He will command attention.''
When asked Thursday by the Nashua Telegraph about a White House run in three years, Gingrich did not rule it out.
"I'm not even thinking of 2008," he told the paper. "I am interested in moving the ideas a lot more than moving Newt Gingrich."
He gave Bush high marks for addressing the problems with Social Security.
"I admire the president's courage. He has taken up exactly the right issue, but it has not been done with the right focus."
He told the Telegraph Bush needs to zero in on present-day losses for young people who could be investing their tax dollars on Wall Street.
"You can't get the American people worried about a government problem 15 or 17 years from this time," he said.
Gingrich is looking to expand the Contract with America by stopping the slide toward secularism by the courts and government schools, and put the Creator back as the source of all liberties.
He also seeks the teaching of patriotic education, incentives for students to become math and science teachers, and more investment in intelligence to combat terrorists.
"These things are going to be hard," he told the Telegraph. "There is no magic bullet. There is no survivor TV show where you sit on a beach and say, 'Gee, let's win the contest and take this thing by next Tuesday. This is real-live survival. That takes time."
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Hillary's war on Tom DeLay
Congressman's colleague claims senator orchestrating mainstream-media criticism
Posted: April 15, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Recent attention given to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in the mainstream media is being orchestrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a means to be sure the House is in Democratic hands when she runs for president in 2008, a source in the GOP leadership says.
Geopolitical analyst Jack Wheeler, publisher of intelligence website, To the Point, says one of DeLay's colleagues told him:
"Hillary's fingerprints are all over it. She has no intention of having to deal with an opposition party controlling the House as her husband did for six years and Ronald Reagan did for eight. She has a very clear plan for seizing control of the entire United States government, which includes orchestrating Democrat control of the House in 2006 so it is firmly in place when she is elected president in 2008."
Wheeler says such a scenario would ensure passage of the senator's so-called HillaryCare health-care legislation nationalizing medicine in the U.S.
"There was absolutely no doubt in [the source's] mind that Hillary is running – not will run, but already is running – for president in 2008," writes Wheeler in his column. "'This should be obvious to everyone,' he said, 'but what is not obvious is that's not all she's doing. Her focus and her goals go far beyond just the White House.'"
Continues Wheeler: "It is, then, at Hillary's direction that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the entire Liberal Media apparatus are waging a relentless war upon House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The charges against him are either inconsequential or hypocritical – huge front page outrage stories, for example, about him going on a foreign 'junket' with no criticism of Democrats who were on the very same trip, such as Nancy Pelosi. Last week the WaPo ran this above-the-fold headline piece thousands of words long that was pure recycled froth with no substance whatever.
"That's because the substance doesn't matter – all that matters is the attacks themselves, that they be kept up until more and more spineless pencil-necks like Connecticut Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons break and crack under pressure. Hillary knows exactly what she is doing. Target the strongest force the GOP has in Congress – DeLay – keep targeting until Republicans surrender and retreat in disarray, then pick up the easy pieces in 2006."
DeLay has taken heat from both media and Democratic lawmakers for alleged ethics violations and his role in trying to save the life of Terri Schiavo.
"There's much more at stake than just Tom DeLay,"
Congressman's colleague claims senator orchestrating mainstream-media criticism
Posted: April 15, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Recent attention given to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in the mainstream media is being orchestrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a means to be sure the House is in Democratic hands when she runs for president in 2008, a source in the GOP leadership says.
Geopolitical analyst Jack Wheeler, publisher of intelligence website, To the Point, says one of DeLay's colleagues told him:
"Hillary's fingerprints are all over it. She has no intention of having to deal with an opposition party controlling the House as her husband did for six years and Ronald Reagan did for eight. She has a very clear plan for seizing control of the entire United States government, which includes orchestrating Democrat control of the House in 2006 so it is firmly in place when she is elected president in 2008."
Wheeler says such a scenario would ensure passage of the senator's so-called HillaryCare health-care legislation nationalizing medicine in the U.S.
"There was absolutely no doubt in [the source's] mind that Hillary is running – not will run, but already is running – for president in 2008," writes Wheeler in his column. "'This should be obvious to everyone,' he said, 'but what is not obvious is that's not all she's doing. Her focus and her goals go far beyond just the White House.'"
Continues Wheeler: "It is, then, at Hillary's direction that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the entire Liberal Media apparatus are waging a relentless war upon House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The charges against him are either inconsequential or hypocritical – huge front page outrage stories, for example, about him going on a foreign 'junket' with no criticism of Democrats who were on the very same trip, such as Nancy Pelosi. Last week the WaPo ran this above-the-fold headline piece thousands of words long that was pure recycled froth with no substance whatever.
"That's because the substance doesn't matter – all that matters is the attacks themselves, that they be kept up until more and more spineless pencil-necks like Connecticut Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons break and crack under pressure. Hillary knows exactly what she is doing. Target the strongest force the GOP has in Congress – DeLay – keep targeting until Republicans surrender and retreat in disarray, then pick up the easy pieces in 2006."
DeLay has taken heat from both media and Democratic lawmakers for alleged ethics violations and his role in trying to save the life of Terri Schiavo.
"There's much more at stake than just Tom DeLay,"
Bush refuses to talk to Assad - Report
4/16/2005 6:20:00 PM GMT
U.S. President George Bush refuses to talk to his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.
According to the pan-Arab daily Al Sharq Al Awsat, U.S. President George Bush will not sit down and talk to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad a U.S. official was quoted as saying.
"The United States is not at all happy with Syria's policies," the unnamed official told the London-based paper.
"Contact with the Syrian regime will remain at the lowest level and will not reach the point where President Bashar Al Assad finds himself at the same table as President George Bush."
Meanwhile, the Israeli daily Maariv on Thursday quoted U.S. officials as saying that "in private, American officials and in particular President Bush, say that Assad is a 'strange personality,' that he can't be trusted and that we must wait for him to leave the political arena."
"'Even in Syria, people are conscious of what's going on in the world and around them" say the Americans. (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has heard from his partners that the "Syrian regime is about to collapse and won't survive the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon," the Israeli paper said.
Officials voice Syrian solidarity The Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ali Tuygan called on Washington to cooperate with Syria and Iran in order to solve pending issues and to further avoid confrontations.
The Anadulu News Agency quoted Tuygan as saying, during a meeting at the Washington Institute, that the Syrian-Turkish relations gave Turkey the opportunity to understand the situation in the region.
Meanwhile, in Paris, the Chairman of the Arab- French Solidarity society Lucien Peterlein underlined the society's absolute solidarity with Syria in the face of the current pressures it is exposed to.
According to Peterlein, "We stand by Syria in the face of pressures and threats against that aim at obliging it to abandon its firm principles." The statement hailed Syria's wise and brave leadership towards the existing pressures, stressing that Syria has opted for the way of peace and what is right.
In Kuwait, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said "Syria has met its commitments regarding withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon."
Speaking to the Kwuaiti 'al-Rai al-Am' paper, Aboul Gheit called upon the active states in the United Nations and the Security Council to work towards the resumption of the peace process in the region stressing that Syria is seriously willing to complete this process.
4/16/2005 6:20:00 PM GMT
U.S. President George Bush refuses to talk to his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.
According to the pan-Arab daily Al Sharq Al Awsat, U.S. President George Bush will not sit down and talk to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad a U.S. official was quoted as saying.
"The United States is not at all happy with Syria's policies," the unnamed official told the London-based paper.
"Contact with the Syrian regime will remain at the lowest level and will not reach the point where President Bashar Al Assad finds himself at the same table as President George Bush."
Meanwhile, the Israeli daily Maariv on Thursday quoted U.S. officials as saying that "in private, American officials and in particular President Bush, say that Assad is a 'strange personality,' that he can't be trusted and that we must wait for him to leave the political arena."
"'Even in Syria, people are conscious of what's going on in the world and around them" say the Americans. (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has heard from his partners that the "Syrian regime is about to collapse and won't survive the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon," the Israeli paper said.
Officials voice Syrian solidarity The Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ali Tuygan called on Washington to cooperate with Syria and Iran in order to solve pending issues and to further avoid confrontations.
The Anadulu News Agency quoted Tuygan as saying, during a meeting at the Washington Institute, that the Syrian-Turkish relations gave Turkey the opportunity to understand the situation in the region.
Meanwhile, in Paris, the Chairman of the Arab- French Solidarity society Lucien Peterlein underlined the society's absolute solidarity with Syria in the face of the current pressures it is exposed to.
According to Peterlein, "We stand by Syria in the face of pressures and threats against that aim at obliging it to abandon its firm principles." The statement hailed Syria's wise and brave leadership towards the existing pressures, stressing that Syria has opted for the way of peace and what is right.
In Kuwait, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said "Syria has met its commitments regarding withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon."
Speaking to the Kwuaiti 'al-Rai al-Am' paper, Aboul Gheit called upon the active states in the United Nations and the Security Council to work towards the resumption of the peace process in the region stressing that Syria is seriously willing to complete this process.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Sunday, April 10, 2005
TRUTH AND JUSTICE
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy, 1961
"We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."- George W. Bush, 2001
"We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."- George W. Bush, 2001
LISTEN AND DREAM FOR A GOOD TIME
Kazem al Saaher
1. Kil Ma Tikbar Ti7la
2. Sabaa7uki Sukkar
3. El 7elwa
4. Hal 3indaki Shak
5. Darb el Alam
6. El 3azeezeen
7. Mawwaal Aboos Roo7ak
8. Taqouleen el Hawa
9. Mnain Inta
10. 7ewaar Ma3 el Nafs
11. Meno Inta
12. The War is Over (with Sarah Brightman)
rnum=Math.round(Math.random() * 100000);
document.write('');
document.write('');
MUSIC BETTER THAN WAR
1. A7ebeeni Bela 3oqaden
2. Farshat Raml el Ba7r
3. Ela Tilmeeza
4. Sayegheen al Dhahab
5. Emshi Be Hadaawah
6. Sayyidat 3omri
7. Kabbiri 3aqlaki
8. (Mawwaal) Ghorfat al Mekyaaj
9. May Ward
10. Ayh Ya3ni
11. (Mawwaal) Dhaaqat 3alayh - Wallaah Denya
12. Esh Saar Esh Da3wah
13. Ashkou Ayyaaman (Duet with Asma Limnawar)
BILL CLINTON
Friday, March 25, 2005 Rafiq Hariri and Lebanon
I read the newspapers this morning over two cups of coffee. I’m allowed to drink coffee again. I’m happy about that. The most interesting articles were the ones dealing with the UN report pertaining to the international investigation into the murder of Rafiq Hariri. The UN report does not assign blame to either the Lebanese or the Syrian governments.
It does blame the Lebanese government and the Syrian intelligence forces for an atmosphere of violence and hate and the lack of law and order in Lebanon. It also says the Lebanese government didn’t do a good job investigating the murder and there should be an international investigation. It also clearly says that Bashar Assad, during a meeting threatened to harm Rafiq Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt if they stood in his way.
I agree with this report. I’m certain Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, but in international affairs you can’t do anything without proof. I’m certain the international investigation will find proof linking Bashar Assad to the murder of my friend Rafiq Hariri. The reason I’m so confident is the fact that it took the FBI years to find the culprits, who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, but they found them and linked them to the Libyan government. And when the investigation succeeds, there will be hell to pay for Assad.
He probably thought the United States wouldn’t care about the death of an Arab politician. But Rafiq Hariri isn’t just some politician and Lebanon isn’t just some country in the Arab world. Rafiq Hariri had many friends all over the world. I’m proud to say he considered me a friend. I talked to him ten days before his assassination. I was later debriefed by a few national security agents, who were interested in this conversation. Bashar Assad made the mistake of thinking we, Americans didn’t care about Lebanon. We do and the reason for that is pretty much the same as the reason most Americans like Israel.
Lebanon is a democratic and pluralistic society. What’s more there are hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Americans living in the United States. Most Americans have neighbors, who descend from families, who came from Lebanon. For instance, one of the most respected journalists in Washington, Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestry. Same goes for Senator Edward Kennedy’s wife. Lebanese Americans are a very successful and respected group in our society. And for that matter in the Democratic Party.
Even France, whose president Chirac was a friend and business partner of Rafiq Hariri has made it clear this situation has to be dealt with. The international community does not take it lightly when a president murders a politician of another country. I have no idea what Bashar Assad was thinking, when he gave the order to kill my friend, but one thing I know for certain, murdering foreign politicians in a manner reminiscent of Michael Corleone in the Godfather will not stand. He has lost any respect any foreign head of state had for him.
Finally, Bashar Assad doesn’t seem to understand how serious this administration is about dealing with rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism. Let me clarify this. Syria is not the objective, it’s a barrier on the road to Iran.
The Syrian president has made three mistakes in one year. One, he appointed Emile Lahoud president of Lebanon for another three years against the will of the vast majority of Lebanese and in spite of the Lebanese constitution. Two, he murdered Rafiq Hariri. Three, he allied himself with Iran.
The United States can not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. We know the ayatollahs in Tehran want them and will do anything to get them. The Bush administration is intent on stopping them.
There are two ways to stop them. One, we destroy their nuclear facilities or two we bring down the regime, which wants them. Regime change in Iran isn’t easy. Iran is a big country, with a lot of money, because of its oil and gas reserves and has a population of about seventy million people, most of them young and of military age. Invading Iran is out of the question. Bombing Iran is possible, but won’t have the intended result. The only avenue left is to mortally wound the regime in Iran by cutting off its tentacles.
The first one is Hizballah in Lebanon, the second one is the Syrian regime. I saw an interesting article in a newspaper, when I was in the hospital. It said someone had written pro- Sistani words on a wall in the Hizballah dominated Bekaa Valley. The reason I thought this was interesting is simple. Grand Ayatollah Sistani is the leader of the Shia in Iraq. He is a direct rival of the ayatollahs in Iran, who claim they are the leaders of all Shia in the world. The Shia religion is structured in the same fashion as Catholicism. There is a pope and there are lower ranking priests. The leader of Iran Khamenei considers himself the “pope” of all Shia, including the ones in Iraq, but also the ones in Lebanon.
This is by the way the reason why the ayatollahs in Iran are interested in helping Hizballah. They are asserting their dominance as leaders of the Shia faith. Their only rival for the title of “pope” is grand ayatollah Sistani of Iraq. His brand of Shia Islam is more moderate and democratic than the brand the Iranians are trying to sell to the Shia world. If we want to undermine the ayatollahs in Iran, we must support Sistani in Iraq and we must do everything possible to promote Najaf as the real base of Shia Islam. Now that Sistani seems to be making inroads in the Bekaa Valley, this might end the pro- Iranian Hizballah’s stranglehold on the Shia in Lebanon.
Hizballah lost its reason to exist after Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Hizballah knows this. The Shia in Lebanon want the same things as the rest of the Lebanese, a good education and jobs. Hizballah can’t provide those things, so they will never be as important as they used to be. As they lose votes, so will the Iranian ayatollahs lose influence over the Shia in Lebanon.
Coming back to Syria, when the international investigation proves Bashar Assad was behind the murder of Hariri, the UN will impose sanctions on Syria. Syria, which is a poor country with only about 15 millioninhabitants will be hit hard. If the sanctions don’t bring down the government of Bashar Assad, they will certainly cripple his grip on power and undermine his influence in the region and his capacity to help the Iranians. This is a good thing for Lebanon. It will calm down the situation in the region, possibly leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This would mean that the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon can go home.
All in all, Bashar Assad made the mistake of his life when he decided to kill my friend. posted by Bill Clinton at 12:03 PM Previous Posts Recovering after Surgery http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/rafiq-hariri-and-lebanon.html
Contact Us
I read the newspapers this morning over two cups of coffee. I’m allowed to drink coffee again. I’m happy about that. The most interesting articles were the ones dealing with the UN report pertaining to the international investigation into the murder of Rafiq Hariri. The UN report does not assign blame to either the Lebanese or the Syrian governments.
It does blame the Lebanese government and the Syrian intelligence forces for an atmosphere of violence and hate and the lack of law and order in Lebanon. It also says the Lebanese government didn’t do a good job investigating the murder and there should be an international investigation. It also clearly says that Bashar Assad, during a meeting threatened to harm Rafiq Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt if they stood in his way.
I agree with this report. I’m certain Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, but in international affairs you can’t do anything without proof. I’m certain the international investigation will find proof linking Bashar Assad to the murder of my friend Rafiq Hariri. The reason I’m so confident is the fact that it took the FBI years to find the culprits, who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, but they found them and linked them to the Libyan government. And when the investigation succeeds, there will be hell to pay for Assad.
He probably thought the United States wouldn’t care about the death of an Arab politician. But Rafiq Hariri isn’t just some politician and Lebanon isn’t just some country in the Arab world. Rafiq Hariri had many friends all over the world. I’m proud to say he considered me a friend. I talked to him ten days before his assassination. I was later debriefed by a few national security agents, who were interested in this conversation. Bashar Assad made the mistake of thinking we, Americans didn’t care about Lebanon. We do and the reason for that is pretty much the same as the reason most Americans like Israel.
Lebanon is a democratic and pluralistic society. What’s more there are hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Americans living in the United States. Most Americans have neighbors, who descend from families, who came from Lebanon. For instance, one of the most respected journalists in Washington, Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestry. Same goes for Senator Edward Kennedy’s wife. Lebanese Americans are a very successful and respected group in our society. And for that matter in the Democratic Party.
Even France, whose president Chirac was a friend and business partner of Rafiq Hariri has made it clear this situation has to be dealt with. The international community does not take it lightly when a president murders a politician of another country. I have no idea what Bashar Assad was thinking, when he gave the order to kill my friend, but one thing I know for certain, murdering foreign politicians in a manner reminiscent of Michael Corleone in the Godfather will not stand. He has lost any respect any foreign head of state had for him.
Finally, Bashar Assad doesn’t seem to understand how serious this administration is about dealing with rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism. Let me clarify this. Syria is not the objective, it’s a barrier on the road to Iran.
The Syrian president has made three mistakes in one year. One, he appointed Emile Lahoud president of Lebanon for another three years against the will of the vast majority of Lebanese and in spite of the Lebanese constitution. Two, he murdered Rafiq Hariri. Three, he allied himself with Iran.
The United States can not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. We know the ayatollahs in Tehran want them and will do anything to get them. The Bush administration is intent on stopping them.
There are two ways to stop them. One, we destroy their nuclear facilities or two we bring down the regime, which wants them. Regime change in Iran isn’t easy. Iran is a big country, with a lot of money, because of its oil and gas reserves and has a population of about seventy million people, most of them young and of military age. Invading Iran is out of the question. Bombing Iran is possible, but won’t have the intended result. The only avenue left is to mortally wound the regime in Iran by cutting off its tentacles.
The first one is Hizballah in Lebanon, the second one is the Syrian regime. I saw an interesting article in a newspaper, when I was in the hospital. It said someone had written pro- Sistani words on a wall in the Hizballah dominated Bekaa Valley. The reason I thought this was interesting is simple. Grand Ayatollah Sistani is the leader of the Shia in Iraq. He is a direct rival of the ayatollahs in Iran, who claim they are the leaders of all Shia in the world. The Shia religion is structured in the same fashion as Catholicism. There is a pope and there are lower ranking priests. The leader of Iran Khamenei considers himself the “pope” of all Shia, including the ones in Iraq, but also the ones in Lebanon.
This is by the way the reason why the ayatollahs in Iran are interested in helping Hizballah. They are asserting their dominance as leaders of the Shia faith. Their only rival for the title of “pope” is grand ayatollah Sistani of Iraq. His brand of Shia Islam is more moderate and democratic than the brand the Iranians are trying to sell to the Shia world. If we want to undermine the ayatollahs in Iran, we must support Sistani in Iraq and we must do everything possible to promote Najaf as the real base of Shia Islam. Now that Sistani seems to be making inroads in the Bekaa Valley, this might end the pro- Iranian Hizballah’s stranglehold on the Shia in Lebanon.
Hizballah lost its reason to exist after Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Hizballah knows this. The Shia in Lebanon want the same things as the rest of the Lebanese, a good education and jobs. Hizballah can’t provide those things, so they will never be as important as they used to be. As they lose votes, so will the Iranian ayatollahs lose influence over the Shia in Lebanon.
Coming back to Syria, when the international investigation proves Bashar Assad was behind the murder of Hariri, the UN will impose sanctions on Syria. Syria, which is a poor country with only about 15 millioninhabitants will be hit hard. If the sanctions don’t bring down the government of Bashar Assad, they will certainly cripple his grip on power and undermine his influence in the region and his capacity to help the Iranians. This is a good thing for Lebanon. It will calm down the situation in the region, possibly leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This would mean that the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon can go home.
All in all, Bashar Assad made the mistake of his life when he decided to kill my friend. posted by Bill Clinton at 12:03 PM Previous Posts Recovering after Surgery http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/rafiq-hariri-and-lebanon.html
Contact Us
BILL CLINTON
I can't sleep
I can't sleep. I took two sleeping pills. They didn't work. I can't take any more, because I'm also using heart medicine. I tried playing internet poker, but I can't focus. Right now there is nothing I can do. I have to wait till after the speech, which is at about lunch time here on the West coast. After that I have the meeting with the former police officer. There is something I wanted to say a long time ago, but I didn't have the time, because of my visit to Asia. I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family of my close friend and former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri. His death was a shock to me. I was horrified. I know exactly who did it and why. More about that later. I called his family to tell them how shocked I was. I wanted to be present at the funeral, but the secret service vetoed that idea. It wasn't safe, especially not with Hezbollah still armed to the teeth. Mr. Hariri, lovingly called Mr. Lebanon by his fellow countrymen, was the driving force behind the reconstruction of Lebanon after the civil war. Lately he was also the driving force behind the movement to ask the Syrian government to pull its soldiers and secret service agents out of Lebanon. That's the reason the Syrians killed him. If Syria has to pull out of Lebanon, it will be pretty much encircled by enemy states. NATO member Turkey to the north, American troops in Iraq to the East, pro-American Jordan to the south (By the way Syria is occupying a large amount of Jordanian land, which King Abdullah wants back) and Israel to the south west. The Syrian government killed Rafiq Hariri, because they are afraid that Lebanon would not just be sovereign if they pulled out their forces, but might in time be dominated by another power, be it Israel or the US, which is more likely. Another reason is strategic depth. The capital of Syria is just a few miles from the border of Lebanon. And also just a few miles away from the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. Which is probably the reason Israel chose to occupy the Golan Heights. Standing on the mountains of the Golan Heights you can see Damascus in the distance. The Syrians know this. It's a great deterrent against any Syrian adventurism. This is the reason the Syrian government always uses the Hezbollah, a Lebanese group to attack Israel instead of attacking Israel itself. Aside from a national defense dimension there is also the economic dimension. Syria has a hybrid half communist, half capitalist economic system. Syria is bankrupt and has been ever since the end of the Soviet Union. Without the economic power of Lebanon, Syria will fall apart economically. Syria is also under economic sanctions by the US. Lebanon isn't, so products Syria needs are bought by Lebanon, then transferred to Syria. There are also one million Syrians working in Lebanon. If they have to go back to Syria, Syria will see a lot of social problems with these unemployed young men. In other words, without Lebanon, Syria will be boxed in from a military point of view and an economic point of view. Syria without Lebanon would be weak and exposed. From the Syrian's point of view Rafiq Hariri had to die, because he wanted them to leave. And he as a billionaire had the clout to gather international support for this idea. He was the one who asked the US and France to support United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls upon Syria to leave Lebanon. Some US commentators say the Hariri murder might have been organized by Syria's old guard without the knowledge of Syria's young, inexperienced president Bashar Assad. This is an old myth dictators create to deflect responsibility. Go back into history and you will see texts in old Roman books saying, the emperor had raised taxes for instance and the population, who didn't want or dare attack the emperor for his mistake, they would say the emperor's underlings had made the mistake without the emperor knowing. I read books in which Germans, whose family members had been hauled off to concentration camps by the Nazi's, said “If only Herr Hitler knew about this situation, he'd do something about it”. Well Herr Hitler knew about it and had actually ordered it. It's an old trick. The dictator can make mistakes and deflects taking responsibility by giving the impression he isn't his own man and the population can criticize the dictator's policies without criticizing him personally. Bashar Assad ordered the death of Rafiq Hariri. Bashar Assad is in control of Syria. People in the media should stop making up infantile excuses by saying the real power behind Bashar Assad killed Hariri. Assad is the power. There are also people, who think you need to give Bashar Assad incentives to behave more responsibly, to make him stop supporting terrorists in Lebanon and Israel. This is nonsense. It took me almost eight years to understand that our way of thinking is not their way of thinking. Their way, I mean a country's dictator's way of thinking. A dictator wants to stay in power. That's all. A dictator doesn't care about his population, war, peace. He only wants to stay in power. Everything else is negotiable. You have to understand the Syrian tyranny. Syria's president Bashar Assad belongs to a minority religious sect called the Alawis, a sub-group of Islam. The top government and army officials belong to the same sect, which only 10 percent of Syria belongs to. In other words 10 percent of the population is lording over the 80 percent of Syrians, who are Sunni Muslims. Syria can not be a normal country, because that would mean, the minority Alawis giving up power to the vast majority of Sunnis. This is the reason, why Syria has to be always in a state of turmoil if Bashar Assad and his cronies want to stay in power. As long as there is an external enemy, like Israel occupying the Golan Heights, as long as there is Turkey “occupying” according to Syria the province of Hatay, the Biblical Antioch, there are external enemies, which focus the majority populations' attention on these external enemies. Were these external enemies to disappear, the majority would have the time to consider their own plight. That is a dictator's worst nightmare, because thinking about a problem and thinking about ways to solve the problem are very closely connected. This is the reason a minority government like Bashar Assad's Syrian dictatorship needs chaos and turmoil to exist. It doesn't want peace with its neighbors. It doesn't want its people to be prosperous and content and have time to think about their situation. The only way to stop Syria from being a constant threat and stop them from spreading chaos is to topple the minority government of Bashar Assad and let the majority of Syrians rule. President Bush did this in Iraq and now that the majority Shia are in power, Iraq is looking inwards, trying to make the lives of its people better. That is what democracies do, they look inward instead of threatening their neighbors, the United States or Israel or the oil supply and with that the world economy. Majority rule means peace. Minority rule, like Bashar Assad's dictatorship means chaos, terrorism and war.
posted by Bill Clinton at 7:43 AM
Contact Us
I can't sleep. I took two sleeping pills. They didn't work. I can't take any more, because I'm also using heart medicine. I tried playing internet poker, but I can't focus. Right now there is nothing I can do. I have to wait till after the speech, which is at about lunch time here on the West coast. After that I have the meeting with the former police officer. There is something I wanted to say a long time ago, but I didn't have the time, because of my visit to Asia. I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family of my close friend and former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri. His death was a shock to me. I was horrified. I know exactly who did it and why. More about that later. I called his family to tell them how shocked I was. I wanted to be present at the funeral, but the secret service vetoed that idea. It wasn't safe, especially not with Hezbollah still armed to the teeth. Mr. Hariri, lovingly called Mr. Lebanon by his fellow countrymen, was the driving force behind the reconstruction of Lebanon after the civil war. Lately he was also the driving force behind the movement to ask the Syrian government to pull its soldiers and secret service agents out of Lebanon. That's the reason the Syrians killed him. If Syria has to pull out of Lebanon, it will be pretty much encircled by enemy states. NATO member Turkey to the north, American troops in Iraq to the East, pro-American Jordan to the south (By the way Syria is occupying a large amount of Jordanian land, which King Abdullah wants back) and Israel to the south west. The Syrian government killed Rafiq Hariri, because they are afraid that Lebanon would not just be sovereign if they pulled out their forces, but might in time be dominated by another power, be it Israel or the US, which is more likely. Another reason is strategic depth. The capital of Syria is just a few miles from the border of Lebanon. And also just a few miles away from the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. Which is probably the reason Israel chose to occupy the Golan Heights. Standing on the mountains of the Golan Heights you can see Damascus in the distance. The Syrians know this. It's a great deterrent against any Syrian adventurism. This is the reason the Syrian government always uses the Hezbollah, a Lebanese group to attack Israel instead of attacking Israel itself. Aside from a national defense dimension there is also the economic dimension. Syria has a hybrid half communist, half capitalist economic system. Syria is bankrupt and has been ever since the end of the Soviet Union. Without the economic power of Lebanon, Syria will fall apart economically. Syria is also under economic sanctions by the US. Lebanon isn't, so products Syria needs are bought by Lebanon, then transferred to Syria. There are also one million Syrians working in Lebanon. If they have to go back to Syria, Syria will see a lot of social problems with these unemployed young men. In other words, without Lebanon, Syria will be boxed in from a military point of view and an economic point of view. Syria without Lebanon would be weak and exposed. From the Syrian's point of view Rafiq Hariri had to die, because he wanted them to leave. And he as a billionaire had the clout to gather international support for this idea. He was the one who asked the US and France to support United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls upon Syria to leave Lebanon. Some US commentators say the Hariri murder might have been organized by Syria's old guard without the knowledge of Syria's young, inexperienced president Bashar Assad. This is an old myth dictators create to deflect responsibility. Go back into history and you will see texts in old Roman books saying, the emperor had raised taxes for instance and the population, who didn't want or dare attack the emperor for his mistake, they would say the emperor's underlings had made the mistake without the emperor knowing. I read books in which Germans, whose family members had been hauled off to concentration camps by the Nazi's, said “If only Herr Hitler knew about this situation, he'd do something about it”. Well Herr Hitler knew about it and had actually ordered it. It's an old trick. The dictator can make mistakes and deflects taking responsibility by giving the impression he isn't his own man and the population can criticize the dictator's policies without criticizing him personally. Bashar Assad ordered the death of Rafiq Hariri. Bashar Assad is in control of Syria. People in the media should stop making up infantile excuses by saying the real power behind Bashar Assad killed Hariri. Assad is the power. There are also people, who think you need to give Bashar Assad incentives to behave more responsibly, to make him stop supporting terrorists in Lebanon and Israel. This is nonsense. It took me almost eight years to understand that our way of thinking is not their way of thinking. Their way, I mean a country's dictator's way of thinking. A dictator wants to stay in power. That's all. A dictator doesn't care about his population, war, peace. He only wants to stay in power. Everything else is negotiable. You have to understand the Syrian tyranny. Syria's president Bashar Assad belongs to a minority religious sect called the Alawis, a sub-group of Islam. The top government and army officials belong to the same sect, which only 10 percent of Syria belongs to. In other words 10 percent of the population is lording over the 80 percent of Syrians, who are Sunni Muslims. Syria can not be a normal country, because that would mean, the minority Alawis giving up power to the vast majority of Sunnis. This is the reason, why Syria has to be always in a state of turmoil if Bashar Assad and his cronies want to stay in power. As long as there is an external enemy, like Israel occupying the Golan Heights, as long as there is Turkey “occupying” according to Syria the province of Hatay, the Biblical Antioch, there are external enemies, which focus the majority populations' attention on these external enemies. Were these external enemies to disappear, the majority would have the time to consider their own plight. That is a dictator's worst nightmare, because thinking about a problem and thinking about ways to solve the problem are very closely connected. This is the reason a minority government like Bashar Assad's Syrian dictatorship needs chaos and turmoil to exist. It doesn't want peace with its neighbors. It doesn't want its people to be prosperous and content and have time to think about their situation. The only way to stop Syria from being a constant threat and stop them from spreading chaos is to topple the minority government of Bashar Assad and let the majority of Syrians rule. President Bush did this in Iraq and now that the majority Shia are in power, Iraq is looking inwards, trying to make the lives of its people better. That is what democracies do, they look inward instead of threatening their neighbors, the United States or Israel or the oil supply and with that the world economy. Majority rule means peace. Minority rule, like Bashar Assad's dictatorship means chaos, terrorism and war.
posted by Bill Clinton at 7:43 AM
Contact Us
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)