It's a respectable position Cyclo and quite admirable in some ways but I fear it leads to anarchy.
Politicians have to lie I'm afraid. It is necessary to stitch coalitions of two parties together. Many parties leads to weakness. Then anarchy if there are too many.
These coalitions are difficult enough to unify at the best of times and once the voters have learned how to keep them both on the edge all the time it gets fiendish. I don't know how they would manage without lies.
State of the parties at 20 October 2006
Labour
352
Conservative
196
Liberal Democrat
63
Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru
9
(SNP 6/PC 3)
Democratic Unionist
9
Sinn Fein
5
(Have not taken their seats and cannot vote)
Social Democratic & Labour Party
3
Independent
2
Independent Labour
1
Ulster Unionist
1
Respect
1
Speaker & 3 Deputies
4
(Do not normally vote)
Total no of seats
646
Current working majority
67
(352 Labour MPs less 285 of all other parties excluding Speaker & Deputies
Lone Star Madam should stick to running the Lone Star Whorehouse (another Bushco enterprise, i would assume), and lay off the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution delineates the powers of Congress, and reads, in part:
[Congress shall have the power:]
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Lone Star Madam claims that Congress ceded its war making power. If Lone Star Madam is so goddamned well-informed, it should be a simple matter for her to provide the evidence and a source to back it.
My source for that quote of Article I, Section 8, is The United States Constituion Online, and specifically, the page for Article I, Section 8. As incredible as it may seem to Lone Star Madam, many of us have read the Constitution, and more than once. That's how i knew where to look for the relevant passage.
Put up or shut up, LSM, where's your evidence that Congress "ceded" its war-making powers?
Mideast allies near a state of panic
U.S. leaders' visits to the region reap only warnings and worry.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
December 3, 2006
WASHINGTON ?- President Bush and his top advisors fanned out across the troubled Middle East over the last week to showcase their diplomatic initiatives to restore strained relationships with traditional allies and forge new ones with leaders in Iraq.
But instead of flaunting stronger ties and steadfast American influence, the president's journey found friends both old and new near a state of panic. Mideast leaders expressed soaring concern over upheavals across the region that the United States helped ignite through its invasion of Iraq and push for democracy ?- and fear that the Bush administration may make things worse.
President Bush's summit in Jordan with the Iraqi prime minister proved an awkward encounter that deepened doubts about the relationship. Vice President Dick Cheney's stop in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, yielded a blunt warning from the kingdom's leaders. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's swing through the West Bank and Israel, intended to build Arab support by showing a new U.S. push for peace, found little to work with.
In all, visits designed to show the American team in charge ended instead in diplomatic embarrassment and disappointment, with U.S. leaders rebuked and lectured by Arab counterparts. The trips demonstrated that U.S. allies in the region were struggling to understand what to make of the difficult relationship, and to figure whether, with a new Democratic majority taking over Congress, Bush even had control over his nation's Mideast policy.
Arabs are "trying to figure out what the Americans are going to do, and trying develop their own plans," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), one of his party's point men on Iraq. "They're trying to figure out their Plan B."
The allies' predicament was described by Jordan's King Abdullah II last week, before Bush arrived in Amman, the capital. Abdullah, one of America's steadiest friends in the region, warned that the Mideast faced the threat of three simultaneous civil wars ?- in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. And he made clear that the burden of dealing with it rested largely with the United States.
"Something dramatic" needed to come out of Bush's meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to defuse the three-way threat, Abdullah said, because "I don't think we're in a position where we can come back and visit the problem in early 2007."
The only regional leader to voice unqualified support for the Bush administration has been Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has gone so far as to say that the Iraq invasion contributed to regional stability.
To Middle East observers, Bush can no longer speak for the United States as he did before because of the domestic pressure for a change of course in Iraq, said Nathan Brown, a specialist on Arab politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"He can talk all he wants about 'staying until the job is done,' but these leaders can read about the American political scene and see that he may not be able to deliver that," Brown said.
The Bush-Maliki meeting Thursday, closely watched around the world in anticipation of a possible change in U.S. strategy, produced no shift in declared aims. Rather, it resulted in diplomatic stumbles that seemed to belie the leaders' claims that their relationship was intact.
On the eve of the summit, a leaked memo written by Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, showed that U.S. officials questioned Maliki's abilities. But the memo also was a reminder of dwindling U.S. influence over Iraq. Some of the steps that Hadley said the Iraqis should take, such as providing public services to Sunni Arabs as well as Shiites, were moves that the Americans had demanded for many months, without success.
The leak of the memo cast a shadow over the summit, and Maliki abruptly canceled the first scheduled meeting, a conversation among Bush, Maliki and Abdullah. White House aides insisted that the cancellation was not a snub.
One Middle East diplomat said later in an interview that Maliki had canceled the meeting to put distance between him and Bush at a time when Iraq's Shiite lawmakers and Cabinet ministers with ties to militant cleric Muqtada Sadr had halted their participation in the government to protest the summit.
On Saturday, in his regular radio address, Bush said that his relationship with Maliki was, in fact, improving.
"With each meeting, I'm coming to know him better, and I'm becoming more impressed by his desire to make the difficult choices that will put his country on a better path," Bush said.
During the trip, Bush was unable to distance himself from the fierce debate about Iraq policy back home. The president felt the need to respond to news accounts saying that an advisory panel on Iraq would urge a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from the region. He insisted that suggestions for such a "graceful exit" were not realistic.
Despite this, Bush repeated in his radio address that he intended to look for a bipartisan solution to the war, and would listen to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which is scheduled to present its findings Wednesday.
He also said that his own internal review, coming from Pentagon and White House officials, among others, was near completion, suggesting that he may be discussing the options before him over the next several days.
"I want to hear all advice before I make any decisions about adjustments to our strategy in Iraq," Bush said.
Cheney's trip to talk to Saudi King Abdullah was far less visible than Bush's mission, but helped to make painfully clear the gap between U.S. goals and those of its Arab allies.
U.S. officials said Cheney initiated the trip. But foreign diplomats said that Saudi leaders sought the visit to express their concern about the region, including fears of a U.S. departure and what they see as excessive American support for the Shiite faction in Iraq.
After the meeting with Cheney, Saudi officials released an unusual statement pointedly highlighting American responsibility for deterioration of stability in the region.
The Saudi officials cited "the direct influence of the United States on the issues of the region" and said it was important for U.S. influence "to be in accord with the region's actual condition and its historical equilibrium," an apparent reference to the Sunni-Shiite balance.
The Saudi statement also said the U.S. in the Middle East should "pursue equitable means that contribute to ending its conflicts," pointing to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
The statement "came pretty close to a rebuke, by Saudi standards," said Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "It said, in effect, that the United States needs to behave responsibly."
There have been other signals of Saudi anxiety recently.
On Wednesday, an advisor to the Saudi government wrote in the Washington Post that if the United States pulled out of Iraq, "massive Saudi intervention" would ensue to protect Sunnis from Shiite militias.
The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al Faisal, warned in a speech in October against an American withdrawal, saying that "since the United States came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."
Rice encountered the limits of U.S. influence when she visited Jerusalem and the West Bank town of Jericho last week, trying to entice Arab confidence by displaying a renewed interest in Israeli-Palestinian peace.
But Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was gloomy about the prospects for a deal between his Fatah party and the militant group Hamas that would allow formation of a nonsectarian government and open the way for increased aid and, potentially, peace talks with Israel.
Rice said afterward that the administration "cannot create the circumstances" for peace.
"This is the kind of thing that takes time," she said. "You don't expect great leaps forward."
Expressing deeper unhappiness with the United States, leaders from Jordan, Egypt and Persian Gulf countries told Rice during her trip to an economic development conference in Jordan on Friday that the U.S. had a responsibility to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they and many analysts viewed as the key to regional stability.
Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, urged greater U.S. action, warning that the Middle East was becoming "an abyss . The region is facing real failure."
[email protected]
Times staff writers Doyle McManus and Peter Wallsten contributed to this report.
Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:33am GMT 04/12/2006
The gulf's two military powers, Sunni-Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, are lining up behind their warring religious brethren in Iraq in a potentially explosive showdown, as expectations grow in both countries that America is preparing a pull-out of its troops.
The Saudis, America's closest allies in the Arab World, were reported - in an article last week by Nawaf Obaid, a senior government security adviser- to be considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms - as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq.
Riyadh is alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq could be abandoned to their fate - military and political - at the hands of the Shia majority.
Indeed, President George W Bush dispatched his vice-president Dick Cheney to Saudi last weekend after the kingdom demanded high-level consultations about their concerns.
They told him that Iran was trying to establish itself as the dominant regional power through its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Although a Saudi government spokesman yesterday sought to play down Mr Obaid's view as personal, saying it "does not reflect in any way the kingdom's policy and positions, which invariably uphold the security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects", Riyadh has also expressed its fears about Iranian's regional power play to other Western states.
Alarm in the traditional homeland of the Sunni branch of Islam deepened last week as it emerged that some senior US intelligence officials and diplomats are urging the Bush administration to abandon stalled attempts to reach a compromise with Sunni dissidents in Iraq and adopt a controversial "pick a winner" strategy instead, giving priority to Shia and Kurd political factions.
The proposal is also known as the "80 per cent solution" since the Sunnis, who ruled the country under Saddam Hussein, comprise just 20 per cent of Iraq's 26 million population. It has been put forward as part of a crash White House review of Iraq strategy. Its backers claim that ambitious attempts to woo anti-US Sunni insurgents have failed, and now risk alienating Shia leaders as well, leaving the US without strong political allies in Iraq.
As the frenzy of diplomatic activity intensifies, the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of foreign policy experts, this week plans to recommend the US withdraws nearly all of combat troops by early 2008.
Although President Bush continues to insist he will not tie US policy to timetables for withdrawal, the panel's recommendations will fuel the belief that a major US pull-out will be under way soon.
The issue was at the fore yesterday when 40 people were killed and more than 80 wounded after three car bombs exploded in Baghdad. The attacks came after US and Iraqi forces raided insurgent strongholds in the city of Baquba.
In Teheran, Iranian leaders have made clear that they believe they are the big winners from America's involvement in Iraq. "The kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us ?- no superpower has ever done anything similar," Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.
"America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat ?- not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes".
Iran also watched with pleasure as America, Britain, France and Germany failed to persuade Russia and China to sign up to a package of sanctions against Iran in a draft United Nations Security Council resolution. The West wanted to punish Tehran for pushing ahead with banned uranium enrichment for its nuclear programme. The US is now drawing up plans for a diplomatic "coalition of the willing" to pursue sanctions outside UN auspices.
The Iraq Study Group is also expected to recommend opening dialogue with Iran and Syria over Iraq, a move being resisted by hardliners who rule out talks with two regimes that are fomenting violence. However, in a break with previous policy, Mr Bush will meet tomorrow in Washington with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a party closely tied to Iran.
The talks are part of US efforts to strengthen links with Shia politicians and to undercut the influence of Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric and militia leader on whose support the prime minister Nuri al-Maliki depends.
The meeting will fuel Sunni fears they are being sidelined even though the White House also announced plans for future talks with the country's Sunni deputy prime-minister.
MR. RUSSERT: It is strange that the day before the election the secretary of defense is saying we need major adjustments, and you just confirmed that, and yet in the lead-up to the election, the president never suggested we needed major readjustments?-or adjustments in our Iraqi policy. He was saying we were making progress.
MR. HADLEY: We are making progress, but one of the things the president has said consistently, that we need to make adjustments, and we have been making adjustments...
Although the study group will present its plan as a much-needed course change in Iraq, many of its own advisers concluded during its deliberations that the war is essentially already lost, according to private correspondence obtained yesterday and interviews with participants. The best the commission could put forward would be the "least bad" of many bad options, as former ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer wrote.
An early working draft from July stated that "there is even doubt that any level of resources could achieve the administration's stated goals, given the illiberal and undemocratic political forces, many of them Islamic fundamentalists, that will dominate large parts of the country for a long time."
It recommended the U.S. reduce "political, military or economic support" for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security
SPIEGEL ONLINE - December 5, 2006, 04:49 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,452684,00.html
WAR AGAINST TERROR
"Bin Laden Will Be Back"
Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer on the prospects of finding bin Laden, the outlook for al Qaeda and the risk of new terror attacks in the United States.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Scheuer, five years have passed since the attacks of 9/11. Bin Laden is still free, al Qaeda alive and kicking. Venture a view of the future for us: How will things look five years down the road?
Martin H. Simon
From 1996 to 1999, Michael Scheuer (53) headed the U.S. counterterrorism unit charged with finding bin Laden. In November 2004, after 22 years of service, he resigned his CIA post.
Scheuer: Far worse than today. America is clearly losing the two wars it is fighting, and our political leadership has neither the will nor the popular support it needs to send more forces. So I would anticipate us having withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan in five years' time, with the two countries largely run by people we aren't happy with: Islamists.
SPIEGEL: And how will al Qaeda be faring?
Scheuer: Much as it is today. There's a lot of whistling past the graveyard about bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri not being in control, about the organization being broken. We have confused tactical victory with strategic process. We have done a very good job of killing and arresting some leading figures, but all we can really point to is a body count. We have no means of judging our progress, and al Qaeda is very strongly oriented toward preparing for succession in its leadership. So we haven't really made much headway against al Qaeda.
SPIEGEL: But still, it's hard to imagine the United States having no idea where bin Laden is.
Scheuer: I think it's hard for the administration to believe, too. But to the best of my knowledge, we don't know where he is, and that doesn't surprise me. We have a mindset problem: We think bin Laden and al Qaeda are gangsters, that nobody could possibly like them because they flew aircraft into our buildings. But the truth of the matter is that people hate us much more than bin Laden. So how do you locate somebody in a country where the population hates you, but likes the individual you're looking for and even sees him as defending its faith?
SPIEGEL: Will the CIA get bin Laden one day?
Scheuer: I hope so, but realistically the drain of manpower, resources and overhead imagery from Afghanistan to Iraq has left severely depleted resources available. And the American-led coalition is having to spend more and more defending Hamid Karzai's government, leaving less and less for finding bin Laden.
SPIEGEL: You used to be the director of Alec Station, which was charged with capturing bin Laden. The CIA closed the unit at the end of last year. A mistake?
Scheuer: A disaster. I'd assume that the president wasn't aware of the decision. You can't nominate public enemy number one and then scrap the resources that were chasing him.
SPIEGEL: Is Pakistan really a loyal ally in the quest for bin Laden?
Scheuer: Every country has its national interests. I would have bet everything I own that Pervez Musharraf would not have done what he's done to date. He's given us overflight rights; he helped us arrest very, very important al Qaeda fighters. But it's not in Pakistan's national interest to find, arrest, and turn bin Laden over to the Americans. It simply isn't going to happen, and we're fools if we expect it to, because the country would probably implode. And Musharraf is not suicidal.
SPIEGEL: Do you believe the rumors that bin Laden is hiding - cut off from all communications - inside some cave?
Scheuer: There are a lot of fairy tales about Osama bin Laden's life. Politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair like to suggest that he's scurrying from one mountain to the next, one step ahead of the cops. That's not true. In that case, we would have caught him: all insurgents know they are at their most vulnerable when they're on the move. We see al Qaeda producing sophisticated videos: Ayman al-Zawahiri and bin Laden seem to be comfortable.
SPIEGEL: So they are satisfied with what they've achieved?
Scheuer: We tend to forget that bin Laden's main aim has never been military victory, but to inspire other Muslims. They can see that the global trend is in their favor. We are losing in Iraq. We are losing in Afghanistan. So I suspect they are quite happy. If, over the course of a decade, someone keeps announcing things, and then follows that up with action 80 or 90 percent of the time, then we should be believing him. If you ask me, al Qaeda is planning another attack in the United States.
SPIEGEL: Any idea where?
Scheuer: Can I pinpoint a city? No. But they are obviously waiting until they can do something even more spectacular than 9/11. In America, it would be simple to launch intifada-style attacks or the kind of bus and subway bombings we saw in London. Since 1996, bin Laden has maintained that every attack will be incrementally greater in the pain it causes.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you being overly pessimistic? After all, there's no actual evidence of an impending attack.
Scheuer: We Americans misunderstand the nature of terrorism. In our eyes, if someone doesn't attack us when we are expecting it, we assume that he lacks the means to do so, that we have won. But the patience of this foe is extraordinary. And don't fall into the trap of judging this war by the number of bombs or explosions. Forces aligned with al Qaeda have killed 2,500 Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a gigantic budget deficit. In my view, the president is wrong to equate an absence of attacks with a successful war on terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Was London going to be another al Qaeda attack?
Scheuer: I doubt whether al Qaeda's leadership had planned and coordinated the operation. However, al Qaeda may have trained and funded one or two of those involved.
SPIEGEL: According to bin Laden, the war in Iraq represents a golden opportunity for al Qaeda. Has it aided the terrorists?
Scheuer: Yes. From a Muslim perspective, the invasion of Iraq is the ultimate justification for jihad. An infidel enemy attacking and occupying a Muslim country unprovoked. In my view, Iraq will remain a thorn in America's side for the foreseeable future.
SPIEGEL: Was killing Zarqawi important?
Scheuer: Zarqawi was clearly off of al Qaeda's reservation. But anyone can work under the umbrella of al Qaeda as long as they keep attacking Americans and their allies, and avoid fomenting a war with the Shia. Bin Laden hates the Shia, but he has different priorities: he wants to dislodge America from the Middle East first, then go after Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and finally deal with the Shia. Zarqawi was pushing too hard for an outright civil war in Iraq. So from al Qaeda's perspective, Zarqawi is now probably in a perfect state. A noble martyr, but dead.
SPIEGEL: Polls suggest that bin Laden's standing has fallen in the Muslim world, that many no longer hero-worship him.
Scheuer: Yes, and every time his popularity declines, the Americans stand up and say: "Thanks be to God! It's all over! Bin Laden's finished!" But the same polls ask a more pertinent question: "What do you think of American foreign policy?" And for more than 12 years now, 80 to 90 percent of respondents have agreed completely with bin Laden's view. They may not always approve of his methods, but they share his animosity and raw hatred. In the United States, we need to acknowledge that we have bitten off more than we can chew. We will have to kill the generation of people that have grown up around bin Laden. But it's also vital that we reduce al Qaeda's popular appeal.
Interview was conducted by Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
InfraBlue wrote:
Might you elucidate the complexities, Spendi?
spendius wrote:
No chance.
What on earth makes you think I might have?
Doesn't sound too scholarly to me! LOL
ISG Report: Bush Administration ?'Significantly Underreporting The Violence In Iraq'
The Bush administration has consistently bashed the media for ignoring all the "good news" in Iraq. In Oct. 2003, President Bush said, "And, listen, we're making good progress in Iraq. Sometimes it's hard to tell it when you listen to the filter. We're making good progress."
But according to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report released yesterday, the Bush administration has actually been filtering out the bad news in Iraq by underreporting violence "in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals." From pp. 94-5:
In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.
In addition to manipulating statistics, the administration has spent $20 million "for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq."
Comparable to looking for a needle in a haystack.
