Michael Savage should apologize to all Catholics
03.31.06 (7:24 am) [edit]From the Catholic League:
March 30, 2006
MICHAEL SAVAGE(S) CATHOLICISM
Here is what radio talk-show host Michael Savage had to say on March 28 about the Catholic Church’s response to the immigration issue:
"It is a pig story! It’s animal farm all over again. And also make no bones about it, it’s the greedy Catholic Church that was behind it because the people of America walked away from the molesters’ dens and they need to bring in people from the Third World who are still gullible enough to sit there and listen to the molesters…the Roman Catholic Church was behind this, the Roman Catholic Church started this a year ago. The Roman Catholic Church flooded the streets because they cannot get parishioners anymore amongst educated white people who have caught onto the racket and instead they need to import dummies to sit in the church pews. That’s the story and it is not difficult for you to understand—I’m telling you the truth. It’s all about greed. It’s greed at the top of the Catholic Church.
"Make no mistake about why this is happening. This has nothing to do with compassion for Mexican workers. This has nothing to do with fairness for Mexican workers—it has to do with the greed…. That’s all there is to it. And that includes the Catholic Church pigs. And if you don’t like it, don’t listen to the show—I really don’t care anymore. I’m not going to be duped by this sanctimonious garbage that all churches are good and that the institution itself is good. Bah humbug. The institution is rotten from the top to the bottom."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:
“I was scheduled to be on with Mike Savage the day he savaged the Catholic Church and made bigoted comments about Latinos. But in the pre-interview—which occurred just a half hour before Savage went ballistic—I let a producer know that I did not share the host’s position; after he checked with Savage, I was told they would not have me on the show. That was fine, but what is not fine is Savage’s diatribe about the ‘greedy pigs’ in the Catholic Church and how ‘the institution is rotten from the top to the bottom.’ He owes all Catholics an apology.”
***Blogger's note***
Michael Savage is, like all radio hosts, a narcissistic, self-important blowhard. He's even worse, actually, because he somehow obtained a Ph.D. He is very proud that he has written a lot of books. I tried to read his "Savage Nation", but I failed due to its third-grade level of prose. I guess if you like listening to him ramble on and on about himself, because it all goes back to himself and his accomplishments, then you'll like reading his work and probably everything else this nutjob put to paper. Otherwise, don't bother.
Am I missing something?
03.29.06 (5:50 am) [edit]This illegal immigrant thing is actually starting to get to me. I have to say that I was impressed that half a million of them turned out to protest an attempt by Congress to actually enforce immigration laws, but I'm wondering why they turned out at all.
Indeed, if illegals are so damn hard-working, why did they take a couple of days off to protest? And if they're so damn patriotic, as we've often been told by the Left, why were they all waving Mexican flags? I mean, they left Mexico ostensibly because it is a real shithole. It would at least be considerate to wave an American flag. Patriotic US citizens are the ones paying their way through life.
The US is subsidizing the Mexican economy. Quite a few illegals come here and establish themselves quickly by signing up for our generous benefits and then sending the cash to families in Mexico. These illegals do not try and become Americans, because they simply just want to make money. They also decide to have children, making sure they'll stay in the US.
Long ago immigrants came here to work their ass off and become Americans. They didn't have some perverse pride in their homelands because their homelands failed them. They wanted to start anew. But the illegals come here and instead of being grateful for the country that gives them so much, ride around waving the flag of Mexico, home of one of the most corrupt and indifferent governments on the planet.
And, finally, don't ask Congress to really do anything about this. Republicans depend on illegals because they work for nothing and save their corporate handlers money, while Democrats depend on illegals because they pander to them and promise them every damn benefit under the sun. Literally, these Dems are right at the border with voter registration kiosks. It's pathetic.
Want to come to America and work? Do it the right way. Otherwise, you should be arrested and deported. You don't belong here.
Article-- "Who's Behind The Immigration Rallies?"-- http://frontpagemag.com/Artic...
Russia gave Iraq details about war
03.25.06 (4:58 am) [edit]These recently released Pentagon documents-- http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink... are going to reveal some embarassing details, like how the French, Russians, and Chinese worked against the US for profit, locking millions under the brutal thumb of a tyrant in defiance of the UN charter. They will show how the US had no choice but to go to war because the UN's oversight of Iraq was a joke, and after 9/11 we couldn't continue with such an environment.
Report: Russia Gave Iraq Details About War By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer2 hours, 20 minutes ago-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...;_ylt=AgqHUao_BID6O7M2l5R BEv.WwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bH E0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Iraqi documents captured by U.S. forces in 2003 say Russian intelligence had sources inside the American military that enabled it to feed information about U.S. troop movements and battle plans to Saddam Hussein.
The unclassified report does not assess the value or accuracy of the information Saddam got or offer details on Russia's information pipeline. It cites captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians had "sources inside the American Central Command" and that intelligence was passed to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.
Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russia's U.N. mission in New York, said the allegations were false.
"To my mind, from my understanding it's absolutely nonsense and it's ridiculous," she said, adding that the U.S. government had not shown Russia the evidence cited in the report. "Somebody wants to say something, and did — and there is no evidence to prove it."
An official in the office of Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov in Moscow quoted him saying Saturday, "We don't consider it necessary to comment on such fabrications."
The Iraqi documents leave unclear who may have been the sources at Central Command's war-fighting headquarters, which is at Camp As Saliyah just outside Doha, the capital of Qatar. No Russians were authorized to be at the closely guarded base.
A classified version of the report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public. It was assembled by U.S. Joint Forces Command, which reviewed a vast array of captured Iraqi documents and interviewed Iraqi political and military leaders, not including Saddam.
The report does not address the possibility that the U.S. military deliberately fed false information to the Russians, expecting them to pass it to Saddam. It does say that "such external sources of information were only one of the fog-generators obscuring the minds of Iraq's senior leadership."
Among the information the Iraqis said they received from the Russians, some of which proved inaccurate, was:
• That the movement of U.S. troops into southern Iraq from Kuwait was a diversion. In fact it was the main avenue of attack, supported by special forces entering from Jordan and paratroopers flying into northern Iraq.
• That the ground assault on Baghdad would not begin until the Army's 4th Infantry Division was in place, around April 15. In fact, the 4th Infantry, whose originally planned invasion route from Turkey was blocked by the Turkish government, was not yet on Iraqi territory when the Baghdad ground assault began April 7. Thus, by design or chance, the information from the Russians actually reinforced a U.S. military deception effort.
• That the main focus of U.S. ground forces moving toward Baghdad from the southwest was the area around the city of Karbala. (This was true. After crossing a bridge over the Euphrates River outside of Karbala, the 3rd Infantry Division had a clear path to the Iraqi capital and Saddam's chances of stopping the assault had ended.)
That U.S. troops moving through southern Iraq would not attempt to occupy cities but instead bypass them. (This was true and was a central feature of an invasion plan that stressed speed and tactical surprise.)
The lead author of the Pentagon report, Kevin Woods, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that he was surprised to learn the Russians had passed intelligence to Saddam, and he said he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Iraqi documents.
"But I don't have any other knowledge of that topic," Woods added, referring to the Russian link.
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, referred inquiries seeking comment to Central Command. At Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., officials did not immediately respond to a request.
It is standard procedure for Russia and other countries not part of a U.S. coalition to try to gain inside information on U.S. military plans. It's certainly not surprising in the case of Iraq, a country which had long-standing economic and military ties to Moscow. But until now the Pentagon had not indicated that the Russians might have succeeded.
Pavel Felgenhauer, a respected independent Moscow-based military analyst, said Friday that a Russian military intelligence unit, known by its abbreviation GRU, was actively working in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The information about a Russian intelligence link to Baghdad was a small part of a much broader report by Joint Forces Command that attempts to explain the forces and motivations behind Iraqi military decision-making in the months leading to the invasion and in the first several weeks after Baghdad fell in April.
The report paints a picture of an Iraqi regime that was largely blind to the threat it faced, hampered by Saddam's inept military leadership, preoccupied by the prospect of a Shiite uprising and deceived by its own propaganda.
"The largest contributing factor to the complete defeat of Iraq's military forces was the continued interference by Saddam," the report said.
In addition to citing the Iraqi documents on the matter of Russian intelligence, the report also directly asserted that an intelligence link existed.
"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the report's authors wrote. They cited as an example a document that was sent to Saddam on March 24, 2003, and captured by the U.S. military after Baghdad fell.
Apple says new French law smacks of state-sponsored piracy
03.22.06 (4:32 am) [edit]Leave it to the French... Apple says proposed French law smacks of piracy Reuters Tuesday, March 21, 2006; 8:59 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc.
"The French implementation of the EU Copyright Directive will result in state-sponsored piracy," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris. "If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers."
The National Assembly, France's lower house of parliament, passed the law on Tuesday, which French officials said is aimed at preventing any one company from building a grip on the digital online music retail market.
The new legislation would require that online music retailers provide the digital rights management software that protects copyright material to allow the conversion of music in one format to another.
But Apple said the law, which it opposes, would likely actually increase its sales of iPod music players. "iPod sales will likely increase as users freely upload their iPods with 'interoperable' music which cannot be adequately protected," Kerris said. "Free movies for iPods should not be far behind."
Is this what our troops fought for?
03.20.06 (10:33 pm) [edit]Abdul Rahman converted to Christianity 16 years ago. He is an Afghani living in the New Afghanistan-- liberated from years of Soviet/Talibanic oppression.
Big deal, right?
Well, yeah, it is, because this man is going to trial and could possibly be executed for it. You see, though the Afghan constitution calls for freedom of religion, it establishes that Islam is the state religion and for a Muslim to convert to a heathen religion, under the Islamic law of Sharia, that is a crime punishable by death.
So there seems to be a freedom of religion, unless you convert from Islam to anything else.
Rahman is unrepentant about his conversion, even in the face of death, and that is commendable. But we have to wonder-- is this what we fought for after 9/11?
The enemy then, as it is now, is Islamic extremism. The kind of fanaticism that led to OBL and 9/11. But we liberated Afghanistan, right? We tried to get them to understand the consequences of extremism. Yet here we are watching as a state gets extreme over the fact that one man chooses to believe in his or her own way. It is kind of depressing to say the least.
Am I implicitly saying, then, that truth is relative? Not at all. What I'm saying is that if Islam is truth, then it should have no problem letting this man explore Christianity, for he will come back to the truth. All men seek the truth.
If this man dies, however, I have to wonder what the US will be seeking in the war on terror.
Exploring with Surrogate
03.15.06 (9:06 am) [edit]"Maybe I'm wrong. But I sincerely doubt it." That right there is the major reason not to go 'exploring' with blogger Surrogate. But, of course, that was at the end of a really sad blog he wrote about his version of conservatives. I'm told I have goofy thoughts, but you should see what this guy thinks:
Quote:
"1. Black folks were not really people. (The negotiated figure was 3/5 of a person)
2. God sanctioned the practice because it's talked about extensively in the Bible, therefore ending it would be contrary to scripture.
3. The economy of the South depended on it. To end it would be catastrophic.
Then the "fake" argument: Washington should not interfere with an individual State's right to treat people (and creatures that were only 3/5 of a person) any way they damn well please.
It was this fake argument that lead to war, in which 350,000 people and creatures that were only 3/5 of a person died. Why fake? -Because it's always used to justify untenable things."
I guess it should be mentioned that these "conservatives" who were actually the forefathers of today's Democratic party, did not see slaves as 3/5 of a human being. They didn't see them as human beings at all. The 3/5 measure was part of what's called the "3/5 Compromise" in which anti-slavery forces in the north were able to get those "conservatives" in the south (ahem, forefathers of today's Democrats) to count slaves as at least 3/5 of a human being or else the south would not ratify the constitution (the north wanted slaves counted as human beings, "conservatives" in the south did not).
Some of our most God-fearing Christians were actually abolitionists and it might help to remind Surrogate that the Republican party, where the conservative movement began, was formed to oppose slavery. Yup, it's true. Abraham Lincoln, the man who ended slavery, was a Republican. And blacks voted Republican until the rise of FDR.
States' rights is actually part of the US Constitution. There are such things as states' rights, and so it is not a conservative or liberal issue. Slaveowners (the forefathers of today's Democratic party) argued that it had to do with states' rights but in short they were merely using the constitution to defend an evil practice. Welcome to politics, folks. And that is what started the Civil War.
To suggest that states' rights are evil, and that conservatives endorsed slavery is at best ignorant and at worst shameless.
(and did you ever notice that libs love to say whatever they want, but somehow don't seem to understand that "living your life as you see fit" is part of that same spirit? It's called the Bill of Rights...)
Lastly, Surrogate says
"Most conservatives I've met seem to believe fiercely that it is the right of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without the intrusion of a large central government. This, of course, while pursuing laws that prohibit others to live their lives as THEY see fit."
First of all, it is the right of every American to live their life as they see fit-- this is part of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. The reason why we have a checks and balance system, and the reason why we have power to the states ingrained in the constitution is to prevent a large central government. This isn't a conservative or liberal argument-- it's a fact.
Secondly, I know of no law that a conservative has wanted passed that would prevent "others to live their lives as they see fit." Gay marriage? CIvil Unions. Abortion? Still legal. I mean, I guess unless you want to commit murder outside the womb, you're in a bit of a mess, but otherwise, most conservatives just want what most Americans want-- personal freedom and smaller government.
Unless I'm missing out on why Republicans have ruled congress for the last 12 years.
So, dear readers, beware: don't go 'exploring' with Surrogate. I'm not a betting man like he is, but if I had to wager, I'd say that he doesn't know what he's talking about half the time.
Trying my hand at podcasting...
03.14.06 (6:15 am) [edit]I don't have a whole lot of time to devote to podcasting, but I thought I'd give it a shot. So, on an infrequent basis I'll post new podcasts of blogs I have or other stuff. Currently I'm using TelCaster, but I don't like the quality so much, so I may try another service.
Anyway, I have a new test podcast up, basically going over the Isaac Hayes blog.
here is the link-- http://www.telcaster.com/Conf...
Will Catholics get a disclaimer for "DaVinci Code"?
03.14.06 (3:16 am) [edit]The Catholic League ran an open letter recently asking Ron Howard, the director of the sacreligious "DaVinci Code" and its studio Sony to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the film noting its FICTITIOUS nature.
From the Catholic League-- http://catholicleague.com/06p...%201/060313_not_averse.htm
March 13, 2006
SONY, RON HOWARD, NOT AVERSE TO DISCLAIMERS
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, spoke out today about his request for a disclaimer in the upcoming film, “The Da Vinci Code”:
“Last Monday, the Catholic League ran an ‘Open Letter to Ron Howard’ on the op-ed page of the New York Times requesting a disclaimer in the beginning of the movie noting its fictional nature. That request has since been denounced as an ‘arrogant’ demand, suggesting it is an infringement on the artistic rights of Sony, the company that is releasing the film, and Ron Howard, the director. But a little research reveals that neither Sony nor Howard are averse to disclaimers in their movies.
“When Sony released ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ the movie opened with a disclaimer noting that ‘Intolerance of the Jews was a fact of 16th Century life even in Venice, the most powerful and liberal city state in Europe.’ And in ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ a Ron Howard film, the movie ended with a disclaimer noting that it differs from the book (of the same name) that inspired the film: Howard, and screen writer Akiva Goldman, admitted that they ‘fictionalized a number of the incidents.’
“So much for the argument that the Catholic League is out of line by asking for a disclaimer in ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ The Dan Brown book upon which the film is based is a pack of anti-Catholic lies, and it is the author’s duplicity that is driving our campaign: he has tried to pitch his book as if it were an authentic historical account. Thus, to the extent that the movie fails to note that it is a fable, some viewers will be misled. And, as we warned in the ad, Howard’s reputation will be damaged. There’s a lot at stake and there’s an easy way out. The ball is in their court.”
More on "The DaVinci Code"-- http://www.catholic.com/libra...
Finally-- White House will release postwar Iraq and Afghanistan documents
03.14.06 (2:45 am) [edit]The release could answer a whole slew of questions regarding Iraq's WMD. While it will never shut up the "Bush lied" crowd (which is ironic because the Bill Clinton and the UN, not Bush, said that Iraq had WMD-- Bush was just enforcing already established law),those critics that are sane human beings might just end up feeling embarassed that they sided with such malicious, unfair, attacks on the president.
Article-- http://www.weeklystandard.com...
Russ Feingold wants to censure the president for things he never did
03.14.06 (12:21 am) [edit]A censure is basically a formal scolding of the president from the Senate. If Russ Feingold succeeds in his censure motion this will most likely give the House Democrats to try an impeachment motion, although they may wait until after the elections.
But what, exactly, does Feingold want to censure the president for? Well, for his "domestic spying" program, of course, something that Feingold says tears up the Bill of Rights.
Now, if Bush was spying on Americans that would be true. It would be an impeachable offense. But once again Feingold and the willing mainstream media MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT BUSH ACTUALLY DID.
What Bush actually did was monitor phone calls from Al Qaeda to people in the US and to Al Qaeda from people in the US. These were known Al Qaeda phone contacts discovered while prosecuting the war on terror. Bush did not authorize spying on the man down the street when he calls a phone sex line, or the hippie up the street when he calls to make another contribution to MoveOn. NO, all Bush did was something sensible and logical: he authorized the NSA to monitor these calls because they did, in fact, represent national security threats.
In fact, President Bush has the explicit right to do what he did. The ONLY thing president Bush did that he could be censured for in this case is that he did not seek a warrant. The administration has argued that seeking a warrant would have taken much more time than what they had. Given the fact that this occured in the hysteria right after 9/11 I am inclined to believe that the administration thought they had no time to lose. Still, such an act is censurable and would be the only appropriate use of such a motion.
But we Americans have had five straight years of mischaracterizations of this president. From election 2000 t0 9/11 to WMD to Bush's Guard service, to PortGate and the wiretapping 'scandal', to Valerie Plame and yellowcake, every scandal has been manufactured by liberals and the media who have from the beginning contested Bush as a president.
This is a fact whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. And it is dangerous, for while serious stuff is going on in this world, we have no way of knowing the truth because the media is untruthful about so many things. We make it harder for those entrusted to defend this country to do so, as they start doing things not for the right reasons but for political ones (so they don't get browbeaten by the MSM).
So Feingold can try and censure the president, but he and the media have it entirely wrong. Feingold aims to censure the president on lies. What a surprise.
Isaac Hayes the hypocrite.....
03.14.06 (12:06 am) [edit]So Isaac Hayes quites SP because he doesn't like the show's insensitivity toward religion*. I guess the fact that he voiced the character of a black stereotype on a show that also made fun of families, gay people, race, class, and so on didn't matter to him.
Hayes' own character, Chef, was a sexually promiscuous, single black man who cheapened the act of sex into a recreational sport, divorced of its rightful place within a loving, respectful marriage. Not very moral in itself, I might say.
One of the show's creators, Matt Stone, says that Hayes is quitting because the show made fun of The Church of Scientology**, of which Hayes is a member. That may be true, but if Hayes was a moral man in the first place he should not have ever been a part of the show.
*The religion most made fun of on the show is Catholicism. It attacks Jesus and Mary, mischaracterizes the priest abuse scandal, and so on.
**Not a real church. While SP's treatment of Scientology was a bit extreme, at its core it was accurate. Scientology is a money making scheme that should not be included with religions like Christianity and Judaism.
"'V' for 'Vendetta'" is pure liberal fantasy-world politics
03.13.06 (7:44 am) [edit]I thought about seeing this film, but after reading this article "'V' is for 'Vicious Propaganda'", I might just save my money-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
President wants Saddam documents released, but intelligence chief stalls to avoid embarassing the allies
03.11.06 (5:13 am) [edit]An amazing column by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard-- http://www.weeklystandard.com...
Whenever they are released, there are going to be a lot of people, including most of the war critics who called Bush a liar, with egg on their faces.
Dubai company pulls out of port deal in one of most shameless political spectacles in memory
03.10.06 (5:18 am) [edit]What do you get when you combine Democrat racism, Republican electioneering and misinformation by the mainstream media? One of the most shameless political spectacles of the last 20 years.
DP World, the Dubai, UAW company that was to take over operations at six US ports, replacing a British firm decided to sell off its assets to a US company and wash it hands of PortGate-- http://seattletimes.nwsource.... . And there is plenty of blame to go around.
The Democrats-- longing to be relevant again on national security issues, the same folks that said we couldn't profile Arabs boarding airplanes suddenly decided to deem a company based in Dubai and headed by a white guy a terror threat, despite the fact DP World would just be owning the terminals where the same longshoreman (Americans) would work, and where the same Port Authorities and Coast Guards (all Americans) would be responsible for security.
The GOP-- longing to not lose a possible election issue to the Dems, decided to jump on board. Congressman Jerry Lewis spearheaded the campaign in the House where he attached an amendment banning this company's acquisition to the White House's 91 billion dollar aid request. This therefore would put the President in the position of approving the bill and not following through with his veto threat. Way to go, guys.
Of course, with the Dems and the GOP, their beliefs about DP World rest with the mainstream media, which shaped this story as Arabs "taking over" US ports, as if from out of nowhere there'd be a bunch of brown-colored people with AK-4s strung around their necks milling around the ports saying prayers to Allah. THAT is the impression they wanted to create and why the American public, in polls, were against the Arabs "taking over" US ports (despite the fact that the Chinese have "taken over" US ports in the west and that many other foreign companies have "taken over" US ports).
This is more than a blow to capitalism (which it most certainly is). It is a blow to our image in the Muslim world where, we must remember, everything the US does is scrutinized. We are still the superpower, we are still followed. Why do we have to act like clowns?
Dubai company pulls out of port deal in one of most shameless political spectacles in memory
03.10.06 (5:10 am) [edit]What do you get when you combine Democrat racism, Republican electioneering and misinformation by the mainstream media? One of the most shameless political spectacles of the last 20 years. DP World, the Dubai, UAW company that was to take over operations at six US ports, replacing a British firm decided to sell off its assets to a US company and wash it hands of PortGate-- http://seattletimes.nwsource.... . And there is plenty of blame to go around. The Democrats-- longing to be relevant again on national security issues, the same folks that said we couldn't profile Arabs boarding airplanes suddenly decided to deem a company based in Dubai and headed by a white guy a terror threat, despite the fact DP World would just be owning the terminals where the same longshoreman (Americans) would work, and where the same Port Authorities and Coast Guards (all Americans) would be responsible for security. The GOP-- longing to not lose a possible election issue to the Dems, decided to jump on board. Congressman Jerry Lewis spearheaded the campaign in the House where he attached an amendment banning this company's acquisition to the White House's 91 billion dollar aid request. This therefore would put the President in the position of approving the bill and not following through with his veto threat. Way to go, guys. Of course, with the Dems and the GOP, their beliefs about DP World rest with the mainstream media, which shaped this story as Arabs "taking over" US ports, as if from out of nowhere there'd be a bunch of brown-colored people with AK-4s strung around their necks milling around the ports saying prayers to Allah. THAT is the impression they wanted to create and why the American public, in polls, were against the Arabs "taking over" US ports (despite the fact that the Chinese have "taken over" US ports in the west and that many other foreign companies have "taken over" US ports). This is more than a blow to capitalism (which it most certainly is). It is a blow to our image in the Muslim world where, we must remember, everything the US does is scrutinized. We are still the superpower, we are still followed. Why do we have to act like clowns?
How we duped the west, by Iran's nuclear negotiator
03.05.06 (12:28 pm) [edit]From the Telegraph-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator By Philip Sherwell in Washington (Filed: 05/03/2006)
The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.
The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.
In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.
He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.
Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.
He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.
The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.
In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."
Bush tape proves the failure of local, state response to Katrina
03.02.06 (5:42 am) [edit]If you spend all of your time reading this nut-- http://drforbush.tblog.com/po... , then you would be prone to believing a lot of idiocy. One such example is that President Bush failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina because of a video obtained by the AP that shows a meeting of federal officials at FEMA, DHS, DOD and the President's office, all discussing the FEDERAL response to Katrina.
The obvious implication is incredible: that President Bush was responsible for the devastation that was brought upon New Orleans and Mississippi, and that if only things had gone as planned New Orleans wouldn't be in the shape it is in.
Of course what Lefties like the aforementioned moron mistakenly believe is that the federal government had control over the welfare of the lives of New Orleaners. We have a little something called the Constitution, and in it the lines are clearly drawn between the powers of the state and the powers of the federal government. Guess which entity was responsible for the evacuation of the people of New Orleans? Yup, the City of New Orleans and "Chocolate City" Ray Nagin. And guess who was responsible for the safety of the levies. Right again! The city of N.O. and the state of Louisiana. Who had the final say on when to send in Louisiana National Guard Troops? Yes! The governor of Louisiana.
You see, what this nut http://drforbush.tblog.com/po... still cannot grasp is that the federal government is not the first responder in a disaster like this. They cannot evacuate, they cannot send in the National Guard without permission from the state, they cannot do all of the things that the aforementioned moron seems to imply. Now, this doesn't mean that their response was perfect, but in the light of the non-existent response from the Chocolate City Mayor and the Guv of Louisiana, it looks great.
People like Dr. Moron seem to want the feds to intrude on the lives of everyone when it is convenient. If there is a catastrophe, the federal government should break the law and take over. If, however, there is a terror threat against this country, the government has absolutely no right to monitor the phone calls of terrorists to people in the US (which would actually be a just exercise of authority).
So we have a videotape that shows a discussion about things that the federal government has little control over. Oh, and one little note: DrAsshole doesn't mention that FEMA director Michael Brown openly worries about the fact that the Chocolate City's government hadn't done a damn thing to help the people evacuate.
So is Bush caught in another lie? Not really. But DrDuh is caught in another example of supreme stupidity.