Andrew Hagen

Congress and the White House have refused to deal with each other in passing an update to US foreign surveillance law. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George W. Bush might hate each other, but right now, for the good of the country, they need to put down their pop guns and work together on a key bill that transcends political differences.

The newly drafted bill under consideration in Congress allows the US to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations. Advances in technology including computers and cell phones means that the prior legislation, enacted decades ago, is out-of-date. The proposed legislation enacts many powerful new protections against governmental abuse to benefit the privacy of US citizens, including those abroad. Congress will be kept regularly and fully informed through the Intelligence Committee. Separate bills have passed the House and Senate. Yet, there is no bill on the President’s desk to sign. As a result, the temporary legislation that preceded these bills has now expired. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and above all, Nancy Pelosi have failed. Now our ability to stop terrorist activity lies in shambles. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi have been selfish in aggrandizing their own political positions no matter what the cost. Apparently they think that risking another 9/11 is worth it if they can whip up their political bases for the November elections. Sickening.

We are presently engaged in a dire struggle to stop suicide bombs and terrorist attacks. A few hours ago, we let our guard down for no reason. We cannot let the violence of Iraq, reduced as it is since the surge, spread to the US.

The claimed sticking point is whether telecommunications companies should have protection from lawsuits for helping the government listen in on terrorists in the days after 9/11. They should have that immunity. Yet, some have suggested that business and government must not cooperate or we risk fascism. A little history suffices to remedy any misconception. Business and government cooperated extensively in World War II. Without that, the US would not have achieved victory over fascism. In prior years, FDR attempted to spark extensive business-government cooperation in the New Deal, but FDR is not considered a fascist. Business and government often cooperate. Cooperation is not ipso facto tyrannical. The desire for freedom concerns itself with abuses of power. We have First Amendment freedoms in America today and free elections coming up that undermine any claim that our government is fascist.

There is no record of any serious abuse of power in terrorist surveillance in the days after 9/11. US agencies were not exploiting the new cooperation with telecoms after 9/11 to dig up dirt on Americans by listening to their phone calls, like East Germany would have done. There is every indication that our intelligence services acted in good faith at that time. There is no evidence that any telecom company betrayed its customers. In the days after 9/11 we were all worried about more attacks that would kill thousands at a time. There is no evidence that any American’s privacy was invaded by foreign surveillance. If that did happen, it would have been a regrettable mistake, yet forgivable in the immediate days following 9/11. The telecoms were trying to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A temporary and minor reduction in privacy was justified by a threat that became real on 9/11. Now we have new legislation to permanently protect our privacy and liberties and provide a cornerstone for our future security. We need not punish telecoms who acted in good faith in the meantime. We deserve both liberty and security.

To forestall continued squabbling, might I suggest a compromise bill? Make the telecoms liable during that period if they did not act in good faith. If they did act in good faith, grant them amnesty. This compromise is a last resort.

Contrary to what conservatives are saying, trial lawyers are not fighting FISA. Maybe civil rights lawyers like the ACLU are currently in the dark and are fighting the update to FISA for no good reason. Trial lawyers are not against this change, even though it grants limited immunity to an industry. In this case, the protections afforded to our lives, liberty, and privacy justify the result.

Give the telecoms amnesty as per the Senate bill. Pass the legislation. Stop playing chicken with American security.

Step back for a second. Is fighting terrorism a war? If not, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement action. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is plain that we cannot stop terrorism unless we give the right tools to either law enforcement or the military–take your pick. One necessary tool against foreign terrorists is foreign surveillance. Congress has put together an adequate bill. Now it is time to make it law.

Terrorists attacked a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Their target was apparently Benazir Bhutto, who died of wounds from the explosion and, reportedly, two subsequent gunshots. (*) Fifteen died in what was likely a suicide bomb.

Earlier in the day, Nawaz al Sharif, Bhutto’s recent running mate, was nearly shot. (*)

Bhutto (1953-2007) stood for women’s rights, modernity compatible with religion, and democracy. While prime minister of Pakistan, the Taliban took root in Afghanistan. Later, in a speech to the Pakistani parliament in 1998, Bhutto spoke in favor of cutting ties with the Taliban. (*)

Subsequently in 1998, with a cloud of corruption charges hanging over her, she went into exile in Dubai. She said the charges were politically motivated. In 2007, she returned to Pakistan in part thanks to the United States working with the Pakistani government. Bhutto was granted amnesty. In an election, Bhutto’s side did very well. Pakistan’s leader, General Musharraf announced a state of emergency. Bhutto had stated many times that Musharraf’s cabinet and government is rife with Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers. (*) In 2004, for example, she stated that prior to 9/11 Musharraf’s government was the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Daily News reported on December 26, 2007: (*)

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto yesterday accused President Pervez Musharraf of failing to stop the spread of Islamic militants and promised to crack down on the groups if she wins next month’s parliamentary election.

She did not give specifics.

As it turns out, maybe Musharraf was right to call for the state of emergency. Maybe he should have tightened it.

Since 9/11, Musharraf has worked with the international community to fight the war on terrorism. Key Al Qaeda suspects like Khalid Sheik Muhammed were arrested on Pakistani soil.

I do not share Bhutto’s deep skepticism of Musharraf’s committment to the war on terrorism. I feel Musharraf has turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bhutto’s father was assassinated by a military dictator and I believe feelings lingered in Bhutto against Musharraf, who at the least resembles a military dictator. I believe we should work with Musharraf and encourage Bhutto’s followers to support the current government.

The highest priority for Pakistan should be resistance to extremism. Once that is established, other goals can gain priority.

Pakistan is an unstable country. It might be prudent for NATO to offer the Pakistani government a part of an island for lease for the purpose of safe storage of weapons of mass destruction. As part of this deal, a nuclear guarantee could be granted to Pakistan while its WMD is out of the country. The deal would include a next step which would be a peace process with India.

The world’s goal should be to have a Pakistan and India living as peaceful neighbors, neither falling prey to extremism.

Update: A camerman said Bhutto waved to the crowd through the sun roof, then shots rang out, and then the explosion occurred. (*) CNN has apparently now removed this story from their site. There is fogginess, confusion, and misinformation on the exact particulars of the assassination.

It happened in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani military. Bhutto had prepared an e-mail for posthumous delivery. In it she blamed Musharraf for her death. In my view, the assassination was an Al Qaeda job. By performing the attack in Rawalpindi they encourage shifting of blame to the government of Pakistan. Bhutto must have been perceived as a stronger enemy of Al Qaeda than Musharraf. I don’t doubt there is infiltration to a degree of Al Qaeda and Taliban into the Pakistani armed forces, including to a degree in Rawalpindi. I do doubt that Musharraf was in the conspiracy. I would like to see investigated Bhutto’s allegations against cabinet-level ministers in Pakistan as to Al Qaeda infiltration.

In the wake of a horrifying massacre, a very strange fact has come to light. Two days ago, acting in pure evil, Cho Seung-Hui, a South Korean citizen and student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (”Virginia Tech”) in Blacksburg, Virginia, murdered 32 people on campus and wounded dozens more.

Yesterday, ABC News released a long report on its web site. Today, Americablog.com raised a highly alarming question based on that ABC News report. Below the “A ‘Troubled’ Young Man” sub-heading, the ABC News report stated:

Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government’s files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.

Americablog.com has played this as “The Bushies” trying to spy on America. More likely, however, is that this database pre-existed the presidency of George W. Bush.

A few points. First, it was an accidental release. If ABC News was going to announce the database on purpose they would have done so in a carefully crafted “special report” seemingly designed to alleviate Americans’ fears about their constitutional rights.

Second, ABC seems to have known about the database before the April 17 report. If that is true, they should admit it and state why they kept the secret rather than doing the journalistically responsible thing and report it.

Third, I would like to entertain the possibility that there is some law passed by Congress that grants the government the right to keep such a database, but unfortunately, I have fallen into a deeply skeptical camp against that scenario. For example, HIPAA does not provide for such a database. If this database is actually legal under HIPAA, then HIPAA is a total failure of a law.

Fourth, the full details of this database must be made public immediately.

The government does not own us. This database makes no sense except as part of the general project of extending government control further and further into the lives of the people.

This site is in the midst of changes. Wordpress was upgraded to one of the latest versions. I’m going to change the layout.

Due to blog spam, comments are disabled, except on just a few posts. I’m moving it to a different web host, which may result in uneven operation for the next few days.

The Iraq Study Group has released its report. (*) The call for drawing down US forces in Iraq puts great pressure on the Maliki government of Iraq to establish security and the rule of law in Iraq, especially in the immediate area around Baghdad, where 80% of insurgent attacks take place.

Iraqi reaction from ruling party Shia elements has been negative. (†) Nevertheless, Sunni poliiticians will see this as an opportunity to swing the government away from sectarian politics and toward national unity. The Kurds appear to be negative on the ISG, as is likely. The ISG wisely disagrees with the notion of splitting Iraq into three countries, and furthermore suggests the US should draw its force levels down, reducing the chances of an irresponsible Kurdish independence.

ISG panelist and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made the following remarks at the press conference today. But first, remarks by President Clinton’s former chief of staff Leon Panetta.

LEON PANETTA: As I told the President this morning, this war has badly divided this country. It’s divided Republicans from Democrats and to some extent the President from the people. And policy sometimes with those divisions has been reduced to a thirty-second soundbite that runs the gamut from victory or stay the course to cut and run. And what this group tried to do, five Democrats and five Republicans, is to try to set aside those code words and those divisions and try to look at the realities that are there.

And I would suggest to the President and to the American people that if you look at the realities of what’s taking place there, the fact that violence is out of control, the fact that Iraqis ultimately have to control their future, they have to take care of security, they’ve got to deal with the region in that area, that ultimately you can find consensus here. This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today. You’ve got to unify this country. And I’d suggest to the President that what we did in this group can perhaps serve as an example to try to pull together the leadership of the Congress and try to focus on the recommendations we’ve made.

We have made a terrible commitment in Iraq in terms of our blood and our treasure. And I think we owe it to them to try one last chance at making Iraq work, and more importantly to take one last chance at unifying this country on this war. I think the President understands that he simply is not going to be able to proceed with whatever policy changes he wants to implement if we’re divided. That is the principal goal in my mind that he has to accomplish.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: I would be willing to add a comment about what Leon Panetta has just expressed so well. We’ve said in the report that we agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And to do that, we’ve made these various recommendations on a consensus basis. It’s my belief that if a large segment of our country gets behind that on a consensus basis that it’s very likely we can move forward and make some progress toward that statement of goals. And this is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands having done what we did.

It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to America. And I hope the American people feel that if they are behind something in broad terms that we’ll be better off. I think we will and I hope in general that others think so too.

(Video available from C-SPAN. )

The primary objective of the ISG was to find a workable political consensus for implementing the inevitable changes that will occur to US policy in Iraq. That is a worthy cause, and perhaps they have achieved it.

The other, perhaps unexpected result is the pressure ratcheting up on the Maliki government of Iraq. If Iraq is to establish security, it must come primarily from the government of Iraq. My guess is that Maliki is too closely tied with militant Shia groups like that of Muqtada al-Sadr. We are likely to see Maliki’s coalition implode within the coming months. Hopefully, we will then see a transition to more effective Iraq governance.

I would hope that the US government has learned the lessons of Mossadegh, Diem, and Allende. Assassinating foreign leaders does not work. Forcing a coup d’etat would also be incredibly foolish.

Allow the organic political processes to work in Iraq. Continue to push the Iraqi government into the lead role in its country’s security.

As for talking with Iran and Syria, that is better than just bombing them now. The whole point of creating an active front in the war on terror in Iraq was to stave off a larger, wider war. That objective remains as possible as ever. Nevertheless, our strategic dealings with Iran need deeper contemplation than they are currently receiving.

George W. Bush wants a new immigration policy for America, a guest worker program and amnesty. President Bush and Congress are about to act on immigration.

This video has been highly rated by viewers from opposing points of view. It lasts about 15 minutes. In my view, this video contains important information that the public and Congress need to know before any change in immigration policy is made.

Video on Google

Numbers USA

Congress may act at any time, even in the next few weeks. What can you do? Contact your Congressional representative and your Senators and tell them how you feel. Every time they hear from one person, they assume 1,000 people believe the same thing. Your voice counts.

Current US population: 300,249,016.

A consumer struggle for toys in which young people stand in line for days outside of toy shops for a “Playstation 3″ has now spilled over to the political realm.

Democratic 2004 VP nominee and possible 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards has been helping to lead the “Wakeup Wal-Mart” campaign for worker’s rights. As recently as November 14th, Edwards was on a national conference call for supporters of the campaign. (*)

On November 16th, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., made a press release. It said: (†)

Even Presidential Candidates Agree: Wal-Mart is the Best Place to Shop for Hot Electronics Items this Christmas Season

BENTONVILLE, Ark. – Nov. 16, 2006 – Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.

Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator’s family. Later that night, Sen. Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart welcomes Sen. Edwards to visit his local Wal-Mart store and explore the extensive line of home electronics as well the wide array of apparel for men and boys.

The Company noted the PlayStation3 is an extremely popular item this Christmas season, and while the rest of America’s working families are waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front. While, we cannot guarantee that Sen. Edwards will be among one of the first to obtain a PlayStation3, we are certain Sen. Edwards will be able to find great gifts for everyone on his Christmas list – many at Wal-Mart’s “roll-back prices. . . .”

Although Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. put a gloss of trumpeting their stores by referencing John Edwards as someone who shops there, it is plain that Wal-Mart has a political motive to push this story to the media and even to exaggerate or distort it for their own end. Wal-Mart fears the campaign for worker’s rights, even putting up its own web site at walmartfacts.com to defend the corporation in the media.

Edwards spoke to the media, including the Raleigh News Observer. (‡) He told them that a volunteer staffer overheard that the Edwardses were looking for the toy for their six-year-old son. The young volunteer freelanced and contacted the local Wal-Mart, referencing the name John Edwards. The volunteer didn’t know how Wal-Mart was criticized by Edwards. Edwards stated the volunteer made a mistake using his name. Edwards told the Associated Press that this is an attempt by Wal-Mart “to divert attention from its own problems.” (§)

Opinion colunist Dave Johnson has diagnosed this kerfuffle as a political smear by Wal-Mart. (**) I agree. He stated Wal-Mart should possibly have its right to operate revoked. I disagree.

While Wal-Mart’s action here was both arrogant and deceitful, John Edwards has not handled this strategically. He should have immediately published a press release of his own on his web site, johnedwards.com. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategy of a “war room” that fires back press releases as soon as criticism of the candidate is made should be something that all presidential candidates take as their field manual. In today’s era of 24-7 news and the Internet, you need to speak directly to the people, and attack lies immediately. A direct press release to the web would also allow web loggers to quote the politician’s campaign directly without worrying about plagiaraizing a journalist or violating the copyright of a news service. Furthermore, as a matter of leadership, John Edwards needs to do a better job of communicating with his staff so they are fully aware of his political convictions so they can best assist him effecuating his public campaigns.

Finally, John Edwards should take a page from the playbook of another successful politician. While I don’t agree with some of Jimmy Carter’s policies, Carter left an indelible impression on the public that he was first and foremost their servant. Carter did not expect any favors or gifts as a result of his presidency. Carter famously carried his own luggage during the 1976 campaign. Edwards has not left that kind of an impression with the public, unfortunately. A candidate fighting for “working families” would do well to work harder to live up to Carter’s standard. Although Edwards rightly called the volunteer’s action a “mistake,” the fact is that a volunteer close to Edwards gained the impression that Edwards was owed something by the general public. That is a sign that the ducks are not all in a row at the nascent Edwards campaign.

Wal-Mart’s embittered slap at John Edwards will likely cost them more goodwill. But can John Edwards straighten out his disorganized campaign? I believe he can, but I don’t know if he has the will to do it.

One thing is for sure. The 2008 presidential race is on, and it is no video game.

Terrorists in Iraq are targeting American troops in Iraq with sniper fire. CNN obtained videotape taken by the terrorists for the purpose of propaganda. (*)

The newsclip video from CNN features an interview with an American serviceman. († video) He says:

One of the attacks, you know, the locals, they talk to us about what they see, and they said they saw a car pull up, a guy get out the back seat, uh, get out the front seat, get in the back seat, remove a panel from off his car and aim from the car to our rooftop position. Which unfortunately resulted in the death of one Marine who was on the rooftop.

In another video clip, CNN interviews Jack Coughlin, a retired Marine sniper who was shown the terrorist videos. (‡ video) The retired Marine sniper states that he believes that some of the videotaped shots may have come from a location different from the cameraman, perhaps hundreds of yards away. Others may have been closer.

When John Allen Muhammad, 41, a US citizen, and 17-year-old John Lee Malvo, a Jamaican citizen. were arrested for the DC sniper attacks that occurred in 2002, their method of operation came to light. CNN reported on how the DC snipers used a car with a customized panel that could swing open, through which a shot could be fired, and then swung closed to make an unnoticed getaway. (§)

The Chevrolet Caprice used by the sniper suspects was a “killing machine” with two holes in the trunk, one for the rifle, the other for the scope, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

The two holes were there so that shots could be fired without opening the trunk, a source said, adding that the back seat could fold down, enabling a potential shooter to stretch out in the back without stepping foot outside.

The source called it a “perfect place” for a shooting platform.

This appears to be quite a coincidence. Perhaps the Iraqi terrorist snipers learned from the DC snipers, or perhaps there was another source for this concept.

British and American authorities foiled a plot today that was intended to blow up approximately 10 airplanes simultaneously en route from the UK to the US. (*) (†)

The New York Times reports: (‡)

The police did not identify the suspects or their origin, though Paul Stephenson, the deputy metropolitan police commissioner for London, said “community leaders” had been alerted about the police action, using a code word for the British Muslim community.

The terrorist objective of bombing multiple airplanes at a time over an ocean was also at play in the Bojinka plot. (§)

Bernard Lewis has a critically important op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. (*)

Nouri al-Maliki, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq, speaking from the floor of the the Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. (*)

(Extended Applause.) In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Your Excellency the speaker of the House, Mr. Vice President, honorable ladies and gentlemen, members of Congress, it is with great pleasure that I am able to take this opportunity to be the first democratically and constitutionally elected prime minister of Iraq to address you, the elected representatives of the American people. And I thank you for affording me this unique chance to speak at this respected assembly.

Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people in ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her – with him and who continues to stand with her in times of need. (Applause.)

Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nascent democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity. (Applause.) They are as much for me the pinnacle embodiment of my faith and religion, and they are for all free spirits.

The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom, and we are in this vanguard for defending the values of humanity. (Applause.)

I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear — this is a battle between true Islam, for which a person’s liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, wages a war on Islam and Muslims and values — (applause) — and spreads hatred between humanity.

Contrary to what’s come in our Koran, which says we have created of you — of male and female and made you tribes and families that you know each other, surely noblist of you in the sight of God is the best conduct. The truth is that terrorism has no religion. Our faith say that who kills an innocent as it has killed all mankind. Thousands of lives were tragically lost in September 11th, where — when these imposters of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life.

Your loss on that day was the loss of all mankind, and our loss today is loss for all free people. (Applause.)

And wherever human kind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all humanity. It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line is this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror. (Applause.)

And history will record their bravery and humanity. The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, we are building the new Iraq on the foundation of democracy, and are erecting it through our belief in the rights of every individual, just as Saddam has destroyed it through his abuse of all those rights, so that future Iraqi generations can live in peace, prosperity and hope. Iraqis have tasted freedom, and we will defend it absolutely. (Applause.)

Every human possesses inalienable rights which transcend religion, as it is stated in the International Convention of Human Rights. They transcend religion, race and gender, and God says in the Koran, and surely we have honored all children of Adam.

I believe these human rights are not an artifact construct reserved for the few; they are the divine entitlement for all. (Applause.) And it is on this unwavering belief that we are determined to build our nation, a land whose people are free, whose air is liberty, and where the rule of law is supreme.

This is the new Iraq, which is emerging from the ashes of dictatorship, and despite the carnage of extremists, a country which respects international conventions and practices non-interference in the internal affairs of others, relies on dialogue to resolve differences, and strives to develop strong relations with every country that espouses freedom and peace. (Applause.)

We are working diligently so that Iraq returns to take the position it deserves and to play — plays a positive role in its regional and international environment as a key, active player in spreading security and stability, to give an example of positive relationship between countries through denouncement of violence and resorting to constructive dialogue solving problems between nations and peoples.

We have made progress, and we are correcting the damage inflicted by politics of the previous regime, in particular with our neighbors. My presence here is a testament of the new politics of a democratic Iraq. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in a short space of time, Iraq has gone from a dictatorship, to a transitional administration, and now to a fully fledged democratic government. This has happened despite the best efforts of the terrorists who are bent on either destroying democracy or Iraq. But by the courage of our people, who defied the terrorists every time they were called upon to make a choice by risking their lives for the ballot box, they have stated over and over again with their inked-stained fingers waving in pride that they will always make the same choice. (Applause.)

Hope over fear –

HECKLER: The Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now! Iraqis want the troops to leave –

AUDIENCE: Boo!

SPEAKER HASTERT: (Sounds gavel.)

HECKLER: Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now!

SPEAKER HASTERT: Our guest would suspend for the — a moment. The chair notes a disturbance in the gallery. The sergeant of arms will secure order by removing those engaging in disruption. (Scattered applause.)

HECKLER: Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now! (Off mike) — bring the troops home now!

(Note: Heckler is removed from the gallery.)

SPEAKER HASTERT: The gentleman may proceed.

PRIME MIN. AL-MALIKI: Hope over fear. Liberty over oppression. Dignity over submission. Democracy over dictatorship. Federalism over a centralist state. Let there be no doubt. Today Iraq is a democracy which stands firm because of the sacrifices of its people and the sacrifices of all those who stood with us in this crisis from nations and countries. (Applause, cheers.)

And that’s why I thank you. I would like to thank them very much for all their sacrifices. Iraqis of all persuasions took part in a unanimously democratic election for the first parliament formed under the country’s first permanent constitution, after eight decades of temporary constitutions and dictatorship, a constitution written by the elected representatives of the people and ratified by the people.

Iraqis succeeded in forming a government of national unity, based on an elected parliamentary foundation and includes all of Iraq’s religions, ethnicities and political groupings.

The journey has been perilous, and the future is not guaranteed. Yet many around the world who — underestimated the resolve of Iraq’s people and were sure that we would never reach this stage. Few believed in us. But you, the American people, did, and we are grateful for this. (Applause.)

The transformation in Iraq can sometimes be forgotten in the daily futile violence. Since liberation we have witnessed great accomplishments in politics, the economy and civil society. We have gone from a one-party state ruled by a small elite to a multi-party system where politics is the domain of every citizen and parties compete at all levels. (Applause.)

What used to be a state-controlled media is now completely free and uncensored — something Iraq had never witnessed since its establishment as a modern state, and something which remains alien to most of the region.

What used to be a command economy in Iraq we are rapidly transforming into a free market economy. In the past three years, our GDP per capita has more than doubled, and it is expected that our economy will continue to grow.

Standards of living have been raised for most Iraqis as the markets witness an unprecedented level of prosperity. Many individuals are buying products and appliances which they would never have hoped to afford in the past.

And in keeping with our economic visions of creating a free market economy, we will be presenting to parliament legislation which will lift current restrictions on foreign companies and investors who wish to come to Iraq. (Applause.)

While we are making great economic strides, the greatest transformation has been on Iraqi society. We have gone from mass graves and torture chambers and chemical weapons to a flourishing — to the rule of law and human rights. And the human rights and freedoms embodied in the new Iraq and consolidated in the constitution have provided a fertile environment for the ever-growing number of civil society institutions — (applause) — which are increasing in scope and complexity and provide a healthy reflection of what is developing beneath the violence.

The rights chartered in the constitution will also help consolidate the role of women in public life as equals to men — (applause) — and help them to play a greater role in political life. (Applause continuing.) I am proud to say that a quarter of Iraq’s Council of Representatives is made up of women. But we still have much to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, our — Mr. Vice President, our nascent democracy faces numerous challenges and impediments, but our resolve is unbreakable and we will overcome them.

The greatest threat Iraq’s people face is terror, terror inflicted by extremists who value no life and who depend on the fear their wanton murder and destruction creates. They have poured acid into Iraq’s dictatorial wounds and created many of their own.

Iraq is free and the terrorists cannot stand this. They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq’s future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear.

Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem. This terrorist front is a threat to every free country in the world and their citizens. What is at stake is nothing less than our freedom and liberty. Confronting and dealing with this challenge is the responsibility of every liberal democracy that values its freedom. Iraq is the battle that will determine the war. If in continued partnership we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover. (Applause.)

For the sake of success of the political process, I launched the National Reconciliation Initiative, which aims to draw in groups willing to accept the logic of dialogue and participation. This olive branch has received the backing of Iraq’s parliamentary blocs and support further afield from large segments of the population. I remain determined to see this initiative succeed. But let our enemies not mistake our outstretched hand for forgiveness as a sign of weakness. Whoever chooses violence against the people of Iraq, then the fate that awaits them will be the same that of the terrorist Zarqawi. (Applause.)

While political and economic efforts are essential, defeating terror in Iraq relies fundamentally on the building of sound Iraqi force, both in quantity and capability. The completion of Iraq’s forces forms the necessary basis for the withdrawal of multinational forces, but it — only then, only when Iraq’s forces are fully capable will the job of the multinational forces be complete.

Our Iraqi forces have accomplished much, and have gained a great deal of field experience to eventually enable them to triumph over the terrorists and to take over the security portfolio and extend peace through the country.

The other impediment to Iraq’s stability are the armed militias. I have on many occasions stated my determination to disband all militias, without exception — (applause) — and reestablish a state monopoly on arms, and to guarantee citizens security so that they do not need others to provide it.

It is imperative that the reconstruction starts now. While small sections of central Iraq are unstable, large sections have remained peaceful but ignored for far too long. These were most deprived areas of Iraq under the previous regime, and have been the most valiant in Iraq’s struggle for freedom. We need to make an example out of these stable areas as models for the rest of the country. (Applause.)

Reconstruction projects in these areas will tackle unemployment, which will weaken the terrorists. They will become prototypes for other, more volatile regions (to) aspire to. Undoubtedly, reconstruction in these areas will fuel economic growth and show what a prosperous, stable, democratic and federal Iraq would look like.

Members of the Congress, in this effort, we need your help. We need the help of the international community. Much of the budget you had allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction ended up paying for security firms and foreign companies, whose operating costs were vast.

Instead there needs to be a greater reliance on Iraqis and Iraqi companies, with foreign aid and assistance to help us rebuild Iraq. (Applause.)

We are rebuilding Iraq on a new, solid foundation, that of liberty, hope and equality. Iraq’s democracy is young, but the will of its people is strong. It is because of this spirit and desire to be free that Iraq has taken the opportunity you gave us, and we chose democracy.

We faced tyranny and oppression under the former regime, and we now face a different kind of terror. We did not bow then, and we will not bow now. (Applause.)

I will not allow Iraq to become a launch pad for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I will not — terror rob Iraqis of their hopes and dreams. I will not allow terrorists to dictate to us our future.(Applause.)

For decades we struggled alone for our freedom. In 1991, when Iraqis tried to capitalize on the regime’s momentary weakness and rose up, we were alone again.

The people of Iraq will not forget your continued support as we establish a secure, liberal democracy. Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be more unforgiving. (Applause.)

The coming few days are difficult and the challenges are considerable. Iraq and America both need each other to defeat the terror engulfing the free world. In partnership, we will be triumphant because we will never be slaves to terror, for God has made us free. (Applause.)

Trust that Iraq will be a grave for terrorism and terrorists. (Applause.) Trust that Iraq will be the graveyard for terrorism and terrorists, for all — for the good of all humanity.

Thank you very much. (Cheers, extended applause.)

Copyright 2006, Federal News Service

A strategic analysis of conflict in the Middle East is in order. First, however, a summary.

Last month, an explosion occurred on a Gaza beach. Israel and Palestinian terrorists pointed fingers at each other. (*) An Israeli soldier was kidnapped and taken into Gaza. Israel started to move on Gaza. Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and took them to Lebanon. Israel started to move on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. Israel has responded with air strikes on Hezbollah and strategic positions in Lebanon, including the Beiruit airport. Hezbollah fired a UAV missile at an Israeli warship, inflicting damage. Israel has responded with more air strikes and indications it may send ground forces into southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is entrenched without the approval of the free government of Lebanon. (†) Meanwhile, Iran continues saber rattling against Israel while continuing to delay and obstruct nuclear weapons inspectors and the UN Security Council from acting. Sectarian violence worsens in Iraq between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shias.

Let’s begin the analysis with a sketch of the motivations of the major players:

Hezbollah - Wishes to destroy Israel and dominate Lebanon to impose a Khomeini-style regime. Not incompetent. Frequently termed “the A-team of terrorists.” Possesses several thousand Katushya rockets (unguided) and a few heavier weapons. Has several thousand terrorist fighters in Lebanon who were trained in Iran. Hezbollah takes orders directly from Iran. It is funded and supplied by Iran and Syria.

Lebanon (free government) - Wishes to supplant Hezbollah in Lebanon and establish peace and rule of law in Lebanon. Not friendly with Israel, but Lebanon’s other enemies are bigger threats right now.

Syria - Seeks to restore its influence in Lebanon. Barring that, this regime of a Sunni-dominated country wishes that Israel loses influence in the region and Syria gains. The Syrian regime does not want a direct conflict with Israel because it knows it will lose. The Syrian regime is dependent on Iran for military and economic cooperation, and is heavily influenced by Iran.

Iran - The Khomeini/Khamanei/Ahmadinejad regime seeks to build nuclear bombs and missiles and then to literally destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Iran will seek greater influence in the Middle East and the world, assuming that Iran has not by then triggered the end of the world as per the Khomeini regime’s religious beliefs by nuking Israel. In the meantime, Iran must delay and block the weapons inspectors and the UN.

In this scenario, Iran wants to create a widespread Middle East war that Iran is not blamed for. Iran will need support from Islamic countries as the Security Council acts on Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the next few weeks. A regional war would serve Iran’s purpoes. It would distract the world’s attention while Iran builds the bomb, and will also serve the purpose of providing a pretext, however thinly disguised, for Iran’s use of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

How could this scenario play out?

Hezbollah’s rockets cannot inflict great damage to Israel, but the randomness of the strikes and their increased range will keep the Israeli population in fear. The Israeli air force will not be able to stop the rocket attacks in a short enough time to keep the Israeli people safe because the rockets are mobile. Israel will have to send in ground forces to destroy Hezbollah. The specter of Israel occupying “Arab land” will again be on full display in the media.

The question is why is Hezbollah forcing Israel to invade Lebanon, when Hezbollah realizes that it will be destroyed by the superior Israeli army. The answer might be based on Hezbollah taking orders from Iran and Iran’s motivations.

An Israeli invasion of Lebanon could drag the Lebanese government into the war, either with or against Hezbollah. At this point, Iranian and Syrian forces would seek to re-establish influence over the Lebanese government and force it to side with Hezbollah, Iran’s pawn.

Iran wants an Israeli-Syrian conflict. Once nations become nervous with war occurring nearby, a subterfuge or other sleight-of-hand maneuer can light the match. If Israel does not strike Syria, it is not clear why Syria would want to engage in a war with Israel, however.

Additionally, Iran has a motive to entangle the US and a third country with a war outside of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s borders. This would further distract the US. One possibility would be an Iranian deal with North Korea, truly an Axis of Evil. It is not impossible that North Korea’s missile tests could be part of a pact that the North Korean regime has with the Iranian regime. The missile tests could also be useful to Iran’s missile technology.

At some point, Iran would want to have the blame for a wider war shifted to Israel and/or the United States. It is not clear how that might occur, although with Israel and the US winning few world popularity contests right now, it is not inconceivable either.

In this scenario, Iran distracts the world long enough, and pins enough blame on Israel and the US, that Iran is able to become a nuclear power, nuke Israel with impunity, dominate the Middle East, and gain great global influence.

This scenario would counsel that immediate attention be applied to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It must be put on the top of the world’s agenda by the United States. The US must not allow what happens in Lebanon to sidetrack the process. Furthermore, the UN Security Council should act immediately, not any later. Finally, the US should consider a offering single UN Security Council resolution with two purposes to irrevocably link what is occurring in Lebanon with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. For example, the same chapter 7 resolution could call for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and for Iran to open fully to inspectors within 12 hours or face war. Everyone knows Iran controls Hezbollah. A dual resolution would force Iran to either accept the resolution or oppose it utterly, with no wiggle room and no finessing the issue.

On top of that, the US should introduce a UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolution stating that Iran, North Korea, and Syria must immediately publicly divulge all secret treaties, including mutual defense pacts, that they have entered into, especially with one another. These secret treaties were made illegal by the UN Charter because secret treaties have historically helped cause many wars, including World War I.

Of course, what is likely occurring here is that in Iran’s Islamofascist regime, we have another Nazi totalitarian government hell-bent on dragging the world into another world war. With this in mind we have to realize that the only rationality to the actions and words of Iran’s regime might be, by hook or by crook, to spark all-out global war. This fits generally with the known radical Islamic scenario of destroying the United States as a stepping stone to establishing global radical Islamic supremacy.

Through it all, it should be kept in mind that nothing that the Iranian regime says should be accepted as true unless it can be independently verified.

(Note: “Hezbollah” means “Party of Allah” in Arabic. In Arabic, “Allah” of course means God. Thus, when Western reporters, commentators, and statesmen say things like “Hezbollah is a terrorist group,” or “Hezbollah needs to surrender,” it must sound suspicious when translated into Arabic for Arab-speaking people. We should refer to Hezbollah as “the group calling itself Hezbollah,” or “the group supposedly known as Hezbollah.”)

Stanley Milgram was a famous psychologist who originated the idea of “six degrees of separation.” (*) He also performed the famous experiments “gone wrong” in which people obeyed orders to deliver electrical shocks to innocent others in another room.

Now, according to the BBC, Judith Kleinfeld, a professor of psychology at Alaska Fairbanks University, has delved deeper into the six degrees of separation theory and the evidence of it that Milgram had. (†) Kleinfeld demonstrates that more than 95% of letters sent to random addresses are not returned in study after study. Consequently, the true “degrees of separation” in society must average higher than six, and much greater average separation should be expected. Thanks to Judith Kleinfeld’s diligence, we now know that Milgram’s “six degrees of separation” theory is a hoax. It has been popularized, and will now unfortunately live on as a superstition or “urban myth” as we modern sophisticates like to refer to our knowingly false beliefs.

As for Milgram’s obedience experiments, they have been controversial after they were shut down over ethical concerns. Milgram’s experiments have been cited again and again in the academic and popular literature on how easy it is to turn human beings into agents of torture and repression.

Nevertheless, I believe deep skepticism is warranted on Milgram’s obedience experiments as well. The “torture victim” in the experiments never felt any actual pain. Furthermore, the actor or actors who played the torture victim apparently had their voice transmitted live into the room where the experimental subjects were. It is difficult to convincingly act out or portray physical pain when one does not have such. Additionally, the portrayal of physical pain is more difficult if one has use only of audio and not any opportunity to portray the pain in a visual pantomime of a body affected by pain for the audience.

There is much reason to suspect that Milgram’s actors were not especially convincing in portraying physical pain. The experimental subjects would in real life situations have had better clues, even if those clues would be processed unconsciously only, than had the subjects in Milgram’s experiment. Consequently, conclusions drawn from Milgram’s obedience experiments must be considered to have no validity.

Of course, someone has probably pointed out this problem with the obedience experiments before, but I do not have a citation or reference at hand. If someone would post one, you would have my thanks.

Urban myths can be entertaining, but they can also form a phony foundation on which society may base its decisions, and therefore it may be useful to combat modern superstitions, also known as “urban myths.”

Alan Jacobs reflects critically on web logs for lack of intellectual fulfillment. (*) He’s on to something. It’s a medium that some compared to that of the pamphleteers of the American revolution, but which now more closely resembles a mudfight.

Recently, a professor at an American university tacitly threatened a person’s family because of the person’s web log. The professor then resigned her professorship. (†) It is one example of overheated rhetoric crossing the line into the reprehensible. Yet, this sort of thing has happened several times in American political debate lately. The public discourse grows cruder and coarser. It is easy to brush aside concern and state that it was always like this, when it was sometimes but not always like this.

Yet, Jacobs focuses on the technological aspects of web logs as contributing to the sterility of discussion hosted there. Based on my experience of over a decade of Internet-based electronic discussions, I would have to agree. Internet-based intellectual discussions that are deeply fulfilling are rare, more rare than in real life.

Intellectual collaboration does work in some fields, such as computer science. The free and open source software movements have had successful development projects. Many of them, such as OpenBSD, have regular (such as annual) in-person meetings to facilitate the collaboration. These groups have shared goals and shared outlooks. Even they have disputes, which causes the code to be forked. The success in software development has not carried over to academic topics such as English literature.

In San Francisco, a doctor’s note and cash get a customer marihuana in numerous clubs that dot the city. Residents attempt to block the clubs, yet the clubs keep springing up. (*), Marijuana is an addictive, illegal drug.

“Marijuana use is a major public health problem in the United States.” according to the Surgeon General’s report issued in 1982. (†) The report goes on:

Among the known or suspected chronic effects of marijuana are:

1. short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.
2. impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.
3. decreased sperm count and sperm motility.
4. interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.
5. impaired immune response.
6. possible adverse effects on heart function.
7. by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possiblilties for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off.

Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug’s behavioral and psychological effects. The “amotivational syndrome,” characterized by a pattern of energy loss, diminished school performance, harmed parental relationships, and other behavorial disruptions, has been associated with prolonged marijuana use by young persons. Although more research is required, recent national surveys report that 40% of heavy users experience some or all of those symptoms.

In the midst of a general historical crisis, with both pitfalls and opportunities becoming visible on the horizon, America must confront the widely apparent increased level of corruption, evidenced additionally by San Francisco’s marihuana clubs, where wanton lawbreaking by junkies and pushers goes undeterred, and the guilty go unpunished.

The FDA has not approved any marihuana product that is smoked for medicinal use. (‡) A pill form of marihuana has FDA approval, called Marinol. (§)

The governing bodies of San Francisco and California are failing the people. Instead of protecting marihuana addicts and guiding them toward treatment, recovery, and sobriety, the governments are enabling addiction to an incredibly dangerous product, and encouraging hypochondria and dishonest exaggeration of medical conditions to obtain the drug in the name of medicine. Instead of punishing the pushers and the drug mafia, the government looks the other way. It is a relevant question how many politicians’ pockets are lined with drug cash.

Marihuana is the trojan horse of illegal drugs. Its use has been accepted in many social circles for the past few decades as part of the general package of disapproval of morality and a worshipful attitude toward indecency, callousness, and hedonism. Marihuana not only causes public health problems itself, but also acts as a gateway into the array of other illegal drugs–even more dangerous and addictive.

It is dismaying to see that the leadership of our society has failed the people so greatly that now marihuana is openly bought, sold, and smoked in a major American city without fear of legal retribution.

It is a disgrace for the rule of law in San Francisco, California, and the entire country. It is a scandal for modern medicine.

Directly implicated in torture, brutality, and thousands of attacks and murders, Jordanian-born terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in an air raid, says the Iraqi prime minister. (*)

This is a great day for humanity, as one of the most loathsome, vile, blood-drenched savages of our time has been put down like the rabid dog he was.

Zarqawi was the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The news of his death will have the worldwide Al Qaeda organization in freefall. Additionally, his death opens the door to the killing and arrests of the rest of the insurgency of all wings. There are hard battles ahead, but now as plain for all to see, we can and will win every one of them.

This is a great day for Iraq. Not only is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq dead, but now the freely-elected, democratically constituted Iraqi government will be able to take major steps forward in consolidating peace and security in Iraq, the birthplace of civilization.

The Iraqi people have suffered countless heartaches and losses at the hands of Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups. The courage and grit and determination of the Iraqi people has been unbelievable. They have endured this storm, and now it has passed. Of course other great challenges remain. As I have said over and again, however, never underestimate the people of Iraq.

Congratulations to all of the coalition forces. You have stuck together amidst an onslaught of the worst inhumane tactics of war used against you, such as the vile and evil IED, lies and slander, and you have proved valorous through it all.

As an American citizen, thank you to our heroes, our troops on the front, in the battle, and behind the lines, and their families, who have sustained such a heavy toll of life and limb and health. You are an inspiration to us all, and your sacrifice is shortening the war and bringing America and humanity closer to victory in the war on terrorism. I cannot say how important these fights and victories have been, except to say there is nothing more important.

Zarqawi is dead. The myth of the immortal terrorist is shown to be a lie. The way of the terrorist is more starkly drawn than even before: it is the way of death. This terrorist jihad is doomed. The human race and our God-given freedoms and liberty shall prevail.

Tonight, in his national address from the Oval Office, President Bush cynically offers a few milquetoast items to create the illusion that his “border security initiative” will protect the border. (*) The sad truth is that a few motion sensors and a couple of thousand National Guard troops with orders to stand around for the benefit of the news cameras will have no effect on the billions of people who would love to walk into America and become one of President Bush’s new guest workers.

The first problem with Bush’s proposed “guest worker” program is that it irrevocably puts “guest workers” onto the path of “earned citizenship,” which is amnesty, which Bush strenously opposes.

The second problem is larger. Guest workers would be the equivalent of second-class citizens, a concept which suggests dubious constitutionality at best and another blow to the heart of America by replacing the middle class with an exploited class at worst.

The biggest winners from Bush’s plan would be financial interests, the rich, drug dealers, terrorists, human smugglers, and to a lesser extent, illegal aliens and the country of Mexico. The biggest losers are the American people, the rule of law, and would-be legal immigrants who have been obediently standing in line for legal citizenship and, 20 years of playing by the rules later, along comes Bush and his sycophants in Washington to spit in their face. What has become of fairness? What has become of right and wrong?

Meanwhile, the Senate is expediting its plan to increase America’s population by 103 million over the next 20 years, on top of all the illegal immigration. (†) Apparently, a higher estimate of the Senate’s compassionate plan places the increased population at 217.1 million, according to Senator Jeff Sessions, or roughly 517 million total Americans by the year 2026. (‡)

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Washington elites do not care what happens to this country anymore. All they care about is supporting big business, international trade, financial interests and their other cronies.

IIllegal aliens have worked very hard and many want to become American citizens. Most would make fine American citizens. The problem is not the people. Some of the world’s best people are illegal aliens in America.

At this point, however, illegal aliens and American citizens are all just differently-situated targets for exploitation by the corporate elites. They would like us all to become their mute, ill-paid servants happy enough with videogames and entertainment, deprived of real wealth and the power of free citizens.

The illegal alien problem is not about the people. Complaining about the quality of the people who have been coming to America illegally is like getting a gold, diamond-encrusted ring and tossing it out like a circus trinket.

The illegal alien problem is the problem of numbers. Sheer, overwhelming numbers. You can get too much of anything. In America, we value open spaces. We value a clean, pristine environment unclouded with smog. We value a sense of uncrowdedness. We do not like traffic jams. We do not like long lines at stores. We like opportunities and flexibility in business, jobs and careers and educational slots. We like what we have, we like our way of life, and we have a right to keep it.

Yes, America has a major educational deficit for a variety of reasons. We need more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. Desperately. We need to better prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, and automated services, such as robotic vaccuum cleaners and lawn mowers will be parts of the solution.

What we do not want, however, is for caviar-snacking billionaires to steer the course of our country. President Bush and the other self-proclaimed leaders of the world would love for average American wages and incomes to be cut in half or more. They will be cutting a lion’s share of the pie for their own miserable, greedy, Napoleanic selves. With their guest worker/amnesty plan, they want to impoverish us, ruin our country and wreck the middle class once and for all.

Additionally, with increased immigration comes increased social chaos and consequent decreased societal security. The only way to keep order is to impose it by brute force. We can accept masses of new people into America only at the cost of cutting out massive amounts of civil rights and privacy, starting with a national ID card, and continuing on until the Bill of Rights is illegal to read out loud in public.

We do not want a huge number of people coming into America simply because we have enough Americans as it is. Most regions of America are full enough with people. America is not crowded as compared to the standards of Calcutta, Cairo, Sao Paulo, and Paris, and that is exactly the point.

There are workable solutions. First, you implement real border security. Second, you do not have any “round-up” but you do deport illegal aliens who are caught breaking the law. Third, you promote democracy and the rule of law in Mexico, other parts of Latin America, and developing countries around the world. Fourth, employers of 50 or more employees who hire illegal aliens are made felons and sent to the slammer, smaller employers face fines. Fifth, the U.S. enters into negotiations with Mexico to upgrade the US-Mexico relationship from mere “friends” to “strategic partners.” Mexico is a wonderful country blessed with an incredible culture and inspiring people. Mexico just needs to root out the corruption to unlock its destiny. Washington’s immigration policy encourages Mexican corruption, the exact opposite of the desired result. By making a few minor changes, we can achieve much and have positive effects.

Are we seeing the continued weakening of the nation-state system, as the so-called “superpower” pathetically cannot even control one of its borders? That may be part of the story. The real story, however, is that President Bush and the Washington establishment are selling out American citizens for the benefit of their rich cronies and people in other countries.

Third party options currently are uninteresting. The far-right Constitution Party, for example, would like to enact a theocracy. There are precious few politicians who have the guts to stand up to big business and put the American people first. There is a possibility that an interesting politically moderate third party could grow out of the Minuteman Project, but that is far from a sure bet.

Let your Senators and Congressman know where you stand, and that your vote depends on them acting appropriately. Then, in November, vote. Free people who yet have courage do not give up on their country.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean claimed on Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that the 2004 Democratic Party platform states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not state that at all. Dean’s lie resulted in a gay rights group demanding its money back from the Democratic Party, even after the false nature of the statement was made known. (*) (†)

The lives of millions of Americans are altered for the worse by chronic pain, especially in the back and neck. A significant population suffers pain due to motor vehicle accidents. Regardless of the cause, however, a lifetime of terrible pain debilitates people’s lives. Doctors commonly prescribe pain pills. With chronic pain, however, any solution to the problem must be lifelong, not merely temporary. Whether the pain is extreme or less than extreme, people can become addicted to pain pills. Thus a great controversy over access to pain medication exists.

Richard Paey was injured in a car accident. After an unsuccessful surgery, Richard had chronic pain that he compared to being in a blast furnace. 60 Minutes told his story. (*) He and his family moved to Florida. There he couldn’t find a doctor willing to prescribe enough pain pills for him to make it through. He went back to his doctor in another state for the prescriptions, which he filled in Florida. Eventually, in desperation for more pain medication, authorities say, Richard forged prescriptions for himself. Now he will sit in prison for decades. Ironically, his prison doctor prescribed him a morphine pump and a wheelchair. Now Richard has the pain relief he needs.

The outlines of Richard’s story, from chronic pain to being accused of drug dependency, addiction, or even out-of-control behavior, is far from unique.

To allow doctors to prescribe the huge amounts of pain drugs necessary for chronic pain patients without fear of prosecution, the DEA drafted guidelines. In 2004, however, the DEA took back the guidelines. (†) Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute for Drug Abuse, is a strong advocate for fighting prescription drug abuse and addiction. She claims two million Americans abuse prescription drugs. (‡) Democrat Patrick Kennedy (chronic back pain) (§) and conservative Rush Limbaugh (ear pain) (**) are two prominent Americans who have faced a glaring public spotlight on their addictive behaviors and their pain problems.

The other side is respresented by Pain Relief Network, a group of patients, doctors, and others who see the grave harm that is done when palliative drugs are denied people who do suffer from debilitating chronic pain. (††) PRN aims to not let those who suffer such pain be forgotten.

As the debate goes forward, we should bear in mind the basic facts of pain. First, medicine has not yet devised a useful objective test for pain. There is no machine that they can hook you up to to get a reading on a “pain-ometer.” Pain is felt internally. We get the impression that another person is in pain when they cry out, complain, wince, or otherwise act as if they were in pain. This inability to directly experience another’s pain gives rise to many suspicions and accusations of faking. Indeed, faking pain is a problem. If a medical scientist came up with a device for measuring pain, it would be one of history’s great medical advances.

If technology remains unable to sense pain, as many believe, we will have to find ways to match our national goals with our actions. We want to defeat drug addiction, and we want to defeat chronic pain. Both are highly important national priorities. At this point, there might not be any obvious solution. Dialogue is called for. Those who experience the problem of pain and those who experience the problem of addiction need to share their experiences so that society can grow wiser. If citizens don’t get involved and tell their stories, all the important decisions will be made by bureaucrats.

Above all, however, all possible steps must be taken to prevent the onset of chronic pain. For example, in your car, don’t keep the headrest in the lowest position unless you are short. For most people, the headrest should be adjusted upward to help prevent a neck injury in the event you are rear-ended or in another collision. Perhaps auto manufacturers should be forced to increase the size of seatbacks to prevent this problem altogether. (‡‡) Post-market products (§§) might help.

Let’s hope Congress wakes up and takes action to prevent chronic pain relief, and that a dialogue can begin on the topic of chronic pain and its treatment.

US State Department will seek “asset freezes, a Chapter 7 resolution under the U.N. charter, sanctions and travel restrictions on some members of the Iranian government.” (*)

Amir Taheri: Ahmadinejad claims he has a spiritual warrant from “the hidden imam” for a: “single task: provoking a “clash of civilisations” in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the “infidel” West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.” Furthermore, it was immediately after Ahmadinejad’s announcement of uranium enrichment that Iran announced it was building 54,000 centrifuges. Iran will soon offer to suspend enrichment and sign additional protocols in an attempt to wait out Bush, and deal with the next US president, who will be weak and surrender easily to Islam and terrorism. All the while Iran will continue building the bomb. Islamic males of fighting age outnumber Western males of fighting age four to one. (*)

Blair will back a Chapter 7 resolution, but won’t contribute to a military strike. (*)

The IAEA previously found one Iranian facility described as a “250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade. (*) Iran continues to deny that it is building a nuclear weapon.

Debka: Iran building huge “Shahid Moradian” plant with 155,000 centrifuges, operational by the end of 2007. (*)

Iranian workers striking on basis of low or no wages. “We are hungry.” (*)

Ahmadinejad: “The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm.” (*)

Iranian text-messages Amhadinejad, suggests he should bathe more. (*)

Shimon Peres: “The Iranian president represents Satan and not God. History has rejected these sorts of sword-brandishing lunatics.” (*)

Iranian General Yahya Rahim Safavi boasts Iran can easily defeat United States. (*)

Sunday Times: Iran will hit the US and the UK with “battalions of suicide bombers,” 40,000 in total, if it is attacked. (*)

Islamic Jihad claims it will back Iran if Iran is attacked. (*)

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon: the costs of attacking Iran would outweigh the benefits. Iranian intelligence service is too powerful. Bill Clinton took Iranian intelligence down, and easily enough, in 1996. (*) (In other words, the column is nonsensical.)

White House is committed to stopping Iran. Nevertheless, Iranian-sponsored terrorism would spike upward immediately after a strike. (*)

Rumsfeld criticized by some retired US generals in what is apparently a coordinated effort. (*) Does this somehow relate to planning on Iran?

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Iran is choosing this moment because Bush is weak and the media says the US is tied down in Iraq. Iran wants acquiescence now before the wind changes direction. Furthermore, Iran has maintained its radicalism and authoritarianism despite European free trade with Iran, tending to disprove the “free trade causes democracy” assertion. (*)

Retired US general Thomas McInerney: a feasible US military strike option exists. (*)

(Iranian nuclear crisis updates now using only asterisks for links.)