Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Screw the UN

This press release really needs no explanation. But to be helpful, let me just express a comment or two. If there is any validity to the UN statement that this $60 Billion gift from the G8 is 1/3 of what is needed over the next five years, what is wrong with getting 2 1/2 years worth of funds from an annual event?

And if this press release is right and a ‘plan’ is missing, then what are you doing with the money?

The fact that the US is contributing 1/2 of the money mentioned will ‘buy’ the US no applause. Last year the US provided almost 3/4 of a Trillion dollars in private donations to charity around the world. And many countries claim we’re the bad guys. All I have to say is the UN, the authors of this press release, people like Bono and his ilk, plus the countries that complain about what the US does to contribute, have a lot of nerve complaining. What is anyone else doing that is so grand?

Pardon me, but from time to time the frustration of how things are done in this world deserve the occasional rant.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

G8 Leaders Promise $60 Billion, One-Third of Global Need

A Real Plan to Defeat AIDS & Drug Resistant TB is Still Missing

WASHINGTON, June 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The G8 leaders today
promised an increase in investment in programs to fight AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria, but the $60 billion total will still be only one-third of what
the UN says is needed over the next five years. Together, these diseases
kill about 16,000 people a day.
Half of the total is a US contribution of $30 billion, but the US was
already on course to provide this even before President Bush’s announcement
last week. The proposal was greeted with great fanfare, yet a closer looks
shows it would in fact keep spending at about current levels for the next
five years, despite the emergency of drug resistant TB.
“A plan to really defeat AIDS, TB and malaria is still missing, yet
that’s what we must keep demanding of these leaders,” said Dr. Paul Zeitz,
Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance. “This is not an issue of
‘more money is always needed when it comes to poverty.’ Rather, the full
amount is needed so that we can actually get ahead of these health crises,
which pose a threat to everyone.”
UN estimates show that $192 billion is needed to address AIDS, TB and
malaria during from 2008 to 2012, mostly for HIV/AIDS, plus even more is
needed to improve health systems.
“We will have to watch the G8 carefully to see they keep their
promises,” Zeitz said. “But even if they do keep them, the funding falls
far short of what is needed. In addition, their promise to provide this
money ‘over the coming years’ is outrageously vague for something this
important.”
The declaration reaffirms grant making by the Global Fund at a level of
$6 to 8 billion per year. However, each year for the past five years
President Bush has proposed a large cut in the US contribution, and the US
Congress is on course to provide only two-thirds of what the Fund needs
from the US in 2008.
There was a risk that the leaders would fail to recommit themselves to
the goal of universal access to HIV/AIDS services for 2010, including AIDS
treatment, but in the end they reaffirmed this goal. Still, the world is
not at present on course to provide full coverage by 2010.
The G8 acknowledged the need for reproductive and sexual health
services, as well as effective programs to end violence against women, as
essential parts of the response to AIDS.
“Peaceful protests, massive petitions and concerts again made a
difference by putting a spotlight on the imperative of the G8 keeping its
promises,” said Zeitz. “Without the mobilization, we would not have made
the gains that we did.”
Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click
appropriate link.
Dr. Paul S. Zeitz
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=31640

SOURCE Global AIDS Alliance

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA

Tonight’s (June 6, 2007) installment of Nightline on ABC could just make you crazy. Another celebrity preaching to the world how things should be as if we don’t know. Claiming his primary belief is the desire for equality and is the driving force behind his Africa campaign. Which raises the question of whose money is behind his generosity when attending the G8 conference and asking for African debts to be released? Where does the money come from that is loaned to countries around the world? Where does the World Bank get its money? Could it be from governments around the world? And where do those governments get their money? Could it come from their citizens? Bono is real generous with other people’s money. He has no problem telling the rest of the world what to do.

George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Madonna and a host of others grab headlines from starting what appear to be humanitarian causes. But are they really? What purpose do they really serve? What oversight and accountability are provided to determine the results and insure that legitimate goals are being realized? Not that a ‘rock star’ cannot have the skills and resources available to contribute to worthwhile causes, but how do you know they deserve the credit afforded them by the media?

As an alternate example, with much less fanfare, Dikembe Mutombo of NBA fame donated about half of the $29 million for a hospital in Africa where he grew up. There was not this constant media blitz. There was no sanctimonious presentation and recurring interviews, rock concerts and charity photo ops like with Bono. It was real simple. He wanted to give back and did it with much of his own money and no crazy public relations stunts.

Bono, enough already, show a little class and give money to your favorite charity or pay for most of what you want to accomplish and stop the self-promotion. Many have come before you and done much of the work themselves. The problems are still not solved and it is unlikely your version of saving the world will fix it. You would have more credibility without always looking for the camera and acting like you’re doing us all a favor. It’s all hype.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Screw the UN

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush’s ‘D’ list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter’s Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I’m getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country’s contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let’s review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq’s Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) — Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted “interference in Iraqi affairs.”

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in ‘dissin’ the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn’t want anything solved for it ups his value as a ’somebody’ in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice -
By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced …

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical ‘cowboy George’ routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks …

International Herald Tribune, France -
In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. …

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC -
In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an …

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren’t plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY -
To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and …

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that ‘body’ one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, ‘get her done’. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC -
At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. …

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world’s issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just a brief note to readers, the following excerpt is from Jihad Watch. I don’t mind admitting this was my first visit there. At least it was the only visit I remember and after being there today I am confident I would not have forgotten. The story at the top of the page when I was there is linked below. It is what compelled me to publish this tiny post as encouragement for those who have never been there to check it out.

The piece hits home with me. Like so many others I am weary of the treatment some stories get based on an impression of who should be presented sympathetically and who should not. Most of us suspect that is due to media bias. If that is the case it should be criminal to attempt to mislead people rather than share the facts and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Critics of this position will contend the viewer is always free to draw their own conclusions. But we all know the power of suggestion and the subtle influence of marketing techniques employed by advertisers, media outlets and politicians. So to put it simply, that boat don’t float.

Anyway, if you haven’t before we recommend you test drive Jihad Watch. If you have been there then you don’t need our recommendation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cue standard “Muslims fear backlash, deplore terrorism” story

This one is by Cydney Long for Philadelphia’s CBS3.com (thanks to all who sent this in). Let’s see — have we touched all the bases? Muslims shocked by terror charges? Check. The jihadists don’t represent all Muslims? Check. Islam is a religion of peace? Check. Qur’an good? Check. If you blame the religion you’re blaming all Muslims? Check. Good, Cydney! You get an A+ for this one!

(CBS 3) VORHEES, N.J. Muslims in the region are bracing themselves for a possible backlash in response to the terror plot arrests.

The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.

Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.

Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.

These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.

Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.

Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.

Speaker Pelosi’s Statement in Damascus was Reckless, Irresponsible

Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:

“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”

Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.

NJDC Defends Speaker Pelosi from GOP Smear

April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”

“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.

After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:

Pelosi’s father and the Holocaust

RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.

Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.

Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.

To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”

That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top

But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat

All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?

If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.

D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.

This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Sometimes you could wonder if everyone involved in an investigation, scandal or other embarrassing moment is guilty of something. As far as Joe Wilson and Valerie (Plame) Wilson are concerned, they may only be guilty of bad taste. On the one hand it is hard to argue with someone taking offense at being exposed as working for the CIA. But then to have a major book deal and a movie in the works sure could ease a lot of pain and suffering. So what came first, an exposure of personnel matters or the self-promotion exposure? And since dear Valerie testified that the job she so loved involved investigating WMD, why has no one connected the dots on that part of the story? Hmm?

There are only two reasons this post has been published here. To see if we can get the conspiracy theory rumor mill percolating and at least one of us thinks Valerie is hot so we need an excuse to post her picture again. Ha, ha, ha. Hey it’s the weekend and a little comic relief (very little) is needed for recouping from the stress of March Madness.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com
(I’m in complete control until Stanford and the rest of the staff return)

At Hearing, Plame Rebukes Bush Administration
Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose leaked identity triggered a federal investigation that reached into the White House, today publicly refuted claims that she was not a covert employee and accused the White House and State Department of “carelessly and recklessly” destroying her cover for political purposes….

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Phastidio.net, Dumb Ox Daily News, 123beta, and Sujet- Celebrities, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

How does H Con Res 63 affect real security, protecting America and
restoring our leadership in the world? It doesn’t. (Stanford Matthews)
Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in Voting Yes on H Con Res 63
The names link to their information on Project Vote Smart (more on this later)

Representative Michael N. Castle District At-Large - US-House (R-DE)
Representative Howard Coble District 6 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Thomas M. ‘Tom’ Davis District 11 - US-House (R-VA)
Representative John J. Duncan District 2 - US-House (R-TN)
Representative Philip ‘Phil’ English District 3 - US-House (R-PA)
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest District 1 - US-House (R-MD)
Representative Bob Inglis District 4 - US-House (R-SC)
Representative Timothy V. ‘Tim’ Johnson District 15 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Walter Beaman Jones District 3 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Ric Keller District 8 - US-House (R-FL)
Representative Mark Steven Kirk District 10 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Steven C. LaTourette District 14 - US-House (R-OH)
Representative Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul District 14 - US-House (R-TX)
Representative Thomas E. ‘Tom’ Petri District 6 - US-House (R-WI)
Representative James M. ‘Jim’ Ramstad District 3 - US-House (R-MN)
Representative Frederick Stephen ‘Fred’ Upton District 6 - US-House (R-MI)
Representative James T. ‘Jim’ Walsh District 25 - US-House (R-NY)

Church and State OTA weekend Feb 16-18, 2007 

Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007

There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.

President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.

It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.

Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

There will not be a commentary here covering the entire State of the Union speech in one pass. This annual event is more significant than the importance most citizens place on it. But what is clear is that the media, some politicians and members of the public have made the Iraq War the primary issue. So that will be the topic of this post in brief.

Below is an interesting excerpt from a site that offered some stats on America at war. It is rather well written and more importantly, to the point. The point being the surprising lack of resolve in military matters that this country has been accused of and is quite simply guilty. Below is the excerpt.

The United States of America has a somewhat unique relationship with war. While America is considered to be the most militarily powerful country in the world today, Americans as a whole have never experienced war in the way that many other countries of the world have. There is a huge disparity between the American experience of war and the global experience. This may have an impact on American attitudes towards war

Which brings us to the subject of casualties. Follow the link above for the numbers if you like. The main point raised in opposition to the war is not on policy but casualties. Let’s just call it 3000 in three years. Of course, one death is unacceptable to most, but in war it is inevitable. Any way you slice it, the answer is the same. In terms of war, this nation’s casualties are extremely light. Granted, it is a different kind of war, but the numbers are still light.

I fear the opposition by elected officials is purely political. For those related to active duty service personnel, their opposition is understandable. But to increase the likelihood of bigger problems down the road with no guaranteed upside in leaving Iraq, the opposition makes no sense. It certainly makes no sense to leave without first trying one more (maybe the only) coherent proposal to date. That would include the initial decision.

MoreWhat.com urges those reading this and anyone they can tell, to contact your elected representatives to back the President’s Iraq strategy that was repeated tonight in the State of the Union address.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
( photos or other distractions were intentionally omitted from this post)

Another glance at a list of most popular news stories indicates the story of the two “abducted” boys has moved into first place since yesterday. In second place is a strange combo-looking thing featuring Hollywood divorces, Trump and Rosie and assorted other useless information. Third place has electronics standards and the BS electronics show hording space it doesn’t deserve. As a post of ours pointed out, the technology related industries in this country as well as others doles out tech advances in minuscule portions to maximize the profit ripoff of consumers. We have little sympathy for their perceived difficulties and absolutely no respect for their methods. Actually Beckham was in third place but who cares about soccer?

There are no other stories in the list worth mentioning with the possible exception of one on Secretary of State, Rice. The headline reads” Rice Encounters Skepticism in Mideast”. That is offered only for its comedic value. Maybe if the U.S. would put Israel in its place, show some compassion for the ordinary citizens of Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and warn every nation in the region to make an effort at peace, we might have something. Show them you’re serious by completing what you started in Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly. Straighten out some of the messes you’ve gotten us into and start acting like world leaders and maybe some one will take you seriously. If you get that far you can tell Iran and North Korea or any one else spoiling for a fight to straighten up or their situation will change abruptly. Do what you need to provide a little lasting peace and prosperity in the region and then take a break and bring the troops home. It can be done so quit wasting time and get at it. Tell the morons back in the states to stop debating foreign policy and military strategy in the news and get to work also. This country could use some leadership. Let’s start with what we have and stop playing politics. For once, finish the job and stop looking like the idiots you probably are.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Walker’s World: EU-U.S. agree on Mideast

By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor Emeritus

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) — The striking feature of the UPI-Zogby poll on American attitudes toward the Israel- Palestine dispute is the similarity with views in Europe. This suggests that the transatlantic political support now exists for a concerted push for a new effort to reach a settlement, which is exactly what Britain’s Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group have been urging on President George W. Bush this month.

This is an interesting article but the bottom line is most conflicts in the world continue for outrageous lengths of time. Does anyone really want to solve these problems? Conflict involving Israel have existed since 1948. Certainly they have existed since the 1967 war. Much hope was placed on efforts during the Carter Administration. It looked good until the assasination of Anwar Sadat. Again, does anyone really want to resolve these problems? Sixty years and counting and nothing has been settled. Everyone can share in the blame.

Iran has experienced many problems. Any anger remaining from the US support of the Shah of Iran is understandable. Additional anger over lopsided support of Israel by the US is equally understandable. However, the current leaders in Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is not real helpful either.

Other nations in the region and US involvement produce problems based on objectives that are basically selfish and have nothing to do with solving world problems and only add to the difficulties. Therefore an article claiming the EU and US agree on the Middle East is hardly useful.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Since 1935, the mining of gemstones in the United States has been almost entirely a recreational activity of mineral collectors and hobbyists.

Is there an obvious question in the statement above? Did the US mine gemstones commercially before 1935 and if so why did it stop? Let’s be sinister. It’s easier to let someone else do the dirty work and then just wheel and deal to get what you want. Or is it just that this country does not have an abundance of gemstone resources?

Botswana: How a New York Times Writer Views the Film Blood Diamond …
AllAfrica.com, Washington -
… Does Sierra Leone belong to another world? … Rosalind Kainyah, the director of public affairs for De Beers in America said her industry was focused on the …

If they make a movie about it, what’s all the fuss about diamonds anyway?

Africa: Diamond Industry, Government Still Not Preventing Import ...
AllAfrica.com, Washington -
Five years ago, World Vision and other humanitarian organizations urged diamond wholesalers and retailers to stop the sale of so-called “conflict diamonds …

Do the countries of the world care if diamond mining has become a criminal enterprise? Does it matter if those in poverty are being exploited? Are they being exploited? Do the diamonds fund terrorism?

Rebels deny selling diamonds
News24, South Africa -
Abidjan - Rebels holding the north of war-divided Ivory Coast deny dealing in blood diamonds despite allegations by United Nations (UN) experts that they reap …

The easiest conclusion to draw is in any discussion with two or more sides, everyone can’t be telling the truth?

Not Just Diamonds
Beyond conflict diamonds, other natural resources, such as oil, timber and water, play a major role in most world conflicts. The Global Policy Forum, which monitors U.N. policy, has a rich database of articles and U.N. documents.

Oil is the conflict commodity of the developed nations. Precious metals and gems appeal to the independent criminal element. Every major conflict has had its root cause in ecnoomics. It’s no surprise that conflict commodities are attributed to war.

Conflict Diamonds Spark Holiday Debate
MSN Money -
NEW YORK (AP) - This holiday season some diamond retailers say they are seeing heightened consumer concern about conflict diamonds, the gems mined in war zones

Tis the season. So remmeber when you drop the obligatory month’s salary on trinket for the little woman that you too are contributing to world conflict. It seems we are being informed that buying anything related to conflict commodities distinguishes us as ho ho ho’s. Merry Christmas.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

China pledges billions to Africa

AP - Sat Nov 4, 4:42 PM ET

BEIJING - China launched a sweeping effort Saturday to
expand its access to Africa’s oil and markets, pledging billions
of dollars in aid and loans as dozens of leaders from the world’s
poorest continent opened a conference aimed at building economic
ties.

The only departure from typical world politics in this story is the
mention of providing aid with the promise of access to valuable
resources within Africa. More commonly the public only learns
of the less than humanitarian motives behind aid packages when
some offended party exposes the inequities after the fact. If China
is responsible for this part of the deal being made public then some
credit must be given for their candor. But it could simply be smart
to announce these terms up front rather than reading a scathing
attack of the aid package details later in the press.

The options for Africa to emerge from devasting wars, corruption
and the poverty and suffering it causes are limited. The countless
efforts by charitable groups and various governments over many
years has been hindered by the same greed, corruption, misguided
intentions and incompetence that characterize much of the claimed
concern for third world countries that promotes the ceaseless and
senseless violence and mayhem ever present around the planet. If
true peace is ever to be the norm, the world’s governments and the
people who represent them must sincerely provide support that is
needed by struggling nations without the expectation of business or
economic gain as the central thrust. The “payoff” should be results
that cure the ills of failing nations. For if all nations are prosperous
the road to peace has less obstacles.
C. Harris
MoreWhat.com