Blog @ MoreWhat.com

For the man who invented dynamite and whose legacy includes a peace prize the contradictions keep piling up by those charged with honoring his wishes. Does the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize fit Nobel’s simple criteria below? And what about the others?

‘and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. ‘

(related items)

Upbeat Conservative News, NObel, NObama, political damage?

Upbeat Conservative News, Good intentions… oh, please

Upbeat Conservative News, Audacity of Nobel Comm (CBS)

Upbeat Conservative News, More on lib embarrassment

Upbeat Conservative news, Nobel Obama embarrasses libs

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

DNC humor czar condemns Nobel Prize jokes (Michelle Malkin)

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates….

2009 - Barack Obama
2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International
1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 - Andrei Sakharov
1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
1971 - Willy Brandt
1970 - Norman Borlaug
1969 - International Labour Organization
1968 - René Cassin
1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1965 - United Nations Children’s Fund
1964 - Martin Luther King Jr.
1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
1962 - Linus Pauling
1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld
1960 - Albert Lutuli
1959 - Philip Noel-Baker
1958 - Georges Pire
1957 - Lester Bowles Pearson
1956 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1955 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1954 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1953 - George C. Marshall
1952 - Albert Schweitzer
1951 - Léon Jouhaux
1950 - Ralph Bunche
1949 - Lord Boyd Orr
1948 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1947 - Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
1946 - Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
1945 - Cordell Hull
1944 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1943 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1939 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1938 - Nansen International Office for Refugees
1937 - Robert Cecil
1936 - Carlos Saavedra Lamas
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky
1934 - Arthur Henderson
1933 - Sir Norman Angell
1932 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1931 - Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
1930 - Nathan Söderblom
1929 - Frank B. Kellogg
1928 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1927 - Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
1926 - Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
1925 - Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
1924 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1923 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1922 - Fridtjof Nansen
1921 - Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
1920 - Léon Bourgeois
1919 - Woodrow Wilson
1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1917 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1914 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1913 - Henri La Fontaine
1912 - Elihu Root
1911 - Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
1910 - Permanent International Peace Bureau
1909 - Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d’Estournelles de Constant
1908 - Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
1907 - Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
1906 - Theodore Roosevelt
1905 - Bertha von Suttner
1904 - Institute of International Law
1903 - Randal Cremer
1902 - Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
1901 - Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy

This has to be the last post on the topic of President Obama’s September speech to the United Nations. One cannot endure this abuse indefinitely. Rhetoric that can make or break a speech by inspiring the audience or causing them to reject the notions of the speaker can be tiring in either circumstance. In addition to what was presented in the earlier posts only one last swat at this thing is made possible by President Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama, as the kids in the video chant, finishes his speech with a longer than necessary presentation of his ‘four pillars’ for the future. Here’s the opening quote.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Certainly no reasonable person would object to that sentiment. Prior to this expression about the only honest declaration stated by President Obama was his assessment of the sad state of affairs that IS the United Nations. And that most members simply use it as a political bully pulpit for a self-serving agenda. But other than another opportunity for the President to attempt an oratory masterpiece the pleasant sentiment of his four pillars only serves to extend the useless enterprise that defines the United Nations.

Earlier in his speech Mr Obama endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. This disaster of an initiative has been a pathetic example of how little the UN can accomplish. Can anyone reading this cite one deadline that was met by this collosal waste of time. As with many UN programs the objective is commendable but success is rarely if ever achieved. Is it possible that Mr Obama’s four pillars fall in the same category?

On the first item in the pillars one curious note is offered. Non-proliferation AND disarmament seems redundant or anticipating failure. If the world was to disarm what need would there be for non-proliferation? It seems non-proliferation would be implied if success were achieved at disarmament. For those who would charge this post with nitpicking consider the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle or Pandora’s box has already been opened. Undoing this sequence of events is at best a subject for an undergraduate class in logic.

Peace is threatened by competition. It is in our nature to compete. That natural tendency is complicated by unfavorable tendencies toward greed or the intoxification of power to have control over others for one’s own benefit. To pursue peace and security is met with objections as to whose benefit such endeavors serve. Disputes with regard to the outcome of such noble goals and how each player is affected by this pursuit have contributed to the lack of progress. Again, Mr Obama proclaims a noble pursuit that is not new. And merely proposing that everyone participates will solve nothing.

Connecting planet preservation, or more specifically, climate change to the notion of peace is a mistake. ‘The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied’ according to President Obama. Yes it can. This is another debate that the American President suggests has been resolved. He is incorrect. The point is those who support the dire assessment of climate change versus those who reject the paranoia approach share one common argument. They both come complete with a large group of credentialed individuals in science who agree and/or support their contention. So the ‘danger posed’ can be denied.

For the President to associate laudable goals with questionable agendas does not serve his purposes or anyone else’s. To submit that if you are for peace and not for the paranoia of AGW you are somehow flawed will serve no worthwhile purpose. And to suggest that the US can abandon their nuclear capability while the rest of the world pursues it is naive contrary to the President’s contention he is not.

At this point there is really no reason to deal with the President’s fourth pillar. That would be on the ‘global’ economy and all that goes with it. It is as ‘naive’ as the first three pillars. So much for President Obama’s September 2009 speech to the United Nations. The speech was equal to the task of the UN…. useless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The last post on the topic of President Obama’s UN speech this September dealt with the first half dozen paragraphs. In the seventh, the small matter of Mr Obama’s math is troubling. He says he has been in office for nine months. It seems the days between late January and the Presidential Inauguration to near the same point in the month of September next would calculate to eight months. But that is small potatoes compared to the long list of troubling statements contained in this ‘address’.

In this post the President moves on to his accomplishments in those eight, or nine,months he has been in office.

His next statement is about Gitmo, terrorists and interrogation. He claims there will no longer be torture. The debate on this subject is not closed contrary to what the President suggests. The debate is not closed on what was or is torture except in the minds of those with an opinion to the contrary. In the President’s own words ‘frameworks’ are still being discussed. And his AG’s intent on retribution against those in the opposition party continues.

Gitmo is not closed and may not be for some time if at all. And to claim he will work with members of the United Nations to combat terrorism is as impotent as the record on such things to date. The President ran a campaign that included withdrawal from Iraq and something similar for Afghanistan. They inflamed the antiwar sentiment in cooperation with far left activist organizations as a ploy to win the election. Now they are faced with the grim reality such promises are not so easy and elections have consequences.

So in terms of the eight or nine months, depending on your math skills, that the President has been in office little if anything has been accomplished. Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan are still issues in search of solutions. What comes next in the Obama speech just piles on to the misstatements about his time in office.

Eliminating nukes, peace in the Middle East and climate change are the next items the President tries to claim as successful performance. A little premature given the nuke situation regarding Iran and North Korea at least without any discussion of the earliest members of the Nuke Club. Some slack can be afforded the President to any discussion of Middle East peace as many before him have struggled with this issue and there is little optimism his term in office will fare any better. The climate change topic is merely pandering to a particular sentiment not shared by all. It is likely the President and former or current community organizer sees some political value in this pursuit.

The President continues by expressing what he accomplished in terms of the the economic conditions around the world through the G20 and he appears to be again asking forgiveness by emphasizing a ‘re-engagement’ with the UN by joining various groups, offering money and appeasement in general. No wonder those around the planet pleased with his election maintain such an attitude. Any one who will roll over that easily makes their agendas that much easier to advance. This is not a positive sign that Obama intends to defend the interests of the US or the American people.

To this point in the speech transcript the President has accomplished little if anything yet states ‘this is what we have done’. He then goes on to discuss inaction and not getting things done which only serve to strengthen the uselessness of the body he was addressing. Everything that comes out of the UN is worthless. Maybe the President’s strategy was to follow that theme for his address. He mentions the dire circumstances needing attention. Shows that he has done nothing. Claims success for merely mentioning the issues. And encourages others to do something about it. All this and a sprinkling of mea culpas on behalf of the country whose interests he said he would never apologize for defending….. the United States. Is he faithfully executing his oath of office?

Here’s a direct quote from the speech as the final item for this post. It is President Obama speaking about the United Nations.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

Simply starting an organization based initially on a pleasant sentiment provides no solution without willing participants. It is a little naive to expect world peace from an entity as corrupt as any other on the planet. Whether the UN continues to exist or is abandoned or replaced it is unlikely such efforts will succeed in bringing peace to the world until all the earth’s inhabitants honestly seek this end simultaneously. The probability of that happening any time soon is remote at best.

A call by President Obama for specific remedies to current conflict in the world would be the preferred choice. To present a challenge to other members of the UN to respond properly or risk appearing as co-conspirators to those conflicts may have initiated effective action. But then that is not the aim of the UN or the current American President.

More on this topic in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama’s speech to the UN last week has received ample focus. Some will laud the address and others will criticize. This post is just trying to determine what it is Mr Obama intended to accomplish speaking again on the world stage. So, here comes yet another analysis.

In the first paragraph of the transcript one has to wonder what exactly the President means by acting ‘boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad’? Certainly recent events involving missile defense, North Korea, Iran and other security threats do not inspire confidence nor indicate bold and collective action for justice, prosperity or anything else.

The next paragraph features typical rhetoric common to the Obama Administration. Just as the 2006 midterms featured the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid speaking of a new direction in America the Obama White House has focused on the empty slogan of hope and change. The latest action in evidence of broken campaign promises and the accuracy behind Joe Wilson’s statement ‘you lie’ is inserting the Big Pharma lobbyist Paul Kirk in the US Senate seat from Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. The only purpose for buying the 60th vote in the Senate allows the Democrats to force more government control over American lives in the name of healthcare reform.

The third paragraph returns to a favorite ploy of the liberal majority. From an earlier mention of bold and collective action that has not materialized nor produced any effective governance the temptation to blame the previous administration for unilateral action and anti-American sentiment is a reversal of history. The anti-American sentiment was the cause for unilateral action in the absence of collective action from the UN and other international forums to confront terrorism. The same indifference is present now on issues involving Iran, North Korea and others seeking nuclear weapons. Only this time the current American president is indifferent to the bold and collective action he claims to champion.

In the next paragraph, the fourth, President Obama may as never before express his fondness for the word ‘audacity’. To state he will never apologize for defending the interests of ‘my nation’ or ‘my people’ after his World Apology Tour is only trumped by the audacity to proclaim these interests are shared.

The next two paragraphs circle earlier statements as well as introducing a timid mention of religion. Without the courage to express the religion of peace is now the religion of terrorism Mr Obama betrays his claim of bold and collective action once again. He follows this with promotion of more timid proclamations about global warming and pleas to be humanitarian. And he finishes these thoughts with a reminder of his World Apology Tour telling the rest of the planet he will sacrifice his nation’s interests contrary to any earlier reference to defending them.

This topic will be continued in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Is that the best Iran’s so-called supreme leader can do? Blame his country’s problems on media reports. That same media has recently reported Iran has agreed to a new set of rules for cooperation with the IAEA. You can call the IAEA independent all you want to but it’s relationship and sanction by the United Nations is all too clear. The IAEA’s ‘atoms for peace’ slogan is more than any rational human being can bear. The history of the UN and the IAEA fit well into Iran’s plans to play games with the all too willing international community until Iran detonates their first nuke.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says Western News Media Attempting to “Poison” Iran
Iran’s supreme leader says Western media are to blame for his country’s recent political unrest. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is pointing his finger at Western news media for inciting political friction in Iran.

In May of this year not the ‘Western News Media’ but ‘Iran’s state media’ got all puffed up about Iran’s missile tests complete with cheering crowds of those characterized as supporters of Ahmadinejad.

Iran Claims to Have Test-Fired Mid-Range Missile
Iran’s state media says the country has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile that can reach Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Iranian government TV showed what it said was the test-firing of the Sejil-2, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometers. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad also commented on the test-firing of the two-stage missile during a campaign speech in the northern town of Semnan. The crowd of several thousand Ahmedinejad supporters cheered as the president described the launch.

During the same month Ahmadinejad held a news conference rejecting talks about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran: No More Nuclear Talks With World Powers
Mr. Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran Monday Iran will only agree to discussions with major powers about cooperating in managing global problems. He said Iran will not participate in talks about nuclear issues outside the framework of the U.N. nuclear agency.

This of course is combined with the year’s Iranian politics which generated this headline, ‘Ahmadinejad Win Sparks Protests in Tehran‘ in which an address by Ahmadinejad made the following claim, ‘In an address, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared the vote a great victory and called it a “completely free election.”

Add his statements which blame the US and Israel for all the world’s problems, his call for the destruction of Israel and recently renewed claim the holocaust never happened and it becomes clear any ‘poisoning of Iran’ is self-induced contrary to the stated opinion of Khamenei. Most of what comes out of Iran, minus the loyal opposition to the current regime, demonstrates a rogue state’s intention to develop a nuclear arsenal and put the world at risk. All the delays are nothing more than a smoke screen to buy time to complete their sinister strategy.

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
VIENNA — Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

IAEA denies report it is sure Iran seeking atom bomb
The International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s Sept. 9 comment that allegations the agency was sitting on evidence of Iranian bomb work were “politically motivated and baseless”.

Either way, the IAEA does not inspire confidence. You need a scorecard to keep up with all the reports on yes they do or no they don’t in terms of Iran’s status of joining the nuclear club. Argue the topic to your heart’s delight but one conclusion remains clear. The world does not need any more members to the nuke club. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago in the heat of a world war. There’s no putting the lid back on. Outside of ending the war with Japan in the last century none of the current known members of the nuke club have become reckless with the option. Who believes that restraint would be practices by any new members?

And no one has forgotten about North Korea or the Jihad crowd’s similar ambitions. World leaders are as impotent in this regard as with Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An earlier post on this blog, ‘IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes‘, expresses a viewpoint on the do-nothings regarding Iran’s nuclear threat. Oh how surprising that today a report referenced below confirms suspicions that the IAEA is one of those do-nothings.

VIENNA — The global threat posed by Iran’s suspect nuclear program is “hyped” because there’s no hard proof that Tehran has an ongoing effort to build an atomic weapon, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency asserts in a magazine interview.

And there is no ‘hard proof’ why? Because the do-nothings have failed to compel Iran to come clean. So what does Elbaradei say?

ELBARADEI: We have not seen concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community. We still have outstanding questions that are relevant to the nature of Tehran’s program, and we still need to verify that there aren’t undeclared activities taking place inside of the country. But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far. It’s urgent, however, to initiate a dialogue between Washington and Tehran to build trust, normalize relations, and allay concerns as proposed by President Obama. To me, that’s the only way forward.

Not ‘we haven’t seen concrete evidence’ because you have not done your job to discover the evidence. Of course you have ‘outstanding’ questions. All the questions are outstanding. Here’s an outstanding question for you. How do you draw conclusions without the evidence you are supposed to collect. What facts have you seen so far? It is hard to see facts when you do not look. No one suggests your tomorrow scenario. Continuous foot dragging will allow Iran to develop and deploy and/or use nuclear weapons. Of course, hard to imagine the UN would defer action to the US. Now they expect an equal do-nothing to uncover evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program through appeasement.

Why don’t we send Bill Clinton to Iran as happened with North Korea. There still must be Americans being held there. Go save someone Bill and broker another back room deal with terrorists. Your administration was good at doing that. Oh, could that be what ushered in 9/11. Gives the impression Americans are slow learners.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(note: the ‘puff piece’ interview of Elbaradei at the link for the pdf file in the excerpt above is pathetic.  The kind of special interest appraisal that generates do-nothings like the UN and the IAEA.)

Is this how the masquerade begins? Okay, the cancer thing may be the beginning. Those distancing themselves from the idea to release the only person convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland are also part of the beginning. When people began questioning the validity of the cancer claim the obvious conspiracy theory arose expecting a fake death, funeral and subsequent plot by Libya to financially support and place al-Megrahi in seclusion or some sort of convict relocation program.

The circumstances surrounding a diagnosis of prostate cancer like those of the release arrangements are suspect. So again, has the masquerade begun in earnest with this latest report?

Libyan officials say the convicted Lockerbie bomber has been hospitalized in Tripoli.

They gave no other details on Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s condition.

Last month, Scotland released Megrahi on compassionate grounds after he served eight years of a life sentence, saying he was near death from cancer. The decision prompted an outpouring of anger from families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.

In Scotland’s parliament Wednesday, lawmakers voted to reject the government’s decision to release Megrahi. The government asked parliament to endorse the decision to free the bomber, but lawmakers - in a largely symbolic poll - voted 73 to 50 against the action.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown says his government did not pressure Scotland to release the bomber to improve Britain’s trade links with Libya, despite reports that he wanted the bomber freed.

Mr. Brown said Wednesday that he told Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that the decision was Scotland’s alone.

Earlier, Britain’s foreign secretary said Prime Minister Brown did not want the convicted Lockerbie bomber to die in prison, because it would have a catastrophic effect on British-Libyan relations.

Notes taken during a meeting between British official Bill Rammell and Libya’s minister for Europe, Abdulati Alobidi, show Rammell telling the Libyans that neither Mr. Brown nor British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wanted the bomber to die in prison.

The documents also show that Straw decided to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer deal to help improve ties with Libya. Straw originally excluded the bomber from the deal.

Megrahi is the only person convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

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

No one wants to air their dirty laundry in public. But that doesn’t stop it from happening. It seems that when most countries are the subject of criticism about their history those raising the issue are not from the target country. Currently some in the UK are defending their brand of healthcare against criticism from those debating a similar issue in the US. Iran and North Korea are getting criticized by just about every other country for their pursuit of nukes and their subsequent denials or lame justifications for it. And the US gets criticized for just about anything and everything. A likely downside to being on top of the pile. And Russia is not exempt from criticism either.

Sunday, August 23, marks the 70th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - the non-aggression treaty signed in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The pact included a secret protocol dividing Eastern and Central Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Days after it was signed, first German and then Soviet forces invaded Poland.

This kind of discussion will ruffle the Bear’s fur. Drawing comparisons between Stalin and Hitler will not go unnoticed in Russia. …’ in May, President Dmitri Medvedev issued a decree setting up a presidential commission to counter what he called attempts to “falsify history.” ‘ And then there is mention of something that seems akin to Russia’s Soviet legacy. ‘ Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu introduced legislation in parliament that would make it a crime to deny the Soviet victory in World War II.’ The criticism is having the expected reaction in the Kremlin and elsewhere.

So what else are the critics saying? Dmitry Furman of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe calls the presidential commission to counter what it deems historical falsification an “idiotic undertaking” and a “very bad idea.” He also says Stalin’s government killed as many, or even more people than Hitler’s.

But, given the suffering Russians endured after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, Furman says it is natural that many resist equating Stalinism and Nazism.

Furman says it is “very difficult psychologically” for Russians to put what they see as their “victors” in the Great Patriotic War, as they call World War II, on the same level with the vanquished Nazis.

This might be a case of forgetting to note that Stalin was not representative of the Russian people. It may be difficult indeed for Russia to come to grips with the legacy of a madman.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another question mark in foreign affairs is Saudi Arabia. Even without President Obama bowing to Saudis for all the world to see, the US has maintained a strange relationship with this Arab country for many years. Most would agree it is simply a matter of hedging bets on oil supplies. But even the country noted as the home of 9/11 hijackers and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden is not exempt from terrorist action within Islam.

Deputy Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef was receiving visitors at his home in Jeddah late Thursday when the bomber got close and detonated his explosives. The prince had opened his house to visitors as part of observances for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Imagine that. Open the house for visitors during Ramadan and have a terrorist try to kill you. Yes, Ramadan, the Islamic event of fasting and asking forgiveness for one’s sins. Gotta love this religion of peace. So many contradictions, so little time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest reports on nuclear safeguards in Iran and Syria to Member States. The report outlines developments since the Director General´s report of 5 June 2009.

Circulation of the reports is restricted; they cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.

General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency´s Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 7 September.

So here’s a recent Arab response on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli nuclear weapons and Western hypocrisy
By Yusuf Fernandez (Source: thepeoplevoice.org)

Once again, Arab states have announced that this year they will submit a resolution at September’s general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to force Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open up its secretive military nuclear program to international inspections.

The article also suggests ‘Israel’s rejection to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the main obstacle to global nuclear disarmament.’ After stating that Israel has nukes with a 2000 km range and able to reach any Arab capital the article changes direction with ‘Israel is one of the few states in the world that have refused to sign the NPT and is reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.’

Reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nukes, indeed. ‘Iran has repeatedly assured that its nuclear program is peaceful…’ Repeatedly ‘assured’ is the key here.

You may recall that Saddam Hussein commented after being apprehended from a hole in the ground that he did nothing to convince the world Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction for fear of looking weak to ‘his’ neighbors in the region. Had he not chosen that strategy he may have avoided another confrontation with the US military accompanied by the inevitable outcome. As if Desert Storm in 1991 was not proof enough he could not win a war against the US after invading Kuwait.

Like Iraq’s former ‘leader’ Saddam Hussein, Iran’s leadership behaves in a similar manner allowing statements calling for the destruction of Israel to stand refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and yet claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful. They now promote the notion of ‘Western hypocrisy’ while they express the desire to destroy Israel and at the same time define their nuclear program as ‘peaceful’.

If you are curious to know who is Yusef Fernandez the following is from Frontpage magazine. ‘Yusuf Fernandez, the spokesman for the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities…‘

Some additional information may be found useful as well.

In 1967 the first law allowing the Muslims to organize themselves, after a parenthesis of centuries, was promulgated in Spain, leading to the establishment in 1968 of the first local Muslim Association in Spain in Melilla, and in 1971, the first national association, the Association of Muslims in Spain (AME), which has its headquarters in Madrid. Under the Spanish Constitution the Statutory Law of Religious Freedom is promulgated, now in force, and the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain was constituted (UCIDE), as well as the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), which together constitute the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE), which is a member of the Muslim Council of Cooperation in Europe (MCCE)[1]in Brussels, which is a consultative body to the European Union.

So the IAEA reports to this point have solved nothing as indicated in numerous reports in the ‘media’.

Yossi Melman / The IAEA report on Iran lacks the bottom line

‘IAEA hiding incriminating evidence’

UN nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information

UN reports increase in Iranian uranium programme

IAEA to report Iran atom slowdown ahead of talks

Iran, Syria have not carried out sufficient cooperation in …

Iran is continuing nuclear activity, says United Nations watchdog

Iran Claims Report ‘Vindicated’ Nuclear Program

Iran dismisses nuclear assessment

Iran is stonewalling the UN nuclear watchdog agency about “possible military dimensions” to its suspect nuclear programme, officials have said.

The UN is urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as “fabrication,” insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and co-operative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

These stories support comments suggesting the ‘international community’ response to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others is impotent. They do nothing about the problem outside of promoting resolutions at the equally impotent United Nations. This criticism includes the IAEA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their bilateral meeting at Winfield House in London, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. White House Photo/Pete Souza)

At two recent congressional hearings, U.S. diplomats, defense and military officials outlined how the Obama administration intends to go about “resetting” the U.S. relationship with Russia. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees asked some tough questions about key aspects of the U.S-Russian relationship.

If you are not concerned about President Obama and discussions with President Medvedev of Russia you should be. White the ‘beer summit’ of Obama and Biden is surely not the ‘test’ VPOTUS forecasted in months past, negotiations between the Eagle and the Bear may be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The United Nations is nothing more than an extension of existing conduits for nations to project their policy agendas. The lack of performance, effective outcomes and adherance to the organization’s orginal mission demonstrate the UN is at least obselete. True to past trends this latest attempt to pass off a ‘resolution’ as anything meaningful once again confirms international cooperation at the heads of state level is useless. The only purpose served is providing a venue whereby nations can bitch slap each other or organize tag teams for groups to bash a common target.

Talk, talk, talk and no action is an accurate description the United Nations. The statement to ‘do something even if it is wrong’ is a relevant suggestion and the only one this ‘body’ has seen fit to address.

As for the quote by Noam Chomsky (below) ’shut up’!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The United Nations General Assembly in meetings Thursday debated the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect or “R-to-P resolution.” In concept, it is a strategy based on state responsibility, international assistance and timely and decisive responses to countries in trouble around the world. But there is less than unanimous agreement that it will ever work.

The stage for Thursday’s debate was set early when Edward Luck, special advisor to the Secretary-General, told the U.N. General Assembly what not to do.

“What we do not need at this point, however, are efforts to turn back the clock to divide the membership, or to divert attention from our central task. The world is changing. Our thinking needs to evolve with it,” he said.

After an informal morning session, there was further discussion of the R-to-P issue by a panel of distinguished scholars and political activists. American Professor of linguistics and philosophy and political author, Noam Chomsky, did not believe the big or rich will rescue the poor and little.

“Take the case that I mentioned about the World Food Program cutting back its funding It wasn’t even reported in the mainstream in the United States. Who cares? It is a criticism of the Western countries,” he noted. “They’re the ones cutting down their funding because it’s more important by their priorities to bail-out banks than to feed people,” he said.

Garth Evans, co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, stated he is not in favor of an all-encompassing rescue plan for the ills of the world.

“It’s very important that we must refine and define and narrow the scope of this enterprise so that it doesn’t become an all-purpose excuse for dealing with human rights generally and comfort generally,” he said.

The debate continues, the speeches go on. Will people help people? What are the boundaries of U.N. responsibility? The concluding evidence and the final decision is still to come.

What’s the story on economic recovery, foreign affairs and a shared view by the US President and Vice-President? The porkulus bill is working. No it’s not. ‘We misread the economy’. If the porkulus is not working and the White House misread the economy why would they be currently considering another one? And in foreign affairs are POTUS and VPOTUS on the same page. Seems Biden would give Israel the ‘green light’ for a strike against Iran nukes and Obama would not.

Could that be the famous ‘test’ everyone was talking about after Joe Biden suggested it some months ago? The following emphasizes the ‘public face’ of the White House on matters of out of control spending and the lack of sunlight contrary to liberal leaders suggestion that transparency and accountability have ended the culture of corruption in the nation’s capital.

Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a recovery act event outside the American Can Factory building in Cincinnati, Ohio, Thursday, July 9, 2009. Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Biden Acknowledges Administration ‘Misread’ The Economy
Washington Post - Scott Wilson - Jul 5, 2009
Vice President Biden acknowledged today that the administration underestimated the depth of the economic recession months ago as it prepared …

Biden: Administration “Misread” Economy

In an interview on ABC News’ This Week, Vice President Joe Biden said that although the Administration relied on consensus economic forecasts in crafting its economic stimulus package, the White House erred in its assumption about the unemployment rate. Biden said, “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. … No one was talking about that we would be moving towards — we’re worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point. … We’re much too high.” The remarks were tepidly reported by news wires and print sources, which also noted congressional criticism. The AP reports Republican congressional leaders “expressed disappointment about the impact of stimulus spending,” while Biden “cited the economic conditions inherited from the Bush administration.”

If the Obama/Biden admiinstration can ‘misread’ the economy how does that apply to their spending habits and claiming this will be good for Americans?

Vice President Biden outlined how the Recovery Act is helping Ohio:

“Roads plus teachers plus cops plus jobs equals a community — and that equals paychecks and prosperity. In other words, it equals a better future right here in Southwest Ohio.”

According to the GAO’s 2nd report on porkulus, education pork went to retaining staff and programs. Is this saving jobs or rewarding the NEA for their support? Those are public sector jobs not private sector. So how is that helping SW Ohio?

Later in the day in Saratoga County, he announced the release of over $275 million in unemployment insurance (UI) modernization funds authorized by the Recovery Act. Vice President Biden was joined in New York by Congressman Scott Murphy, who noted that in addition to addressing workers’ immediate needs by financing unemployment benefits, the Recovery Act is addressing the nation’s long-term needs as well:

“By improving our roads, bridges and water infrastructure, we are not only creating jobs in the short term, but building a base upon which we can attract businesses to our area and foster long-term economic growth.”

Again, the GAO report indicates all the money right now is going to transportation, education and Medicaid. Maybe there will be some jobs in the private sector in transportation but what will that accomplish for all the money being spent? Temporary make work jobs and timetables suggesting they are spread out over three years and may have no speedy effect on the economy. Plus GAO indicates accountability will miss the mark. In other words no sunlight is projected. Yet, below, the POLS continue to suggest Recovery.gov uncovers all. The ‘breakdowns’ mentioned have always been available. It doesn’t show the details needed to analyze performance so the campaign promises are not being met.

For additional information on the Recovery Act, including breakdowns by category, state and agency, please visit Recovery.gov.

And with all the misreading, lack of sunlight and no indication of positive performance, they want to do another out of control porkulus spending spree.

Obama Advisor Urges Another Economic Stimulus Plan
By Michael Bowman
Washington

The Obama administration appears to be sending mixed signals on whether a second stimulus package will be needed to pull the U.S. economy out of a deep and prolonged recession. Democrats and Republicans are expressing dissatisfaction with the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package President Barack Obama signed into law in February.

And what about the other issues? Biden seems to indicate Israel has the White House blessing to do a first strike on Iran’s nukes.

from VOA…..
US Vice President Backs Israel’s Right to Preemptive Military Action
By Michael Bowman
Washington

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says Israel is entitled to decide for itself how best to respond to Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities. Mr. Biden also says America’s willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran is unchanged, despite Tehran’s violent crackdown on demonstrators following last month’s disputed presidential vote.

Vice President Biden says Israel has the right to deal with foreign threats as it sees fit.

But it seems Biden’s take is not a perfect fit with Obama on Israel and first strikes.

Obama: No green light for Israel to attack Iran
Tue Jul 7, 2009 4:29pm EDT

WASHINGTON, July 7 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States had “absolutely not” given Israel a green light to attack Iran over its nuclear program, but he said Washington cannot “dictate to other countries what their security interests are.”

“It is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels,” Obama told CNN in an interview during his trip to Russia.

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday that Israel had a sovereign right to decide what is in its best interest in dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a comment seen by some as giving Israel a green light to attack.

Asked if that was the intent of his administration, Obama said: “Absolutely not.”

How’s that for a confidence builder on YOUR leader’s in DC? Unsure about the economy, foreign affairs but not about spending like there’s no tomorrow. And the way they’re spending your money there may not be a tomorrow. And their relative stances on foreign affairs do not paint a pretty picture for a tomorrow either.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the 2008 US Presidential election campaign many noticed the personal history of candidate Barack Obama appeared cloaked in secrecy as little was uncovered about his earlier days growing up or attending college and the candidate was not offering any clarity on the topic. Surprisingly, the NY Times is offering an account of at least one aspect of student Obama’s thinking on nuclear arms. And Jennifer Rubin offers a report expanding on the concerns that President Obama may still hold these youthful idealistic notions. Unfortunately, Mr Obama may be operating without benefit of the practical realities that typically guide world leaders through the dangerous territory of foreign affairs.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.

With Iran, North Korea and surely others pursuing nuclear weapons arsenals and Russian leaders expressing concern over US missile defense proposals leading up to current arms negotiations the Obama mindset may be of concern to you. Especially if the new President has an obsession with youthful idealism.

Obama Has Gotten It Wrong for Twenty-Five Years

Jennifer Rubin - 07.05.2009 - 8:31 AM

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement.

The line below from the Rubin piece should feature prominently with any US position on arms negotiations.

And really, what excuse is there for Obama’s ludicrous worldview? Unlike student Obama, President Obama knows how the Cold War ended. And it wasn’t by disarming America.

The impotent ‘international community’ has done nothing to stop rogue states from pursuing an arms race in a time ideally suited for such a collective effort. That alone should raise suspicion about the intentions of those courting the US on disarmament. Other recent reports are offered below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia Still Opposes US Plan for Missile Shield in Eastern Europe

Russia Wants Deeper Cuts in Numbers of Nuclear Warheads

Next Round of US-Russian Arms Talks Set for June 23

Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms

Russia, US Begin Talks Over New Arms Control Pact

Russia, US Work on New Missile Pact

Are U.S.-Russian Relations Warming?

Clinton, Russian FM Agree to Improve US-Russian Relations

Resurgent Russia Poses Challenge for Obama Administration