Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

Although this post does not offer an exhaustive list of funding provided for earthquake relief purposes to Haiti the reports featured raise questions. But that does not address a broader question on why each ‘natural disaster’ or other catastrophic event is treated the way they are. If ET were to visit the planet Earth the impression for the extra=terrestrial might be that this is the first time humans have encountered such an event.

The shock and awe reaction in the main stream media suggests we have never witnessed such an event. The wailing and gnashing of teeth expressed by those affected and interviewed by the same MSM demonstrate a universal theme. There is the expectation that someone else is responsible to return ‘victims’ to their pre-disaster condition.

No, this is not a heartless rant targeting millions affected by the earthquake in Haiti. It is an observation presented during a crisis to offer suggestions for future events. It seems little if anything is done to effectively prepare for such contingencies by those most likely to be affected. Certainly those who are least prepared to face life in general are not in a position to prepare themselves properly for extreme conditions like a quake. But that is the whole point.

Just as issues like education avoid the responsibility of the family component e.g., good parenting, and the so-called global economic crisis sidesteps greed on every level, preparation for natural disasters receives little attention between events or focus on simple preventative measures addressing those most likely to be harmed.

Most ongoing ‘humanitarian’ efforts elicit funds based on emotional appeals for money to address problems after the fact. Outside of legitimate organizations raising funds to accomplish goals like teaching the have=nots to fish in order to feed themselves rather than give them food to solve an immediate need, most ‘humanitarian’ appeals are a scam.

Here are some reports regarding the current difficulties in Haiti that illuminate the world’s curious reponse to such events.

UN Appeals for $550 Million for Haitian Quake Victims

If millions are affected it is not surprising the UN would request $550 million. If there are 3 million ‘victims’ that is less than $200 per person. But while the request receives much attention during the disaster little valid disclosure will follow documenting where the money went.

Obama Pledges Sustained Commitment To Haiti

Okay, so the UN asks for $550 million and the US offers $100 million. That’s nearly 20% of what the UN asked for and a decent percentage for the US to offer. It seems large compared to what reports show for other countries thus far.

China Sends Aid to Quake-Stricken Haiti

Purely based on the report, China claims they will do what’s necessary to help but the only specific monetary amount is $1 million from the Chinese Red Cross.

Sarkozy Calls For International Donors Conference to Help Haiti

Go figure, France calls for a conference to solve the problem.

France Calls for Cancellation of Haiti’s Debt

Okay, correction, France calls for a conference and cancelling Haiti’s debt. So what does that cost France?

Haiti Aid Pouring in Through Text Message Campaign

Some reporting has warned the public about fraudulent websites accepting donations for earthquake ‘victims’ in Haiti. The bottom ilne warns there are genuine relief sites and frauds. Let the donor beware. The point is the public may represent the only honest source of aid for this event. Are the other sources bogus and do they feed on these events to perpetrate fraud?

And of course to repeat the broader point of this post, why does there seem to be no effort to prepare humans on this planet to be prepared to handle disaster in an effective manner?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

How long can they keep this up? No, not Iran’s so-called ’supreme leader’, the revolutionary guard or that little Hitler named Ahmadinejad but the opposition. At a time when the UN and more importantly, member nations, have done essentially nothing about Iran’s nuclear program(s) people who actually have the stones are taking their case to the streets at great risk. Many have suggest the US and other countries should rise in support of the protests. It it is true that Ahmadinejad and the ruling thugs of Iran stole the election earlier this year there are plenty of legitimate actions other nations could take on behalf of those seeking justice in Iran.

In the VOA piece below another account in this year’s Islamic saga describes the latest threat of Iran’s ruling crew toward protesters. After that an excerpt from an LAT’s report that is not included in the one from VOA. It is another example of concerns that the present community organizer-in-chief in the US may be placing his influence within this well-known news gathering organization.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Issues Stern Warning to Protesters

Iran’s supreme leader has accused the pro-reform opposition of trying to undermine the Islamic system and insulting the Islamic Republic’s founder.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday the opposition’s relentless protests were disrespectful. State television had broadcast footage of what it said were opposition supporters destroying photos of both Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, during massive anti-government protests on December 7.

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard called Sunday for punishment of the demonstrators who tore up or burned photos of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The guard is the country’s most powerful military force.

On Saturday, hard-line Iranian clerics rallied in cities across the country to denounce pro-reform students who staged the violent anti-government rallies.

In the holy city of Qom, cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami accused the opposition of trying to destroy Iran’s Islamic system of government.

Government supporters at the rallies chanted “death to opponents of the supreme leader.”

Defeated presidential candidate and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was quoted on Saturday as saying his supporters would not allow any insult against the supreme leader.

Supporters of Mousavi and other reformist leaders held mass protests earlier this year after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad secured a second term in a disputed June election. The post-election demonstrations were the largest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The opposition accuses Mr. Ahmadinejad of stealing the vote.
from the LAT….

Opposition supporters, however, said the incident was staged by hardliners loyal to Ahmadinejad and aired on TV to discredit their cause.

Now that’s an interesting claim. But beyond this latest episode international action is sorely needed against Iran’s delaying tactics on the nuke problem. Another benefit Ahmadinejad acquires from being allowed to procrastinate on the issue. One could argue that makes the UN and member countries complicit in Iran’s threat to the planet.

BTW, peace on Earth good will toward all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Some in the ’science’ community are honest and some created Climategate.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists’ willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer “consensus” and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

Some ‘deny’ Climategate while others have known about the fraud for a long time.

“My presentation will be the unique one,” said Inhofe, a climate change skeptic who is investigating allegations that some scientists manipulated data to provide proof of global warming. “They’re not even close on votes in the United States Senate.”

“They’re cooking the science,” Inhofe said. “The same things that came out on these e-mails is what I said four years ago.”

You need a flawless scheme and ‘perps’ who can carry it out in order to commit the perfect crime.

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

As with all investigations the best strategy is to follow the money.

As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.

Al Gore’s scam is not especially creative. His strategy is well known in the life insurance market. An old technique is to create fear in the mind of your prospect that their spouse and other dependents will be left penniless if they expire prematurely. The claim is the life insurance they buy will protect them from that fate. While the salesman may actually believe he is helping you he knows his income depends on a successful outcome to the presentation. Then there are the scam artists whose only interest is getting rich off your fear, real or imagined.

The faster someone wants you to act on their suggestion the more likely it is a scam.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Soros scheming at Copenhagen: Eco-redistribution of wealth (Michelle Malkin) 

GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland’s ban on new minarets “clearly discriminatory” and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country’s image.

Maybe the United Nations or those specific members expressing displeasure over the minaret ban should review a larger list of ‘clearly discriminatory’ actions and deeply divisive agendas present in the world today.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

For those who are content to define opposition to special interest agendas as xenophobic or some other phobia consider this. Special interests pursuing political influence in order to provide special status to their agenda is a dangerous trend. The PR camouflage of an issue of equality is a sham. It echoes a familiar reaction to similar exercises in the past. All men are created equal, some more equal than others.

In the United States, for example, one can observe a plethora of organized efforts to promote agendas based on social, cultural, ethnic, racial or other special interests. The one interest that seems grossly underserved is that of being an American. As if that was somehow an unworthy goal. Perhaps if people would spend more time understanding what it is to be a citizen of their respective country of origin there would be less trouble in the world.

The statement above regarding improving integration and fighting extremism is on point. Imagine that. The Swiss referendum is at odds with the UN.

“A blanket prohibition of minarets is not consistent with OSCE commitments on freedom of religion or belief and the principle of non-discrimination based on religion,” Lenarcic said in Athens, where he will participate in the OSCE Ministerial Council, to be held tomorrow and Wednesday.

The referendum, launched by the Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, was backed by 57.5 per cent of voters and a majority of cantons.

The UN OSCE claims the Swiss are ‘not consistent with OSCE commitments’. But 57.5% of the Swiss voted to ban minaret construction. When will the UN learn? Contrary to the UN, the Swiss ban is supported on this blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The hacked emails and other docs that were published on the internet from a ‘leading’ global warming proponent source has raised some discussion. There is the expected shock and dismay that anyone would do such a thing. And there is some commentary on the real point of all this. As an interesting side note, of the 100 entries on the first page of a Google search, about five mainstream news sources cover the story. The NYT, WaPo, LAT, AP and the WSJ are there. But the vast majority of hits comes from lesser known sources. But then who cares what the MSM has to say about it?

The source of the hacked docs had this to say. “The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said. A completely laughable response from a source who has engaged in dissemination of fake science and other unscrupulous tactics to promote an agenda that to date was suspected but largely hidden. BTW, these were ‘good’ hackers regardless of their intentions as they have exposed a sinister plot.

So what kind of material is in the hacked docs. The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with. Imagine that, the United Nations is involved. There efforts and those of others involved in this sham have conspired to present only what supports their agenda. So who will now step forward to attempt a whitewash of this latest revelation in fake science?

It will come from people like this. …the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday. Opposing viewpoints in a discussion of science will be kept out somehow. That’s reassuring. So much for the validity of any information from the AGW crowd.

The people that will speak out for truth in science are more closely exemplified by this example. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

That would be putting it mildly. If there was any question about the honesty of those supporting AGW on this blog before it is certainly gone now. AGW has been exposed for what it is…. fake science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As a post-script, the MSM was mentioned as well as a comment of who cares. Of the five listed specifically, this blog views the WSJ as credible and at one time held that view of WaPo. The others listed rarely get it right.

ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal 

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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