Empire State Goes Red for Communist China, Sparking Protest | read this item
Many are seeing red over the decision to turn New York City’s highest beacon –and one of America’s symbols for free enterprise — into a shining monument honoring communist China’s revolution Wednesday night.
Honduras' Micheletti backs off Brazil deadline | read this item
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – De facto Honduran leader Roberto Micheletti on Wednesday backed away from a deadline set for Brazil to decide on the fate of ousted leader Manuel Zelaya, who has been holed up at the Brazilian embassy for more than a week after sneaking back from exile.
Please enjoy these submissions and if you like a particular diary, be sure to let the diarist know by leaving a comment. And don’t forget to promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.
Indonesia Shaken by Another Powerful Earthquake | read this item
The 6.9 magnitude struck at 08:52 a.m. local time Thursday on Sumatra island, about 180 miles from the epicenter of a more powerful quake on Wednesday.
Can Sanctions Cripple Iran? -- By: Clifford D. May | read this item
In 1981, Israeli leaders sent bombers to destroy Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak. Rafael Eitan, then Israel’s army chief of staff, is said to have explained the motivation succinctly: “The alternative is our destruction.”
Three decades later, the militant jihadist regime in Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. It is also, not just coincidently, supporting terrorists groups abroad, facilitating the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, vowing to wipe Israel off the map, and promising, in the longer term, “a world without America.”
It’s a plan — one that we will find a way to stop if we have learned anything from history. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have said it would be unacceptable for Iran’s current rulers to have their fingers on nuclear triggers. The reality, however, is that the Bush administration took no serious steps to prevent Tehran from making progress toward that goal, and it remains to be seen whether the Obama administration will bring change on this critical issue of national and international security.
Israel’s attack on Saddam’s nuclear facilities resulted in a chorus of international condemnation. Over time, however, minds changed. “What the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981#…#in retrospect, was a really good thing,” Pres. Bill Clinton later said, articulating what has become the consensus view on both the moderate Left and the moderate Right.
Still, does history need be repeated? Must it come down to the United States and the “international community” doing nothing, and Israelis deciding whether to use military force against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities — which have been dispersed and hardened in a way Saddam’s were not?
There is one other possibility, one non-military tool that has not been utilized: serious economic sanctions, or as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has phrased it: “crippling sanctions.” If sanctions were to cause Iran’s rulers to worry whether their drive for nuclear weapons is weakening — rather than strengthening — their hold on power, they could lead to a breakthrough. Or, if the discomfort caused by the sanctions were to prompt Iranians to rise up even more strongly against their oppressors, that also might bring a positive result — for Iranians and for the rest of the world.
What would serious sanctions look like? To begin, the U.S., perhaps with the assistance of some European allies — French president Nicolas Sarkozy, German chancellor Angela Merkel, and British prime minister Gordon Brown have all indicated support — would cut off shipments of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.
Only a few companies, mostly European, now supply these products, which Iran desperately needs because, though a major oil producer, it has constructed few oil refineries. Shipping companies, banks, and insurance companies that underwrite the trade also could be discouraged from continuing to participate in this business. Legislation to achieve such results, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, has strong bipartisan support — three-quarters of both the Senate and the House.
James Woolsey, CIA director under President Clinton, has suggested that the White House and Congress, in addition, should make clear that from now on “any company that does any kind of business with an Iranian entity — not just the Revolutionary Guards, not just oil-and-gas companies, but any entity — can do no business with the United States government.”
Time is of the essence: Iran’s rulers already are conspiring with anti-American autocrats — in Russia, China, Venezuela, and Turkmenistan, for example — to find ways to break such an embargo, should it be imposed.
There are those advising President Obama that such pressure can only serve to antagonize Iran’s rulers — who, they insist, have legitimate grievances against us but really only crave respect and are eager for dialogue, compromise, and cooperation. It requires forbearance — given repeated Iranian nuclear cheating; the fraudulent elections and the brutal oppression of protestors; the empowerment of Hezbollah in Lebanon; the use of Iranian weapons and perhaps operatives to kill Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and, before that, in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia; and the Holocaust denial and genocidal threats — not to regard these advisers as terminally naïve.
Others argue that nothing short of military force can be effective, that Iran’s rulers will withstand economic pressure, no matter how crippling, in order to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction they can use to intimidate — or incinerate — those they see as enemies of God. They believe it is too late for sanctions to work.
But why not test that theory — and quickly, given that Iran is now sprinting toward the finish line? If sanctions prove ineffective, at least we will know for certain that only two options remain. The first is bad: the use of force by the U.S. or, more likely, by Israel. The second is worse: watching passively for the second time in less than a hundred years as fanatical and ruthless tyrants acquire the capabilities to match their clearly stated intentions.
Three Dangerous Stooges -- By: Victor Davis Hanson | read this item
Last week, three dictators — from Iran, Libya, and Venezuela — delivered lunatic hate-speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Why do these anti-Semitic dictators feel so free to damn America from downtown New York? Why do their abettors spurn our requests for help? And why do creepy regimes plot to get nukes, and fund terrorists?
Easy. They do not fear, much less listen to, an indebted and energy-hungry America that either needs their cash or oil — or both.
Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi raved for 90 minutes. He railed about everything from the Kennedy assassination to his own jet lag. He trashed the United States and the Jews. Even Qaddafi’s translator collapsed from exhaustion trying to keep up with the stream-of-consciousness insanity.
Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered his usual madness. Once again, he libeled the Jews. He denied his country’s breakneck efforts at getting the bomb. And he blamed the United States for his own self-inflicted problems.
Shortly afterward, Tehran disclosed it’s been secretly building a second nuclear-enrichment facility.
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez may have delivered the strangest monologue. He mostly idolized left-wing filmmaker Oliver Stone for making a fawning documentary about revolutionary Venezuela. But somehow Chávez also brought up the Kennedy assassination. And, yes, he also faulted America for his own problems.
Chávez has cut off all relations with Israel. Jews have been increasingly attacked in Venezuela, and reports have spread that Chávez is reaching out to Iran for a nuclear program.
Listening to all this insanity, it’s clear that the problems these dictators pose (and the attitudes they represent) go beyond whether our president is Texan George Bush or post-national Barack Obama. And they cannot be solved alone by loud or soft presidential rhetoric, but only by changing both our behavior and theirs.
Take away oil and the money it garners — Iran, Libya, and Venezuela are all large petroleum exporters — and these strongmen would never receive high-profile television venues at the U.N. Oil props up all three economies, which have largely been wrecked by their own incompetence.
Libyan oil, it seems, helped persuade the British to release the mass-murdering Libyan Lockerbie bomber. Iranian oil money fuels Hezbollah, destabilizing Lebanon. Venezuelan oil money goes to narcoterrorists in Columbia. Oil wealth helps these regimes put down democratic reformers, hunt down dissidents abroad, or shut down the media.
All three freely express hatred of Jews, reminding us that there is no longer a downside to flashy anti-Semitism. It used to be right-wing scourges with whom we associated the hatred of a Hitler or the Klan. Today, leftist, oil-rich thugs voice slander against tiny Israel to show their revolutionary credentials, even as they find scapegoats for their own colossal failures.
Ahmadinejad, Chávez, and Qaddafi are not just regional buffoons, but international dangers. Iran will probably get a few bombs soon. Qaddafi was scheming to obtain one until the Iraq War — and has the money and the anger to try again. Chávez brags he has bought “little rockets” from Russia and now wants his own nuclear program.
America had better pay attention. The president is to be congratulated for pressing for more alternative energy and conservation to curb our imports and bring down the global price of oil. But until we reach a new age of non-carbon fuels, we must far better exploit the oil and coal we have. Recent large finds in Alaska, California, North Dakota, and off the Gulf Coast remind us that America has plenty of oil left. Its rapid development would lower our import bill, reduce global prices, and take some profits out of these repugnant three regimes.
Our enemies have cash; we don’t. The United States is running a projected $2 trillion annual deficit, while adding to an existing $11 trillion national debt.
That makes it hard to, say, ask rich, cocky Russia for help with Iran. Vladimir Putin’s regime is now the world’s largest oil exporter, flush with money and waiting to regain even more of its former influence when the next energy crisis hits.
China is our largest foreign creditor, financing our growing budget shortfalls at low interest. Both Russia and China understand that most of the world’s renegade regimes hate us more than they do them, and that America is divided at home, broke, and hungry for oil.
Bottom line: The United States — even with the world’s largest military — is having a hard time pleading for Russian help, lecturing China to act responsibly, boycotting Iran, or isolating Qaddafi or Chávez.
It wouldn’t if we produced our own energy and got our financial house in order.
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 9/30/09 | read this item
On this, the final day of September, some campaign news to consider as Alan Grayson continues whacking the GOP:
VA-Gov: Rasmussen Splits The Difference on the Governors Race After SurveyUSA and PPP did their level best to completely baffle voters yesterday as to the state of the Virginia Governor’s race (either a close race, or a blowout!), Rasmussen solves matters by…practically landing at the midpoint. Rasmussen gives Republican Bob McDonnell a nine-point edge (51-42) over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Yesterday’s polls had the race at either 5 or 14 points.
NJ-Gov: Christie Starts To Fade As This Race Starts to Tighten Democratic incumbent Governor Jon Corzine may not ever approach the 50% mark in his re-election bid for Governor. But, if this new poll from Quinnipiac is to be believed, he might not need to. Even though Corzine’s numbers remain flat, Republican Chris Christie is seeing his numbers drop, and as a result, Christie’s long-held lead is starting to dissipate. The current margin, according to the Q Poll, is just four points (43-39-12). What’s more, there are far more undecided Democrats at this point than undecided Republicans.
PA-Gov: GOP’s Corbett Rides High Name Rec To Early 2010 Lead Some very early numbers on the Pennsylvania gubernatorial election also arrive today, courtesy of Quinnipiac. Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett is the only candidate at or over 50% in name recognition, and that seems to have propelled him to a sizeable early lead. Corbett leads Democratic state Auditor Jack Wagner by fifteen points (44-29) and Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato by nineteen points (47-28). The Democratic field is a mishmash of little known candidates, with Onorato leading the primary field with just 14% of the vote.
VT-Gov: Leading GOP Candidate To Show His Cards Tomorrow The man who is arguably the best bet for the Republicans to hang onto their governorship in Vermont will announce his attentions on Thursday. Brian Dubie, who has served as GOP Governor Jim Douglas’ lieutenant throughout the decade, seems likely to make a go of it. There are a raft of well-known Democrats eyeing the race, including Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, and 2002 gubernatorial nominee Doug Racine.
PA-04: Altmire Could Be Drawing A Second GOP Candidate A day after Republican lawyer and former DHS official Keith Rothfus made his intentions to challenge Democrat Jason Altmire known, it now looks like he may have company in the GOP field. Mike Turzai, a state legislator who was being romanced by Republicans to make the bid against Altmire, is far from ruling it out. He has not definitively ruled it in, either, preferring to wait until his legislative session ends to make definitive decisions. Altmire represents a swing district, but won in that district with a reasonably comfortable 56% of the vote in 2008.
NH-02: Charlie Bass Contemplating Political Comeback With the man who ended his Congressional career off and running for the Senate, longtime GOP Congressman Charlie Bass may well be prepping for a political second act. Charlie Bass, who represented the district between 1995-2007, is filing with the FEC. He will immediately become the betting favorite in the GOP field. On the Democratic side, the field is still very much shaking itself out, although attorney Ann McLane Kuster is in the early fundraising lead.
RACE FOR CONGRESS: Important Date In the Money Chase The Wrap-Up closes tonight with a gentle reminder–today is the deadline for campaigns to amass their FEC fundraising reports for the third quarter of the year. Like it or not, these reports are a critical barometer of the status of campaigns that donors, campaigns, and political parties alike use to gauge the strength of a campaign. Therefore, if there is a candidate that catches your eye, and you have the means, tonight would be an excellent time to drop some coin in their direction.
