Eye On U.S.A

[Rasputin]

يک روزنامه انگليسی نوشت : ايران و سوريه دارای قدرت ويژه ای در منطقه خاورميانه هستند و می توانند نقش مهمی را در برقراری ثبات در عراق ايفا کنند، اما هيچ گروه و کشوری همانند خود عراقی ها نمی تواند آرامش را به اين کشور بازگرداند.
به گزارش خبرگزای مهر، روزنامه گاردين در شماره امروز خود به تشريح وضعيت خاورميانه به ويژه عراق پرداخته و تنها راه برون رفت عراق از وضعيت فعلی را تعامل گروهای مختلف در عراق با يکديگر عنوان کرده است.

اين روزنامه نوشت : وضعيت خاورميانه هيچگاه تا اين حد بغرنج نبوده ؛ مسائلی مانند ترور مقامهای لبناني، ناآرامی در نوار غزه، برنامه هسته ای ايران و موج جديد حملات تروريستی در عراق، وضعيت اين نقطه از جهان را تا حد غير قابل تصوری نگران کننده کرده است.

گاردين درادامه افزود : افزايش ناآرامی ها درعراق و ناتوانی آمريکا درحل بحران اين کشور، موقعيت سران کاخ سفيد را متزلزل کرده است؛ به گونه ای که حاميان ديروزبوش به منتقدان اصلی وی در روزهای اخير تبديل شده اند. ازسوی ديگر تقاضای کمک آمريکا از ايران و سوريه برای حل بحران عراق، حکايت از شکست برنامه ای آمريکا در عراق دارد.

روزنامه گاردين درادامه اين تحليل خود آورده است : ايران وسوريه برحسب منافع خود درعراق با آمريکا وارد مذاکره می شوند و اين وضعيت برقراری آرامش در عراق را با مشکل روبرو می کند، زيرا منافع آمريکا در عراق با منافع ايران و سوريه در تضاد است.

اين روزنامه بدون اشاره به موضع روشن و شفاف ايران در قبال عراق که از تشکيل دولت مردمی و منتخب با حضور نمايندگان طيف ها و گروههای مختلف حمايت کرده است ؛ مدعی شد : " ايران خواهان تشکيل يک دولت شيعی در عراق است ،اما آمريکا با تشکيل دولت شيعی در عراق مخالف است، زيرا تشکيل اين دولت آمريکا را با چالش جديدی در منطقه خاورميانه روبرو می کند ، زيرا برخی ازکارشناسان سياسی خاورميانه معتقدند ايران درتلاش است يک هلال شيعی در منطقه ايجاد کند و تلاش اين کشور برای استقرار حکومت شيعی در عراق در راستای دستيابی به اين هدف انجام می شود."

به نوشته گاردين، بر همين اساس افزايش تنش ها ميان گروهای شيعه و سنی در عراق در روزهای اخير و تهديد دولت عراق از سوی اين گروها مبنی بر قطع همکاری با آمريکا ، دولت عراق را با مشکل جديدی روبروکرده است.

ياد آور می شود در روزهای اخير دولت عراق در تلاش بود تا با برگزاری نشستی با حضور تمام گروهای شورشی ،عراق را از وضعيت فعلی خارج کند، اما انجام عمليات های روزهای اخير در شهرک صدر، ناآرامی های عراق را وارد مرحله جديدی کرده است.

به گزارش مهر، گاردين درادامه تحليل خود ادعا کرده است : " برهمين اساس، کارشناسان آمريکايی معتقدند دعوت ايران ازعراق و سوريه برای برگزاری نشست سه جانبه در تهران بيشتر يک حربه سياسی از سوی تهران برای به دست آوردن موقعيت جديد در عراق است و برقراری آرامش در عراق بهانه ای برای برگزاری نشست در تهران است."

اين روزنامه درباره سوريه نيز نوشته است : "از سوی ديگر سوريه نيز خواهان خروج نيروهای خارجی از عراق و استقرار يک دولت اسلامی مرکزی در اين کشور است، اما ترور رفيق حريری و وزير صنايع لبنان و نسبت دادن اين ترورها از سوی برخی گروه ها به دولت سوري،ه وضعيت اين کشور را بغرنج کرده و کارشناسان سياسی معتقدند بهتر است سوريه به فکر راهکارهای جديدی برای ادامه بازی در عراق باشد."

گاردين در پايان تحليل خود آورده است :" اما درگيری های شيعيان و سنی ها از يک سو و تلاش کردهای عراقی برای به دست آوردن استقلال کامل ، اوضاع داخلی عراق را بسيار نا آرام کرده و در صورتی که گروهای مختلف مذهبی عراق با يکديگر به توافق نرسند؛ هيچ کشورديگری نمی تواند آرامش را در عراق برقرار کند و به بيان ديگر فقط خود عراقی ها می توانند به ناآرامی های کشورشان پايان دهند."

[Rasputin]

The scene is the Hyatt Regency in Scottsdale, Arizona, one of the most classy and upscale hotels in Scottsdale where adults and romantic couples dress up to go there on weekend nights. On Friday and Saturday nights after 9:00 p.m, a fantastic band (called Mosaico) plays Flamenco music accompanied by very professional Flamenco dancers. This is definitely a sophisticated place for people who are well dressed and over 21. The drinks are expensive, but the atmosphere, the music and the lighting system makes it worthwhile.

But suddenly, this group of Iranian families show up, comprising 4 couples, each having 3 or 4 kids aged between 4 to 7 -- all dressed in expensive kids outfits. First of all, these ten kids start running around inside and outside the bar, screaming and chasing each other. The Iranian parents are busy ordering drinks at the bar (not any Vodka, but Grey Goose, and bottles of French Champaign) -- totally oblivious to their kids' behavior. The Iranian guys are wearing shorts and sneakers (albeit the expensive brands), while everyone else in the bar is wearing evening attire and shoes.

Next, while the Flamenco dancers are dancing with the dynamic lighting and music, some of those spoilt Iranian kids decide to get near the dancers and start imitating and dancing/interfering with the Flamenco dancers. While everyone is horrified by the scene of these kids, the Iranian mothers rush to the scene, and rather than taking their kids out of there, they knee down with their digital cameras and joyously start taking pictures of their kids dancing. Then those f**king mothers start clapping and smiling anxiously with the music, encouraging the kids (in Farsi) to continue, as if they were proud of their litters' performance.

Meanwhile the fathers (or the mother-f**kers) are standing far away at the bar, sipping their drinks with big smiles, and their heads moving with the rhythm of the music, enjoying the scene at the dance floor filled with their litters, and their idiotic wives, admiring their rotten kids.

I felt like getting up and telling these A-holes that this is not the Chuckee-Cheese restaurant. It is past 10:00 p.m. and your darling kids should be in bed -- not here, where people came to have an adult time, rather than being in a f**king kindergarten.

My lady stopped me from confronting these nouveau-riche Iranian hillbillies. She tried to cool me down, reminding me that these Persian people's education level shows that they made their money in some second-hand car dealership or some foreclosure real estate business, thus are probably a bunch of thugs and obaash underneath the lavish spending and expensive outfits. She said if I confront them, they'll probably beat the hell out of me as we walk to the parking lot to leave.

I said, "what if I give them $40 to get a baby-sitter next time?".

"Oh, no", she replied, "flashing money the way they are doing, they'll probably offer you $400 to get the f**K out of here, not interfering with their enjoyment -- their way".

So, I decided to go to the Hyatt Hotel manager and complain. After checking the situation, he said the 4 couples were hotel guests, having flown from some cold destination and were enjoying the nice warm temperature of an outdoor bar in Arizona while it was snowing back at their home state.

Anyway, by that time, it was already 11:00 p.m. and the Flamenco dancers had finished their performance.

As I walked back to my table, I started thinking: Are these Iranian hillbillies even educate-able. With their egomania, they probably think they already know it all. After all, they have reached a point in the US (within a relatively short few years) where they have amassed enough money that affords them to multiply like rabbits and to spend their money lavishly traveling with their friends and kids across the US and stay in a 4-star hotel.

Nobody can teach these guys anything. They behave as if they know it all, and are above any criticism, simply because they feel they can buy the whole place and throw you out at will. I bet none of them would even read Iranian.com, let alone this article that may ring a bell... ding ding ding. Yes dear, we are talking about YOU.

[Khorsheed]

Learning to live with the ayatollahs

HOW IN THE WORLD did George W. Bush manage to turn Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader" of "Axis of Evil" Iran, into a prophet of peace in the Middle East?

That is the disturbing question that must be asked after Iraq's president journeyed this week to plead for support from what was previously described by the White House as one of the world's most menacing rogue regimes.

The White House is desperately twisting itself into knots to find a way out of an Iraq debacle sure to top the political agenda in the '08 presidential election. Having idiotically dug ourselves a terribly deep hole in Iraq -- remember when protesters against the war were mocked for using the word "quagmire"? -- Bush is now forced to beg Syria and Iran to throw us a rope.

As the Bush-appointed and James Baker-led Iraq Study Group has telegraphed, the cooperation of these two pariah states is essential to an effective exit strategy. In reality, this is not so much a change in policy as it is an acknowledgement of a truth-on-the-ground that has been clear since the invasion 44 months ago: Our sworn enemies were the biggest beneficiaries of our overthrow of Iraq's secular dictatorship.

We should call this the Boomerang War. Bush threw it, but it keeps coming back and hitting us all on the head.

A defanged secular dictatorship has been replaced with the anarchy of a deadly civil war between competing bands of religious fanatics. The most likely model now is Iranian-style theocracy as the majority Shiite population has turned to political parties and armed militias groomed, trained and nurtured by the fundamentalist ayatollahs across the Iranian border.

And don't expect Tehran's theocrats to be magnanimous in victory. The key message from Ayatollah Khamenei on Tuesday was, as the BBC headline put it, "U.S. troops must leave Iraq if security is to be restored." This is not idle chit-chat when it comes from a man who possesses perhaps the most influence with the violent Shiite militias that now form both the backbone of Baghdad's "democratic" government and one side of what NBC and other major media outlets are finally willing to call a civil war.

So it is that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was so desperate in his pleas to the ayatollah, admitting that, "We are in dire need of Iran's help in establishing security and stability in Iraq."

Of course he is, because six years of Bush's foreign policy has had the presumably unintended consequences of elevating radicals and theocrats into positions of dominance throughout the region, from Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and even, this past week, to the oil emirate Bahrain, where Shiite and Sunni radical Islamists split elections in an upset.

"It looks like our parliament will be dominated by people who see themselves only as Sunnis or Shiites," said Fowad Shihab, a political science professor at Bahrain University. "These are the same Islamists that are gaining control across the Arab world."

Simply put, the neoconservative geniuses who believed invading Iraq would bolster both U.S. and Israeli interests in fact have accomplished the exact opposite -- handing both military and public-relations victories to their sworn enemies. Similarly, the international movement to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been struck a possible death blow as a desperate United States may be forced to accommodate Iran's nuclear ambitions, just as it did those of Pakistan.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration dares to move militarily against Iran, as it has an almost uncontrollable itch to do, we will become mired in a bloody conflict that will know no borders. Nobody knows this better than Bush's father, with his vast intelligence background, and that is precisely why he has dispatched Baker to corral the ever-impetuous Bush the Younger.

It is hoped that old hands Baker and incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates can make the best of a terrible situation, which can and likely will get much worse if we "stay the course." The key is to eschew the presumption of our own nation's virtue in every situation and instead doggedly to pursue stability through pragmatic compromise in an inherently unstable world.

After all, if Richard Nixon could make a fair peace with China's dictator-for-life Mao Tse Tung, then George W. Bush can learn to live with the ayatollahs.

[Rasputin]

Politic Subject.. Moved to Politic Section

[Rasputin]

The controversial US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, is to leave his post, the White House says.
Mr Bolton looked unable to win the necessary Senate support for him to continue in the job, which he had obtained on a temporary basis.

Critics have questioned factors including his abrasive style at the UN.

Mr Bolton's move comes after US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld resigned following the Republican defeat in last month's mid-term elections.

The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, said he saw "no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again".

The White House said President George W Bush had "reluctantly" accepted Mr Bolton's move to step down at the end of the current Congress session in January.

I am absolutely delighted. Bush signalled his complete disdain for the UN by appointing Bolton

Rory Morty


Bolton quits: Your views

Mr Bush said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful" of senators were blocking Mr Bolton's confirmation.

The departure would disrupt US diplomatic work at a sensitive time, the president said.

The news comes days before a bipartisan panel is expected to suggest the US should begin talking to Iran and Syria, an initiative Mr Bolton has opposed.

'Ideal envoy'

Mr Bolton took up the UN posting last year during a congressional holiday after his nomination stalled in the Senate.

The president appointed ambassador Bolton because he knew he would represent America's values and would take head-on problems at the United Nations

White House spokeswoman


Profile: John Bolton
Casualty of Bush weakness

It was a procedural manoeuvre that avoided the need for him to be confirmed until the end of this year.

That procedure cannot be repeated, and the new climate in Congress would make it all but impossible for him to win a two-thirds majority of senators.

A White House spokeswoman said Mr Bolton had "served his country with distinction".

His achievements included the assembling of coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity and Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing work, Mr Bush said.

Democrats said the move could prove a turning point for the administration.

Senator John Kerry said it was an opportunity for Mr Bush to nominate an ambassador "who enjoys the support necessary to unite our country and the world and who can put results ahead of ideology".

Correspondents say Mr Bolton personified Washington's view of the UN as an institution that was viewed as being wasteful and ineffective at best - and inimical to America's wider global interests at worst.

Mr Bolton's critics said a man who once declared there was "no such thing" as the UN was hardly a suitable choice to join the body.

His nomination incensed many former US ambassadors - 102 of whom signed a letter urging senators to reject his nomination.

But his admirers said he was a bright, hard-working realist - whose scepticism about the UN's role made him an ideal envoy, particularly when the organisation was in need of deep reform.

[Rasputin]

Keith Ellison hasn't even started his new job, and he's already under fire.
When America's first Muslim congressman, a Democrat from Minnesota, let it be known he will carry a Koran to his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 4, conservative pundit Dennis Prager called it "an act of hubris ... that undermines American civilization."

In a web column, the talk-show host said, "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

The column has sparked a brouhaha on talk radio, in the blogosphere, and in newspapers across the country. The congressman's office has been inundated with angry e-mails.

The US Constitution says nothing about swearing on the Bible. But some commentators insist the US is a Christian nation, and the proposed act goes against its values and tradition. To others, the uproar shows an ignorance of the Constitution and the principle of religious freedom. Some people worry that it reflects growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the country.

Constitution is clear

To legal experts, no room for confusion exists. "A congressman having to swear an oath on a scripture that he doesn't believe in was unconstitutional from the very moment the Constitution was signed," says Kevin Hasson, head of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "It would be beyond irony to violate the Constitution in the very act of requiring a congressman to swear his loyalty to uphold the Constitution."

In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible. One senator is known to have carried an expanded Bible that included the Book of Mormon.

The Constitution says: "The senators and representatives ... shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Some confusion may come from the long-standing tradition of presidents taking the oath with a hand on the Bible. But this is a choice and matter of custom, as is the phrase, "so help me God." President John Quincy Adams took the oath on a law book including the Constitution. President Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a book.

"The United States is not a Christian state or even a generically religious state," says Derek Davis, a church-state expert at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton, Texas. "We've worked hard for 200 years plus to uphold a principle of religious freedom for all citizens."

In allowing for an affirmation in place of an oath, the Constitution also makes room for atheists or agnostics.

Prager, who is Jewish, has come under fire from fellow Jews. The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement calling his argument "intolerant, misinformed, and downright un-American." Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, says the text used should be that which "is most sacred to the individual taking the oath. To ask ... otherwise is not only disrespectful to the person and to an entire religious tradition, but is asking the public official to be hypocritical."

The Council for American-Islamic Relations has called for Prager to be dropped from his recent presidential appointment to the Holocaust Memorial Council. "He is trying to marginalize Muslims by making it seem as though any practice of American Muslims is different or 'other' than what America stands for," says Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's legal counsel.

What the courts have decided

US courts have dealt with the issue in various ways. In a 1997 federal terrorism case, a Washington, D.C., judge permitted witnesses to swear to Allah. In North Carolina in 2005, a woman was not allowed to take the oath on the Koran when testifying. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued, and the case is in appeal.

At least 17 state constitutions explicitly prohibit discrimination against witnesses or jurors on religious grounds. Some allow people to swear or affirm "under the pains and penalties of perjury," omitting "so help me God." Judges generally have jurisdiction over how oaths are administered in their courts. Mr. Iftikhar says that some judges have allowed the use of the Koran.

The purpose of the court "is not to promote Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion," Dr. Davis emphasizes. "It's to elicit truth from witnesses."

Mr. Ellison's office did not provide the Monitor with a statement, but his incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, has said the issue is straightforward. "Religious freedom is a tradition in our country," she told the Associated Press.

For his part, Prager has posted a new column on the townhall.com website in response to the criticism. In a phone interview, he says he agrees that religious freedom does allow Ellison to use whatever book he likes.

"But I'm afraid we are becoming a diverse, secular society without any roots, and this is symbolically an example of that," he says. "The Bible is the repository of our values, not the Constitution ... and I'm asking him to honor that and include the Bible along with the Koran."

[Rasputin]

Officials hailed a U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Friday as the symbol of a broad shift in relations between the two countries. But the deal also highlights some of the limits of the emerging strategic partnership between India and the United States, who have sought to overcome decades of mutual mistrust.

The bill, which allows the shipment of nuclear fuel and know-how to India, now goes to the U.S. Senate and then must be signed by President Bush. U.S. and Indian officials also need to work out a separate technical nuclear cooperation agreement, expected to be finalized next year.

The nuclear deal "is a major, historic step forward for both our countries," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told reporters in New Delhi earlier in the day. It "is the symbolic center of this new strategic partnership between India and the United States."

While the new partnership could further open up a huge market for American companies and give India the energy it needs, it is far more fraught politically. India has long had close ties with countries shunned by the U.S., such as Iran and Myanmar. Washington, meanwhile, is tight with India's biggest rival, Pakistan.

"The two countries will have to sit together and find out how they can promote their respective national interests and work together to promote global peace and security," said Gen. Ashok Mehta, a retired officer and military commentator. "It's not certain they can."

Those potential differences were highlighted in recent days by India's concerns over language in the bill that would require Bush and his successors to determine if New Delhi was cooperating with American efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear ambitions.

Indian officials say they can live with the weakened, nonbinding language that made it into the final bill.

But many here are rankled by suggestions from Washington that New Delhi should support American policy, be it on Iran or China, with whom India is also seeking closer ties.

"We're a sovereign nation _ we don't need Washington to decide what is best for us," said one official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he needs to work with U.S. officials.

The bill carves out an exemption in American law to allow U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants; eight military plants would remain off-limits.

Congressional action was needed because U.S. law bars nuclear trade with countries such as India that have not submitted to full international inspections.

Critics say the cooperation plan, a deal which American officials insist will not be given to any other country, could boost India's nuclear arsenal and spark a nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

The deal "brings about the qualitative change in relations between India and Washington," said Talat Masood, a Pakistani defense analyst. It "will make Pakistan much more insecure."

Economically, the benefits for India and the U.S. could be huge.

Energy, or lack thereof, is the Achilles heel of India's fast growing economy, and officials here are looking to nuclear power as a potential solution.

But India lacks needed supplies of uranium, and the deal will pave the way for India to get access to the international nuclear fuel market, from which it has been excluded because of its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

U.S. companies are hoping to cash in on the expected boom in nuclear energy in India _ estimates for how much the Indian market could be worth range as a high as $100 billion.

[Rasputin]

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.

"It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

The statement was released at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. It is an annual gathering of Earth scientists.

Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.

Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.

"This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop," he told BBC News.

The Union said is was hopeful that the new Congress taking office in January would show a greater commitment to protecting the integrity of the scientific process.

[Rasputin]

The importance of US engagement with Iran and Syria

Why did the 10 very experienced members of the Iraq Study Group lay such great stress on the need to engage politically with Iran and Syria? First, because after studying the situation in Iraq for nine long months they understood clearly that it is both "grave" and "deteriorating."
Second, because they see the need for a large-scale drawdown of the vulnerable US troop presence in Iraq, they also recognized the close link between the need for the US to move combat troops out of there "responsibly" and the need for urgent new diplomatic efforts in Iraq and the region.

A glance at a map will show why any "responsible" drawdown of US troops from Iraq requires Iran's cooperation. Iran has the longest border with Iraq and dominates Iraq's heavily populated east. In a crisis, it could easily close the sea lanes through which most US military supplies reach Iraq. It has longstanding relations with a broad range of Iraqi political groups.

Troop drawdown a must

It's important to recognize - as the ISG also clearly did - that the US has no viable option either for any sustained increase in the US troop strength in Iraq or even for maintaining the current US deployment for very much longer. Both the sentiments of US voters and the constraining overall size of the US military prevent that.

There has to be a drawdown. The only question is this: Will it start sooner and be relatively orderly, or will it be delayed and run an increasing risk of being chaotic? And yes, the scenarios now foreseeable do include - if the delay is too long - a humiliating emergency withdrawal reminiscent of the US evacuation from Saigon in 1975 and Allied forces' flight from Dun***k in 1940.

Either way - whether the administration is able to fashion a policy that allows for a relatively speedy and orderly drawdown, or the drawdown is delayed and more like Dun***k - it will need to engage in significant coordination with Iran if it is to avoid a debacle.

Recall that when the US moved its troops into position against Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003, it benefitted considerably from the connivance of both Iran and Syria with those anti-Saddam Hussein plans. Now, as the US seeks to reverse that massive movement of men and machines, it will require cooperation from Iran and all of Iraq's other neighbors (including Syria) as it does so.

The diplomatic offensive

The first 10 of the ISG's 79 recommendations stressed the urgency of launching a "New Diplomatic Offensive" over Iraq, and sketched out its broad outlines. The group - quite rightly - gave lower priority to other aspects of policy, such as details of the US military mission or internal Iraq reforms. Getting the regional diplomacy right, they understood, is the essential precondition for any possibility of success in other domains.

Their first recommendation stated that the new diplomatic offensive should start before the end of the year. The second spelled out the key goal of having all of Iraq's neighbors recommit to the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.

Talking to Syria - and Iran

The report then called for the creation of an International Iraq Support Group, which would include Iraq, its neighbors, and other globally influential actors. It urged that under this group's aegis, the US "should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues." It also argued that the dispute over Iran's nuclear program should still be dealt with on its existing, and noticeably separate, track.

The ISG's stress on the need to reach out to Iran and Syria has met some impassioned criticism. Some people argue that it is simply wrong to talk with governments they judge to be "evil." Some argue that, being so "evil," Iran and Syria have no interest in trying to stop the deterioration in Iraq.

Some claim that even if the two states wanted to do this, there is not that much they could do anyway. Others argue that while it might be worth trying to engage with Syria, still, Iran remains so evil that it would be both wrong and quite unproductive to talk with it.

Such criticisms, however, completely miss the main point the ISG report makes, which is that to avoid a complete debacle inside Iraq, the US urgently needs to talk to Iran (and all the rest of Iraq's neighbors, too.) Is today's Tehran, with its weird and potentially dangerous president making horrendous threats against Israel and questioning the facts of the Holocaust, too completely evil to talk to? Well, consider this: Unlike today's Iran, the Soviet Union uttered dire threats against the US itself - and also had the means to make good on those threats. Even during the worst days of the cold war, however, US governments of both parties maintained constant diplomatic contact with Moscow. And thank goodness they did.

Now, if the Bush administration wants to stop the unacceptable loss of American and Iraqi lives, if it wants to avoid the very real threat of a greater military disaster in Iraq, and if it wants to give the Iraqi people any hope of regaining their country's security, then it needs to start talking urgently to Iran. There is no other way.

Today, Washington and Tehran each have urgent needs that only the other can meet. The basis for productive diplomacy exists.

[Rasputin]

جامعه علمی و تحقيقاتی آمريکا با انتشار بيانيه شديدالحني، اعتراض خود را به دخالت های سياسی دولت اين کشور در برنامه ها و تحقيقات علمی و اعمال محدوديت های بی سابقه اعلام کردند.
به گزارش خبرگزار مهر، بيش از 10 هزار دانشمند آمريکايی از جمله 52 دارنده جوايز مختلف نوبل ضمن اعتراض شديد به اين سياست جديد، اعاده استقلال علمی اين کشور در سياست های کلی واشنگتن را خواستار شدند.

بر اساس گزارش منتشر شده از سوی اتحاديه دانشمندان نگران آمريکا، از دانشمندان اين کشور خواسته شده است تا اطلاعات مربوط به برنامه های تحقيقاتی خود را با هدف انطباق آنها با ابتکارات و برنامه های سياسی آمريکا در اختيار مقامات رسمی قرار دهند.

اين بيانيه در نشست سالانه اتحاديه ژئوفيزيک آمريکا منتشر شده است که طی آن گروه کثيری از دانشمندان زمين شناسی گرد هم می آيند.

دولت آمريکا پيش از اين نيز در خصوص متهم شدن به اعمال فشار بر دانشمندان اين کشور مورد انتقاد شديد قرار گرفته است.

سال گذشته يکی از دانشمندان علوم جوی آمريکا فاش کرد که از سوی دولت اين کشور در خصوص عدم انتشار اطلاعات علمی مربوط به گرمايش زمين تحت فشار قرار گرفته است.

بر اساس گزارش بی.بی.سي، يکی از دانشمندان اتحاديه ژئوفيزيک آمريکا گفت: اين بيانيه از سوی شمارقابل توجهی از محققان و بدون در نظر گرفته ديدگاه های سياسی شان مورد توجه و حمايت قرار گرفته است.

[Rasputin]

سناتور ارشد دموكرات آمريكا كه در انتخابات رياست جمهورى اين كشور در سال 2004 با بوش رقابت كرد اعلام كرده كه دوست دارد به ايران سفر كند تا با سران ايران گفت*وگو كند.
به گزارش فارس، سناتور "جان كرى" كه اكنون به خاورميانه سفر كرده و امروز در قاهره به سر مي*برد با اعلام اين مطلب تصريح كرد* كه در سفر اخير وى به اين منطقه امكان گفت*و*گو با مقامات ايران وجود ندارد چرا كه وى براى اين كار فرصت ندارد.
كرى ادامه داد: ,من وقت ندارم و نمي*شود ترتيبات لازم را در كوتاه مدت براى اين كار انجام داد. اما من دوست دارم به تهران بروم.,
وى درباره احتمال سفر در آينده تاكيد كرد: ,در زمان مقتضى اين كار را خواهم كرد.,
كرى هم*اكنون به دولت بوش فشار مي*آورد كه در سياست*هاى خود مبنى بر ارايه پيش*شرط* براى گفت*وگوى ميان سوريه و ايران تغييراتى ايجاد كند.
كرى قرار است در اين سفر كه "كريستوفر دود" يكى ديگر از سناتورهاى دموكرات او را همراهى مي*كنند به سوريه سفر كند.
هر دوى آنها از اعضاى بانفوذ كميته روابط خارجى سناى آمريكا هستند.
كرى درباره سفرش به سوريه گفت تلاش خواهد كرد در اين سفر به سخنان سوريه گوش فراداده و موضع دولت سوريه را درباره لبنان، حزب*الله و خشونت*ها در عراق بداند.

[Rasputin]

سناتور دموكرات ايالت نيويورك در اعتراض به ايران، از اسرائيل حمايت كرد.
به گزارش ,ايلنا,، پايگاه خبرى اسرائيلى ,آروتز شيوا, گزارش داد: ,هيلارى كلينتون در نامه*اي*كه در كنفرانس سازماندهى شده از سوى كنگره يهوديان آمريكا قرائت شد، ايران را تهديدى جدى براى اسرائيل و متحدان خود خواند.,
بنابراين گزارش، در اين نامه كه ,دورى گلد, نماينده پيشين اسرائيل در سازمان*ملل*متحد را خطاب قرار داده است، آمده است: ,ايران نبايد اجازه يابد به فناورى هسته*اى دست يابد كه آن را قادر به توليد تسليحات اتمى مي*كند.,

[Rasputin]

A legislative commission recommended on Tuesday that New Jersey become the first state to abolish the death penalty since states began reinstating their capital punishment laws 35 years ago. Its report found “no compelling evidence” that capital punishment serves a legitimate purpose, and increasing evidence that it “is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”
The report, whose lone dissenter was the original author of the state’s modern death penalty statute, came a year after New Jersey joined Illinois and Maryland in imposing moratoriums on executions, and amid growing unease among politicians and the public about capital punishment.

Eight other states, including New York, have also suspended executions in recent years, most because of court decisions. Maryland had lifted its moratorium in 2003, after a year, but a court essentially reinstated it last month.

Death penalty experts said that New Jersey was the first state to receive an official recommendation that capital punishment be abandoned, and it lands in a state where legislators have a Democratic majority along with a Democratic governor who supports repeal of the statute.

The governor, Jon S. Corzine, embraced the report on Tuesday. “As someone who has long opposed the death penalty,” he said in a statement, “I look forward to working with the Legislature” to carry out the recommendations.

There is ample opposition to capital punishment in both houses of the Legislature, and Senate President Richard J. Codey said in an interview that he expected to ask for a vote, although he would not discuss a timetable.

Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, who also said he supported an end to the death penalty, issued a written statement saying that he would not consider scheduling a vote until discussing the report with other Democrats, leaving the possibility that repeal legislation could remain locked in committee.

New Jersey’s last execution was in 1963, and its death row population has shrunk to nine men. Many appeals have been extended for years by a process known as “proportionality review,” meant to assure that capital sentencing was not being arbitrarily applied, before the State Supreme Court.

The 13-member New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission, including two prosecutors, a police chief, clergy members and murder victims’ representatives, began meeting in June and heard from scores of witnesses at five public hearings before issuing the 127-page report.

“Based on our findings, the commission recommends that the death penalty in New Jersey be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, to be served in a maximum security facility,” the report said. “The commission also recommends that any cost savings resulting from the abolition of the death penalty be used for benefits and services for survivors of victims of homicide.”

If the Legislature did abolish the death penalty, it would be the first to do so since the United States Supreme Court halted all executions in 1972 — after which 38 states rewrote their laws to reinstate the practice. New Jersey restored the death penalty in 1982.

But a repeal would be in line with a nationwide retreat from executions, with the annual count declining by nearly half since 1999. A nationwide Gallup telephone poll in 2006 found Americans almost evenly divided when asked whether a death sentence or life without the possibility of parole was a preferable punishment for murder, after years of previous polls in which a majority supported the death penalty.

“We’re in a period of national reconsideration of the death penalty,” said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science and law at Amherst College in Massachusetts. “I believe what’s happening in New Jersey will have a tremendously galvanizing effect.”

Richard C. Dieter, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, attributed the sea change to the many wrongful convictions exposed by DNA evidence. “That is the wedge that has made the death penalty difficult to fix,” Mr. Dieter said. “It’s all related to the scientific revolution we’ve had in the last 10 years.”

Professor Sarat, the author of the 2001 book, “When the State Kills,” said the shift in public opinion had accelerated even in the last few months.

Two weeks ago, a botched execution in Florida underscored doubts about lethal injection and led Gov. Jeb Bush to suspend the death penalty. The same day, a federal court ruled that California’s lethal injection procedures violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

“If you’d asked me six months ago if they’d end up in this place, I’d have said no,” Professor Sarat said of the New Jersey commission. “I would have said they’d take a more careful route.”

New York, which has only one man on death row and has not carried out an execution since reinstating the death penalty, has had a moratorium since the state’s Court of Appeals found its law unconstitutional in 2004. The Legislature has not moved to revise the statute.

In New Jersey, a bill to repeal the death penalty was introduced several years ago but never brought to a vote in the judiciary committee of either chamber. But Mr. Codey, the Senate president, said on Tuesday, “I think that will be done.”

“What’s the use of having a death penalty if at the age of 18 you commit a murder and then have to live longer than Methuselah to be executed?” he asked.

Mr. Codey also pointed to the change in public opinion since the enactment of the death penalty law, as did the commission. The panel cited a 1999 Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll in which 44 percent of New Jersey residents supported the death penalty and 37 percent preferred life imprisonment without parole, and a 2002 poll that asked the same question found that 36 percent supported the death penalty and 48 percent favored life without parole.

The commission’s report, which recommended the life-without-parole alternative, drew stinging responses from several Republicans. “How can they possibly arrive at that conclusion when New Jersey has not enforced the current law even once since its enactment?” the Assembly’s minority leader, Alex DeCroce, who represents Morris and Passaic Counties, asked in a written statement.

The dissenter on the commission, John F. Russo, a former State Senate president from Ocean County and a Democrat, said the problem was not in the law but in “the liberal judges and other individuals who have consistently disregarded the legislative will and refused to enforce the law as written.”

Mr. Russo, a former prosecutor, recounted a death penalty verdict that he had fought for but left him in tears. “I realize the gravity of the issue,” he said, adding that he believed the death penalty should still be available in cases of serial killings and terrorism.

[Rasputin]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI on Tuesday released documents showing at least 26 of the agency's employees witnessed aggressive mistreatment and harsh interrogation techniques of prisoners by other government agencies or outside contractors at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"On several occasions witnesses saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor with no chair/food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves and were left there 18, 24 hours or more," according to one FBI account made public.

One FBI witness saw a detainee "shaking with cold," while another noted a detainee in a sweltering unventilated room was "almost unconscious on a floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out through the night)."

Another witness saw a detainee "with a full beard whose head was wrapped in duct tape."

One FBI statement said that an interrogator squatted over the Quran and that a German shepherd dog was ordered to "growl, bark and show his teeth to the prisoner."

Another detainee was draped in an Israeli flag.

The FBI surveyed all 493 FBI personnel who had been assigned to the military prison facility in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and determined no FBI agent or support personnel had participated in any of the controversial practices.

"This thorough internal assessment shows the FBI was not involved in these activities in any way," said chief FBI spokesman Richard Kolko.

The FBI Office of General Counsel in September 2004 ordered the "special inquiry" into any FBI participation or observations of a series of alleged incidents at the prison camp for suspected terrorists and al Qaeda sympathizers, but the results were not made public.

The FBI released the documents in response to a Freedom of Information request by the American Civil Liberties Union, but stressed that most of the findings had already been reported elsewhere.

"Note these documents have been vetted by both DoD [Department of Defense] and FBI, and that FBI believes this or substantially similar information has already been released in this litigation," the FBI said.

Results of the 26 "positive responses" and several more "not purely negative responses" reported by FBI personnel in the internal inquiry were made available Tuesday on the Web site at www.FBI.gov.

Other actions FBI personnel reported either witnessing or being told about included:


Placing a detainee in a darkened cell with the intent of interrogating him for 24 hours straight; the witness reported being told that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved this technique.


Keeping detainees awake for days on end with strobe lights and loud music.


Dressing as a priest and "baptizing" a detainee.


Subjecting a detainee to a lap dance by a topless female guard.


Interrupting detainees' attempts to pray by putting fluid on their faces and telling them it was menstrual blood.


Beating a detainee who said he had recently undergone abdominal surgery.

[Rasputin]