Equality for Women Stateside Is Elusive

While equality for women is much better stateside than worldwide, inequities persist. There is no coincidence that the best places for women are "blue" states and thw worst for women are "red" states. Unfortunately, voting women didn't vote in their best interests this time. If we can answer the question "why?", we may turn the next election.

For women, equality elusive

Life has improved for U.S. women over the past 40 years, but big inequities persist and they vary substantially by state, according to an assessment released Tuesday.

Minnesota, Vermont, Connecticut and Washington are the best states for women, concluded the Institute for Women's Policy Research, an arm of George Washington University. That is based on the group's analysis of political participation, employment and earnings, social and economic autonomy, access to sex education and family-planning resources and general health.

By those measures, the toughest states for women are Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. Florida rated a "dishonorable mention," one step above the lowest-ranked group.

Women's Rights and the HIV Pandemic

Control of the HIV pandemic may require a change in the socio-economic status of women. The pandemic's current spread into the married heterosexual population is directly related to the fact that for many poor women, sex is their only currency.

Women's Rights and the HIV Pandemic

The global battle against HIV will ultimately fail unless serious progress is made on women's rights in the developing world, the United Nations says. The pandemic is increasingly taking on a feminine face as it enters its globalization phase. and the lack of women's equality - from poverty and stunted education to rape and denial of women's inheritance and property rights - is a major obstacle to victory over the virus, according to the latest global HIV status report published Tuesday. Violence against women is a worldwide scourge, but it is feeding the HIV epidemics in the developing world, where women and girls often don't have the power to say no to sex or to insist on condom use.

For millions of other women, sex is their only currency.

The Beacon of Free Expression Is No More

The US used to provide the means to publish dissident writings from totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Iran, Cuba and until recently Iraq. Now the government wants to approve all such manuscripts before publishing.

Will voices of dissent still be heard?

In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American firms from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction unless they first get U.S. government approval.

The restriction, condemned by critics as a violation of the 1st Amendment, means that books and other works banned by some totalitarian regimes cannot be published freely in the United States, a country that prides itself as the international beacon of free expression.

"It strikes me as very odd," said Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University and former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "I think the government has an uphill struggle to justify this constitutionally."

Several groups, led by the PEN American Center and including Arcade Publishing, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in New York seeking to overturn the regulations, which cover writers in Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and, until recently, Iraq.

Heroes Seem Hard to Find These Days

I suspect I don't hear about many heroes out there because heroes don't make the news these days, only politicians and malevolent types get the worlds attention. Fortunately, the Norwegeans annually identify a number of heroes or we might forget who the real heroes are. Here is one of them. She is a strong woman, not without controversy. I must admire her hutzba for standing up to corporate world.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Calling humanity a threat to the planet, Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai urged democratic reform and an end to corporate greed after becoming the first African woman to collect the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

She said sweeping changes were needed to restore a "world of beauty and wonder" by overcoming challenges ranging from AIDS to climate instability.

Maathai founded a campaign that has planted 30 million trees across Africa in a bid to slow deforestation.

Rumsfeld Gets an Earful From Troops

Rumsfeld Gets Earful From Troops (washingtonpost.com)

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, speaking in Kuwait yesterday to troops deploying into Iraq, got an earful of complaints about poor combat equipment, personnel policies that keep soldiers in the Army beyond their terms of enlistment, and other issues that reflect the strains the war in the Middle East is placing on the U.S. military.

As often as Rummy stands up and listens to complaints about his incompetence, one would think he'd get a hint. But no, he has all the answers. And besides, as I've heard former WWII veterans say they too had to improvise their sometimes shabby equipment. That's part of war.

WWII was a very different war waged against a man who admitted a desire to dominate the world, killing 10s of millions in the process. This war was a political war, clearly optional with many other options available. Thousands dead for a political adventure based on a naive and grandiose perception of the Middle East and American power. At this point, we can only pray that America has or will soon learn its lesson.

Saudi Arabia is Being Investigated by the FBI

FBI Searches Saudi Arabia's PR Firm (washingtonpost.com)

The FBI searched offices of a prominent public relations firm Tuesday, looking for information about its client Saudi Arabia, law enforcement sources said.

Well, it seems Saudi Arabia is falling further from favor in Washington. This news makes me look again at the school of thought that the US wanted to surround Saudi Arabia when they invaded Iraq. It still seems far fetched given Bush's history of friendship with Saudi royal family. But I have to wonder.

What Does The Democratic Party Have To Do To Win?

Howard Dean made a speech the other day about his plan for the Democratic Party. He is a charismatic man of deep conviction who believes moving towards the center of the political spectrum can win Democrats the election. If the Bush Administration is any example, one has to think twice. Bush's policies are no where near centrist.

I have been one of the people advocated for the Dem's to become more centrist to tempt the moderate Republicans from the fold. That is for the most part, not where my politics reside, but it seemed the rational course.

I thought Bush's chances at winning were not good. My experience has been when push comes to shove, the American electorate corrects an imbalence. The Bush Administration was as imbalenced as they come.

But Kerry didn't stand out. Bush was propagating a war that most supported, there was no outstanding reason for people to change their vote.

Could Howard Dean win the Presidential Election? I would sure like to believe it. Maybe we'll get to find out.

Governor Dean's GWU Speech Transcript

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

The Reality of Social Security: There is No Crisis

There is no crisis in Social Security. Past and current presidents have spent huge surpluses on wars and weapons. If they had let it alone, Social Security as it was during the Reagan Administration would have been solvent for the foreseeable future... well into the 22nd Century. Now as Krugman points out below, even with the surpluses gone, Social Security can be repaired, with roughly 1/4 of the tax cuts that overwhelmingly went to the rich.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Inventing a Crisis

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Stephen Roach Speaks Out About the Housing Price Bubble

When I bought a house in 2001, I was shocked at the price I was paying. But tax deductions and the high cost of rent made buying seemingly the right thing to do. Yet in the back of my mind, I had to wonder how long the dramatic increases in housing costs would continue. It seemed to me at some point, too many people will be priced out the market, then prices will at least stagnate. If a recession kicks in or another major terrorist strike, I expected housing prices could crash. I was told by opinions I trusted that that was an unlikely outcome. Now, an investment titan, Stephen Roach steps into the fray and insists it could indeed happen.

Bubble Day

December 1, 2004 could well go down in history as yet another important milestone for AmericaÂ’s bubble-prone economy. No, I am not referring to the 162-point surge in the Dow Jones Industrial average that occurred on that day. Instead, my focus is on two widely overlooked statistical reports put out by US government statisticians -- the latest tallies on home prices and personal income. Collectively, these reports paint a worrisome picture of an asset economy that has now truly gone to excess. As was the case in early 2000 when Nasdaq was lurching toward 5000, denial is deep over the potential downside of yet another post-bubble shakeout. ThatÂ’s what worries me the most....

The key to this puzzle is to recognize that the housing bubble and the saving shortfall go hand in hand. The “asset economy” is a conceptual framework that brings these two seemingly disparate trends together. As seen through this lens, “rational” consumers take their income-based saving rates to zero only if asset-based saving provides an offset. As long as asset markets keep rising, that makes perfect sense. However, when asset markets correct, this decision can backfire. That was the case when the equity bubble popped in 2000 and could well be the case following the bursting of today’s rapidly expanding US housing bubble. That’s why the latest trends in house prices and saving are so disturbing. In my view, they underscore the distinct possibility that America’s asset economy is in the midst of yet another bubble-induced blow-off.

Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley Speaks Out About the US Economy

While Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley remains comfortable with the falling dollar, he remains highly concerned about the "reckless course" of the Bush Administration economic policy. He is particularly concerned about the falling rate of already abismal savings in the private sector in America and impending retirement of the Baby Boomers. I can't help but wonder if this isn't more of the "Starve the Beast" tactic this Administration has been using. Running up a huge debt will force spending cuts in the future. Now while "reforming" Social Security, he proposes to cut income to Social Security and redirect it to private sector, just before the huge retirement of the Baby Boomers, leaving an entire generation with no safety net. Again Bush's strategy is to wreak Social Security to force privatizing retirement. Then the rich won't have to contribute to the average Joe's Social Security fund. That should make his friends happy at the expense of the poor elderly.

Global Rebalancing at Work

The US, in my view, remains on a dangerous and reckless course -- consuming out of asset-based saving at a point in its demographic life-cycle when it should be building up income-based saving to fund the looming retirement of 77 million baby-boomers. Record lows in the personal saving rate and the current account deficit, to say nothing of record highs in household sector indebtedness, all speak of a US that is living dangerously beyond its means. Subsidized by unusually low interest rates, in large part underwritten by equally myopic foreign investors and governments, America has managed to keep the magic alive. But there�s nothing sustainable about that arrangement. If America stays this course, the endgame will not be pretty. The day will come when US interest rates rise -- driven by either domestic or foreign developments. That would undoubtedly spark a painful unwinding of the Asset Economy -- all the more conceivable now that the US housing market is firmly in bubble territory (see my 2 December dispatch, �Bubble Day�). Equally worrisome is America�s anemic job creation and the related shortfall of organic income generation. November�s disappointing employment report was hardly an aberration; it marked the 31st month in this now 36-month old recovery, when job growth failed to live up to cyclical standards of the past. So much for the timeworn consensus view that the Great American Job Machine is finally on the mend. Like it or not, the United States remains mired in the mother of all jobless recoveries -- making the perils of excess consumption all the more worrisome.

Rumsfeld/Bush Legacy Unfolds in Iraq

The New York Times > Week in Review > Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds: Mayhem in Iraq Is Starting to Look Like a Civil War

Common wisdom holds that if American troops withdraw anytime soon, Iraq will descend into civil war, as Lebanon did in the late 1970's. But that ignores a question posed by events of recent weeks: Has a civil war already begun? Iraq is no Lebanon yet. But evidence is building that it is at least in the early stages of ethnic and sectarian warfare....

The Americans have added to the alienation of the Sunnis by relying heavily on Shiite and Kurdish military recruits to put down the Sunni insurgency in some of the most volatile areas. The guerrillas, in turn, reinforce sectarian animosities when they attack police recruits or interim government officials as collaborators. Many of these recruits are Shiites or Kurds, and the loss of life reverberates through their families and communities. In recent weeks, at least one new Shiite militia has formed - not in opposition to the Americans, but to exact revenge against the Sunnis.

The inevitable is finally unfolding. How many more thousand Iraqis will die in this war? How many more thousands of sons and daughters of America die or be maimed? The purpose of this war, to change the political climate of the region to something more favorable to the US, a goal that is impossible to achieve now, is forgotten by Bush supporters. So will American troops now attempt to prevent the new Shiite militias to disband? I think not. They are too busy with the growing conflict.

Emboldened by US Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran Marches Towards the Nuclear Club

At Crucial Juncture, Iran Seeks Edge on U.S.

"Chaos in Iraq and higher oil prices have emboldened the Iranian regime, which still feels threatened by U.S. pressure but far more confident it can withstand it," Malley said in an interview in Washington. As Iranians debate how to deal with the United States, he said, the situation has strengthened ideologues who advocate "standing firm," particularly on nuclear issues.

Iran walked out of an original nuclear deal, which had to be renegotiated this fall by Britain, France and Germany. Moreover, the deal is only a preliminary agreement; a permanent arrangement remains elusive.

Internal political shifts have also changed the dynamics of the U.S.-Iran standoff. A year ago, Iran's president and the majority in parliament were reformers who wanted to end the mistrust between the two nations.

But conservatives took control of parliament this fall, after many reform candidates were barred from running in February elections. And conservatives are expected to do whatever it takes to win the presidential election next spring, Iranian analysts say.

So rather than spur political change, Iranian analysts warn that U.S. military action on suspected Iranian nuclear sites could backfire, echoing the impact of Iraq's 1980 invasion. The eight-year Iran-Iraq war reignited Iranian nationalism and allowed fundamentalist clerics to consolidate their hold on Iran just when the Islamic revolution had begun to wobble.

"If America uses military means against Iran, even if it attacks only one point, the result here will be a rise of militarism in Iran -- and the suppression of any democratic trend," said Mohsen Mirdamadi, a ringleader of the embassy seizure 25 years ago who later became a pro-democracy member of parliament. "This is a problem for reformers," he said.

Iranian officials contend that Bush's reelection, strongly backed by conservative Christian groups, also redefined the standoff.

"The problem America has with Iran is not political, not economic. It's religion, now that the new conservatives . . . are behind Bush," said Mohammed Hashemi, a U.S.-educated member of Iran's Expediency Council, a body that weighs in during deadlocks between parliament and a top clerical panel. "U.S. policy toward Iran is based on a religious war."

Repeated blunders by this Administration has imperiled our National Security more so than at any timee since the Cold War. China is threatening war with Taiwan, Russia is threatening the independance of the Ukraine, North Korea, Iran and Brazil are marching towards membership in the nuclear club, and the US is isolated from its traditional allies, and perceived as a danger to them by voters in these countries. Now Iran moves to strengthen its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soon the US may find it needs Iran's help to stabilize both countries. Then there will be two more Iranian supported theocracies in the Middle East. I see that as a disasterous setback for American interests, a new generation of terrorism this time focused on the US rather than Israel.

Russia Has Much to Lose in Ukraine

Russia has spent much of the last decade watching NATO encroach on former Soviet territory. Their legendary paranoia about defending itself from invasion and new fears about further disintegration has been tested severely. Russia had seemed to have turned the corner on on its fears. But they have now begun sending very different signals just within the last two weeks.

First, Putin grandstands with the future superpowers of the world. Then Putin began rattling sabers his new nuclear arsenal and his reactivation of multiple warhead missles on the table for destruction in the defunct START talks. His primary concerns include Star Wars technology but most importantly talk by the western Ukrainians joining NATO. Concern about a Pro-western government installed by the latest Ukrainian election has led Russia to an historic turning point. Will they allow a west leaning Ukraine on its soft southern border? The risks for Russia make the dilemma critical. Now with the Ukrainian Supreme Court voiding the election, the crisis comes to a head in a particularly embarassing way for Moscow.

Surprise in Ukraine

Ukrainians and Westerners should also avoid falling into the trap set by Mr. Putin, who -- partly in reaction to events in Ukraine -- lashed out at the United States yesterday, accusing it of seeking a "dictatorship of international affairs," with policies packaged "in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology." Mr. Putin would like to frame the contest in Ukraine as a Cold War-style struggle for influence between the West and Russia; that is how he understands the world.

The following article details the issues in starkly blunt terms. A peaceful outcome of this issue seems unlikely, unless Russia is bogged down in Chechnya and truly has no conventional warfare option.

Finding Russia's Limit

For the Russians, the outcome of the Ukrainian elections is a matter of fundamental national security. Russia can tolerate an independent Ukraine. It can tolerate a Ukraine with close economic ties to the West, but this election has posed a further possibility -- the idea of NATO expanding into Ukraine. The possibility was stated as a serious option and not rejected by the United States or Europe. Therefore, from the Russian viewpoint, the defeat of the pro-NATO opposition party was a matter of national necessity.

The United States and Europe responded exactly as the Russians feared they would. They demanded the election go to the pro-Western faction. This is not read in Moscow as simply the West's love of a fair election. Rather, it is seen by the Russians as a concerted effort to take control of Ukraine and put Russia in an untenable position.

Creating Another Mission for America: Stoking the Fire in Sudan

This is a shocking article about events in America over the past decade that led to an increased interest in Sudan, multiple visits from US officials. It seems likely American attention exasserbated the conflict, producing a backlash among fundamentalist Islamists and more death and destruction. Right-wing Christians sent "missionary" zealots in politician's clothing to stoke the fires of righteousness.

ONE HELLHOLE UNDER GOD Why the Republican Party suddenly cares about Sudan?or at least pretends to.

America's reasons for getting involved are complicated, and there are so many highly charged factors?slavery, religious persecution, fundamentalism (both Christian and Muslim), dictatorship, murder, ethnic strife, rape and famine?that it's difficult to see through the tangle of complications. This has led to a drastically simplified view of what is actually happening.

The first oversimplification, dating back to Bill Clinton's presidency, is that Sudan means slavery. Though not the only serious human rights offender in the world, Sudan?not Brazil, not Egypt?caught the attention of human-trafficking activists. They, in turn, passed the fever on to congregations in African-American churches. From the churches, the issue spread into wider black political circles.

"My ancestors were slaves. African-Americans can relate to slavery more intimately, politically, socially and spiritually, than they can anything else," said talk-radio host Joe Madison in 2001. It is this connection that first made Sudan an American political issue.

During the Clinton years, the political path led to the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, Rev. Al Sharpton and what you could loosely call a liberal idea. But the antislavery idea was not quite enough to reach mainstream white churchgoers, key members of the Bush II voter base. Hence, oversimplification number two: The war in Sudan was essentially about the persecution of Christians by Muslims.

This "de-blacked" message made white evangelicals and Republican politicians comfortable, so on March 22, 2001, Republican Dick Armey, at that time House Majority Leader and ally of the evangelicals, said of Sudan: "It is the only place in the world in which religious genocide is taking place. People are being tortured, mutilated and killed solely because of their Christian faith."

The religion-driven interest in Africa led directly to the bizarre spectacle in Kampala last year, when mystified Ugandans listened to George W. tell them that God sent him there. In fact, he wasn't talking to them at all, but to Christian voters back home. Church groups, in this case white church groups, had also begun organizing around the issue of an abstinence-based AIDS policy in Africa. Without this link to his fundamentalist base, Bush would be unlikely to ever mention the continent.

But like slavery, the persecution of Christians is a side issue in Sudan, where some estimates put Christians as outnumbered two- or three-to-one by those with traditional beliefs in spirits and magic, and many of the people now counted as Christians are recent converts, the targets of European and American missionary campaigns (and in many cases still believers in traditional spirituality). Even by evangelical standards, there are some weird versions of Christianity on offer. The notoriously brutal Lord's Resistance Army, for instance, a Ugandan group also operating in southern Sudan, claims to want a society based on the Ten Commandments?and abducts children to be soldiers.

The Muslim/anti-Muslim explanation falls apart when you realise that there are also Christians in the north (including some historical communities that have been there for centuries) and some Muslims in the mainly Christian and animist south. Many American activists are attracted to the fact that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement are Christians. While this group is the main opponent of the government in the south of the country, in Darfur the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) is avowedly Muslim, and the other main opposition group, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) has a message of equality of religions under the law.

Fact is, the issue of self-determination for the south has been a contentious issue since the years before its independence in 1956, and it seems to cut straight across religious lines. Khartoum has been trying to run a centralized state, while the rebel leaders in the south of the country have wanted either to secede or achieve local power-sharing.

"The US is losing "the war of ideas" in the Islamic world" - Well, Duh!

Just how long does it take for the Defence establishment to figure out the world?

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'alienating' world's Muslims

The US is losing "the war of ideas" in the Islamic world, a Pentagon advisory panel has warned. A report by the Defence Science Board says official US talk of bringing democracy to Muslim nations is seen as "self-serving hypocrisy".The report urges Washington to change its approach urgently. In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. However, it says that improving public relations is not enough.

"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the report says. "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

What are the Real Casualty Numbers?

20,802 US Soldiers Heavily Wounded

The official number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq that was announced by the US DOD (department of defense) is 8458

in Iraq and 423 in Afghanistan.



Can anyone believe that the US military hospital at Germany (alone), the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, announced that 20,802 troops have been treated at Landstuhl from injuries received in "Operations Iraqi Freedom" (occupying Iraq) and "Enduring Freedom" (occupying Afghanistan)....

These Numbers were published by the well-known, Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community, "Stars and Stripes".

Could it be that the Bush Administration is continuing its policy of dishonesty with the American people? You bet! This president is determined to undermine the democratic process to the point that he can influence future elections while still pursuing unpopular policies under cover of lies. Will the mainstream press hold him accountable?

Doublethink Dubya Now Giving Double Talk to Putin

A Softer Tone From Bush on Ukraine Points to a Quandary for U.S.

Publicly, the United States has condemned the official victory of Viktor F. Yanukovich, the prime minister and the candidate backed by Russia, over the official loser, the Western-leaning Viktor A. Yushchenko. Last week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made an unusually tough statement warning of "serious consequences" to the American-Ukrainian relationship if the allegations of fraud were not cleared up. Privately, administration officials have been in regular contact with Russian and Ukrainian officials to push for compromise. On Monday, Mr. Powell spoke to the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, as well as to Mr. Kuchma, and reaffirmed, Mr. Powell said, "that we hope that the Ukrainians would find a legal way forward." Administration officials said the initial tough statement by Mr. Powell, who will soon be succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, was followed by the more modulated comments in Texas by Mr. Bush because, by the time the president spoke, the Ukrainians had made some moves toward compromise and Mr. Bush wanted to encourage their progress. But Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration said that the two statements reflected the perplexing situation the administration faced in managing the increasingly difficult relationship with Moscow, and that the president was putting up with too much bad behavior from Mr. Putin.

With the New Cold War back in the headlineshere and here, the Bush Administration is equivocating on what to do about Ukraine. First the wise heavy weight, outgoing Secretary of State Powell, lets Russia and Ukraine know where we stand. Then Bush makes his milk toast statement. I'd bet Rice will step up and make it clear as mud and Putin will think correctly he has Bush hand tied and Russian troops will march into Ukraine to support his buddy.

This president is totally incompetent. Given his performance, we may find ourself in a global war within four years. That oughta make the Christian Right happy, at least until Armageddon arrives with no Rapture.

Hamas Ready for Peace?

Jerusalem Post | Sheikh Yusef: Hamas ready for 'hudna'

Sheikh Hassan Yusef, head of the Hamas political bureau in Ramallah said Monday that Hamas is willing to declare a 10 year hudna, or ceasefire. In an interview with Israel Radio, the senior Hamas leader said that the Islamic movement would consider committing to a ceasefire in order to ultimately join a national unity government with the Palestinian leadership, as Hamas is interested in playing an active role in the new Palestinian government and participating in national decisions. He did not reject the possibility that Hamas would stop terror attacks against Israel during negotiations. However, a truce with Israel, Yusef said, would be dependant on an end of the Israeli occupation of the territories, release of security prisoners and "elimination of Israeli violence." When asked which borders "occupation" was referring to, he said the borders of 1967, not 1948.

Can it be that Hamas is ready for peace? What has changed? What is it that I heard Mahmoud Abbas say the other day?

Abbas had told the Palestinian parliament last Tuesday that he would follow in Arafat's footsteps and demand that Israel recognize the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. But he told Newsweek that he did not make such a demand of Israel.

"I didn't say that," the PLO leader told the magazine. "I'm not talking about anything beyond the road map. According to the road map, there should be a just and agreed-upon solution for the refugees according to [UN Resolution] 194. President Bush said there should be a two-state solution; the Palestinian state should be independent, viable and contiguous."

So perhaps Abbas is willing to back off the traditional "right to return to Israel" demand for all Palestinian refugees. His statement to the Palestinian Parliament seemed to say otherwise. I wonder what Yusef believes? This issue just may decide the immediate future of the peace process.

The New Cold War: Billions for Missile Defense, peanuts for anti-terrorism

Star Wars Spending Spree - Billions for Missile Defense, peanuts for anti-terrorism. By Fred Kaplan

With all the concern about dirty bombs, bioterrorism, and suicide bombers smashing airplanes into power plants, the public has pretty much forgotten about the Pentagon's ballistic-missile-defense program. (Wasn't that some nutty dream of Ronald Reagan's?) So, it may come as a shock to learn that President Bush will spend $7.4 billion on R&D for missile defenses next year. That's twice the sum that Reagan spent on "star wars" in his final year of office, and for a system that remains sketchily defined and technologically dubious, against an unlikely threat that lies years, if not decades, off. Meanwhile, to defend against "weapons of mass destruction" that we all fear might blow up on American streets next week, the administration is spending, well, not quite zip, but far, far less than would be needed for a minimally serious effort, on technology that exists right now.

Why is it wise to start a new Cold War based on the promise of dubious technology, decades away, for a system that supporters admit would not be effective against Russian or Chinese missiles, but MIGHT help against a rogue nation with minimal technology?

One has to wonder if the Bush Administration really doesn't understand the war on terror. All they can get their thoughts around is defending against rogue states and nuclear war. So they recreate the world in an image they can understand.

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion

It had been clear to me from the beginning that the war on Iraq was based on some neo-conservative ideology about remaking the politics of Middle East. But what wasn't clear to me was the initial objective. The strategic advantage of Iraq has been apparent since the beginning. It occurred to me that the US just wanted to be in a solid military position in the Middle East bordering on key countries. This author asserts the country the US was most interested in influencing was Saudi Arabia. That would be inconsistent with what I had understood as a personal alliance between Bush and Saudi Royalty. Perhaps what I've read about a divided Royal family was true. Rather than occupying Saudi Arabia, the US pulled out and encircled the country in order to influence its politics.

But I fail to imagine how it is that anyone can conceive of the situation in the Middle East as the "US winning" as the author states. While we may well influence the politics of the current governments in the Middle East, we have weakened those governments in ways that may not be apparent for years, perhaps a generation. Their people have become that much more jaded, disloyal, most likely to be jihadist, and more likely to support a theocratic government.

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion

To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.

The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.

By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as "a Saudi problem". Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.

"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to

al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."