Monday, July 24, 2006

Weakness is Deadly

Weakness Is Deadly

By John E. Carey
Monday, July 31, 2006

Yesterday, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered a 48 hour “time out” in the air war against the terrorist enemy Hezbollah’s positions near Israel.

Big mistake.

Yesterday morning I interviewed a well connected Israeli expert on war, counter-terrorism and Hezbollah. After brief pleasantries, he opened with: “Every Israeli regrets the loss of innocent lives.”

Then, he immediately continued, “A cease fire now, without achieving the strategic goals of the operation in Lebanon, would be an incomplete finish for Israel. In fact, a cease fire now would be dangerous to Israel and to all nations engaged in the war on terror.”

Dangerous to all nations engaged in the war on terror.

We fully appreciate the tragic circumstances of yesterday. Innocent women and children are being killed. But they are being killed by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is using “human shields” the way a bank robber might grab your grandmother, forcing her at gunpoint to keep her frame in front of him as an absorber of oncoming police bullets.

This kind of shameful, despicable conduct is in character for those beneath contempt like Hezbollah. Why anyone who believes in a great religion like Islam would applaud, support or condone these craven acts of desperation, cowardice and wanton disrespect for life escapes me.

So, Israeli combat pilots, who have been asked to defend their nation, and the entire free world in the war against terror, were told last night to go to sleep. Allow their targets to reform, regroup and reload. The pilots who volunteered to risk their own lives for others (for you and me) are now told: never mind. Give the terrorist enemy a break. Give the terror enemy a rest.

The pilots were shocked by the news: the decision to call a "time out" in war obviously a political move disassociated from prosecuting war to victory.

In war, "politically correct" niceties are as dangerous as weakness.

Halting the air war is a harmful publicity stunt. If the U.S. participated in convincing Israel’s civilian leadership to take this action for humanitarian reasons; then the U.S. is complicit in any evil that may befall Israel as a result of taking the heat off the terrorist enemy Hezbollah.

When the conditions are right for a cease fire, and both sides are in some agreement and the international community is willing, ready and able to GUARANTEE peace with a force of substance (not Unifil, which failed miserably); then we shall be the first to trumpet a cease fire, to allow all to discuss the future.

Until that cease fire exists, we are at war. No time outs.

In the “Principles of War,” as defined by the U.S. Army and subscribed by countless others; the first principle is Mass: “Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.”

We believe Israeli military officers may now be violating their own principles of war because they were ordered to do so by their civilian leaders.Nobody can question that the civilian leaders in Israel have the authority to make such a decision and order. But they also must reap whatever they have sown in accountability at the end.

Many of the Hizbollah rockets are landing and killing people in Haifa, Israel's third largest city. We ask all Americans, if over 1,500 rockets had rained death into Chicago (our third largest city), whould you ask the president to let up on the attackers? Even as the attacking terrorist enemy professed a continued, relentless bombardment, and vocally incited people to destroy your nation?

I think not.

My own Washington Times tried to make this "semi-cease-fire" look like a good idea. In a page one story, Joshua Mitnick wrote, "Israel's agreement to halt air strikes for two days, effective as of last night, will include provisions for residents of southern Lebanon to safely leave their towns. Many have been killed in vehicles while fleeing northward despite Israeli fliers warning them to leave."

This on what, day 19 of the war? My Vietnamese-born wife (now a U.S. citizen) said, "If I was still in my village 19 days after the Communists came, I'd be dead."

"My Mother was the last one to leave Saigon in 1975, when the Communists came. She loved her pigs so," my wife recalled.

Likely not pigs keeping people in Lebanon on day 19. But perhaps goats. Still, we all learned in first grade: when the fire alarm goes off, get OUT of the building. Don't wait for day 19 or you are toast.

And the Israelis have literally covered southern Lebanon with leaflets for weeks, warning the people to move north to safety. The world is fighting a war against terror.

Ask the "survivor families."Ask the "survivor families" of The World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or Flight 93.

Ask the "survivor families" of the Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2003. Ask the survivor families of the terror bombings in London on July 7, 2005. Ask the survivor families from countless other Hezbollah inspired terror actions against innocent and free people. Ask the families of the men and women lost, or badly injured, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The survivor families are my shield in the righteousness of seeing this war on terror to the end. Any flinching, any wavering, any pause that allows the enemy even a breath without fear, is time wasted. We did not want this war on terror. We did not choose it. The war on terrror has befallen us.

We have to be up to the task or admit our weakness and decadence now. That is what Hezbollah is asking us to do.

So we call upon the leaders, all world leaders, to steel themselves to the fact that this may be a long and ugly war. Leaders like like Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, who often encourage terror: stand together. Make a stand. Decide to fight terror yourself, not just with platitudes but with concrete actions. We ask you to stand with those engaged in battle to win the war on terror. To stand with all freedom loving people everywhere.

But especially, we invite you world leaders to stand with the survivor families, not the terrorist.

We are reminded of these words: "We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the ... Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Winston Churchill knew when he, his nation and his world was in a fight.

Every world leader now has a choice. Are we at war or not? The choice is simple and clear.

A Bad Tom Clancy Novel?

Hezbollah Refuses Israeli Gesture at Cease Fire; UN Slaps Iran on the Wrists ; Russia, China, France Support Iran and non-Israeli Groups

By John E. Carey
July 31, 2006

The world can be an ugly place and it just got uglier on Monday.Israel declared a two day cessation to the air war on targets in Lebanon near Israel. Hezbollah knew this was a conditional halt: any overt military activity against Israel would be seen as an intentional provocation.

Before too many hours, Hezbollah produced that provocation by shooting at an Israeli tank.

As a military man, I fully understand Israel’s response. When your guys are under fire, you shoot back.

Just about an hour later the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there will be no cease-fire, adding that "Israel is continuing to fight."

Why? Because Hezbollah refuses to stop launching missiles into Israel, Hezbollah continues to use Lebanese civilians as shields, and Hezbollah has made clear that there will be no quarter given to Israel.

I asked my friend Boaz Ganor, an Israeli anti-terror expert, about the situation.“Every Israeli regrets the loss of innocent lives,” Ganor said.“A cease fire now, without achieving the strategic goals of the operation in Lebanon, would be an incomplete finish for Israel. In fact, a cease fire now would be dangerous to Israel and all nations fighting the war against terror,” Dr. Boaz Ganor told me.

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel plans to "expand and strengthen" its attack on Hezbollah.Peretz’s speech was frequently interrupted by Arab Members of the Knesset (Congress) (MKs), many of whom called the Defense Minister a “child killer” and “scoundrel.” Three Arab MKs were eventually ejected from the session, as Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik said she was giving them the “gift” of an ejection from the Knesset.

On the West Bank, Israeli and UN outposts were attacked and looted.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations in New York, the Security Council delayed the threat of sanctions on Iran until at least August 31, 2006.

The U.N. has recognized that Iran has a nuclear weapon production program, in violation with UN demands that it be stopped.

Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text is weaker than earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of sanctions immediate.

The draft now essentially requires the council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions.The Security Council debate today was in response to a confidential International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report provided to members of the IAEA Board of Governors. The IAEA declares in paragraph 85: "Based on all information currently available to the Agency, it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement."

Just a few days ago, Russia approved a draft agreement with Iran on cooperation in the tourist industry. The five-year agreement aims to promote tour groups and individual tourism to both countries by simplifying travel bureaucracy, to facilitate the arrangement of symposiums and exchange schemes for experts and journalists specializing in tourism issues, and to boost contacts between tour operators.

But Russia’s big gold mine with Iran is in supplying Iran with the technology it needs to grow and expand it’s nuclear program and its oil industry.

French leaders praised Iran and disparaged Israel on Monday.

The French, and President Jacques Chirac in particular, have had a long time relationship with Lebanon.

On April 4, 1996, French President Jacques Chirac became the first world leader to make an official visit to the country since the outbreak of the war in 1975.

In the Middle East, where the French priority has become winning large business contracts, both civilian and military, France's traditional alliances have lost a great deal of their importance. This is particularly the case in Lebanon, where the Christians are out and the Shia are in.

France made a lot of money off Saddam Hussein so they will stop at nothing to woo Lebanon. The French are intent upon building bridges to Muslim communities who can be expected to dominate Lebanese affairs, most prominently the Shia.

At the news conference held in Beirut, French Foreign Minister Phillippe Douste-Blazy praised Iran as a “stabilizing force in the Middle East.”

In Paris, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, asked about Israel's aborted semi-cease fire for air attacks said, “cessation of the aerial attacks is insufficient in light of the situation in Lebanon.”

France’s home population is about 20% Moslem and the French are trying hard to live down the angry riots of young Islamic men around Paris and other cities last spring.

A senior diplomat, who spoke to me only on the condition of anonymity said, “This is getting like a bad Tom Clancy novel.”

“There is a sense now that Secretary of State Rice was taken aback, taken by surprise by the Israeli resolve.”

Before she left Washington on her "peacemaking trip," she called the fighting in Lebanon "the birth pangs of a new Middle East."

Tonight Secretary Rice is going to the White House for dinner we are told.

And those birth pangs look more like a forced abortion.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Of Iran, In His Own Words

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s President; some quotes, assembled from sources including CNN, AFP, AP, and Iranian TV and news services:

October, 2005: Israel "must be wiped off the map"

December 2005: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

And: “The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said.

"(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

And: "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel."

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

"Those who themselves produce nuclear arms should not raise hue and cry against those who only want to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."

"Countries which have arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which can be used against other countries at their whim and those who supplied the Baathist regime with (chemical) weapons that killed thousands of innocent Iranians ... now go to all lengths to block Iran from gaining access to peaceful nuclear technology."

April, 2006: "The Zionist regime is a dying tree, and soon its branches will be broken down. The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat."


President Ahmadinejad planned to travel to Germany in May 2006 for the World Cup.

Der Spiegel Magazine interviewed him and published this account on May 30, 2006:

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...

Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.
SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?

Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That's just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject.
Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today's youth play in World War II?


Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can't do anything about it. But there is a sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our fathers or grandfathers.

Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held legally responsible?

SPIEGEL: Not legally but morally.

Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that they have grappled critically with their past.

Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that.

Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody's hostage; SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany's past and the Germans' crimes. We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?
Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region finally. But don't you share that responsibility?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust won't bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That's not what we said, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we're talking about the Holocaust because we want to talk about the possible nuclear armament of Iran -- which is why the West sees you as a threat.
Ahmadinejad: Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a threat. Of course you're free to make your own judgment.

SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?

SPIEGEL: We're here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring country, for example, told SPIEGEL: "They are very keen on building the bomb." Is that true?

Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries, including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now look at what's happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is one side of this matter.

SPIEGEL: IAEA doesn't quite share your view of this matter.

Ahmadinejad: But the other side is that there are a number of countries that possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that they are worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic energy. We say that these powers are free to monitor us if they are worried. But what these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the nuclear fuel cycle because deviation from peaceful use might then be possible. What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and unsustainable.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, the key question is: How dangerous will this world become if even more countries become nuclear powers -- if a country like Iran, whose president makes threats, builds the bomb in a crisis-ridden region?

Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.

SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.

We stand by our statements because we're honest and act legally. We're no fraudsters. We only want to claim our legitimate right. Incidentally, I never threatened anyone - that, too, is part of the propaganda machine that you've got running against me.

SPIEGEL: If this were so, shouldn't you be making an effort to ensure that no one need fear your producing nuclear weapons that you might use against Israel, thus possibly unleashing a world war? You're sitting on a tinderbox, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to say two things. No people in the region are afraid of us. And no one should instill fear in these peoples. We believe that if the United States and these two or three European countries did not interfere, the peoples in this region would live peacefully together as they did in the thousands of years before. In 1980, it was also the nations of Europe and the United States that encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack us.

Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel its right to existence.

Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want. In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have the right to their own state, but in our view the Israelis naturally have the same right.

Ahmadinejad: Where did the Israelis come from?

SPIEGEL: Well, if we tried to work out where people have come from, the Europeans would have to return to east Africa where all humans originated.

Ahmadinejad: We're not talking about the Europeans; we're talking about the Palestinians. The Palestinians were there, in Palestine. Now 5 million of them have become refugees. Don't they have a right to live?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, doesn't there come a time when one should accept that the world is the way it is and that we must accept the status quo? The war against Iraq has put Iran in a favorable position. The United States has suffered a de facto defeat in Iraq. Isn't it now time for Iran to become a constructive power of peace in the Middle East? Which would mean giving up its nuclear plans and inflammatory talk?

Ahmadinejad: I'm wondering why you're adopting and fanatically defending the stance of the European politicians. You're a magazine, not a government. Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that the winners of World War II would remain the victorious powers for another 1,000 years and that the German people would be humiliated for another 1,000 years. Do you think that is the correct logic?

SPIEGEL: No, that's not the right logic, nor is it true. The Germans have played a modest, but important role in post-war developments. They do not feel as though they have been humiliated and dishonored since 1945. We are too self-confident for that. But today we want to talk about Iran's current mission.

Ahmadinejad: Then we would accept that Palestinians are killed every day, that they die in terrorist attacks, and that houses are being destroyed. But let me say something about Iraq. We have always favored peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces. Fortunately, the Germans haven't been involved in this. We want security in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.

SPIEGEL: What are you trying to say?

Ahmadinejad: We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job. They have sent us messages several times asking us for help and cooperation. They have said that we should talk together about Iraq. We publicly accepted this offer, although our people do not trust the Americans. But America has responded negatively and insulted us. Even now we're contributing to security in Iraq. We will hold talks only if the Americans change their behavior.

SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy provoking the Americans and the rest of the world now and then?

Ahmadinejad: No, I'm not insulting anyone. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Bush was polite.

SPIEGEL: We don't mean insult, but provoke.

Ahmadinejad: No, we feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense. Why is there war when there is reason as well?

SPIEGEL: Is your letter to the president also a gesture toward the Americans that you wish to enter into direct negotiations?

Ahmadinejad: We clearly stated our position in this letter on how we view the problems in the world. Some powers have befouled the political atmosphere in the world because they consider lies and fraud to be legitimate. In our view that is very bad. We believe that all people deserve respect. Relationships have to be regulated on the basis of justice. When justice reigns, peace reigns. Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not criticize them.

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept. 11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented without the coordination with secret and security services or without the far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

SPIEGEL: In this letter you also write that Western liberalism has failed. What makes you say that?

Ahmadinejad: You see, for example you have a thousand definitions of the Palestian problem and you offer all sorts of different definitions of democracy in its various forms. It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice. Iran and the West agree on this.

SPIEGEL: What role can Europe play in the resolution of the nuclear conflict, and what do you expect of Germany?

Ahmadinejad: We have always cultivated good relations with Europe, especially with Germany. Our two peoples like each other. We're eager to deepen this relationship.
Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't want to see that happen.

SPIEGEL: What will happen now in the conflict between the West and Iran?

Ahmadinejad: We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some European countries are opposed to us. I sent out a message on the nuclear issue, asking why the Europeans were translating the Americans' words for us. After all, they know that our actions are aimed toward peace. By siding with Iran, the Europeans would serve their own and our interests. But they will suffer only damage if they oppose us. For our people is strong and determined.

The Europeans risk losing their position in the Middle East entirely, and they are ruining their reputation in other parts of the world. The others will think that the Europeans aren't capable of solving problems.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Stefan Aust, Gerhard Spörl and Dieter Bednarz in Tehran.

Final Note:

World Cup: Ahmadinejad's deputy blamed for World Cup failure

MEDDLING MINISTER: The controversial Iranian president's deputy has been singled out as the reason Iran's `best ever team' failed to progress Deutsche Presse-Agentur , TEHRAN

Tuesday, Jun 27, 2006, Page 19 (Taipei Times)

Iran's failure to qualify for the second round of the World Cup has been blamed on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's deputy, Mohammad Aliabadi, the news agency ISNA reported on Sunday.

Vice President Aliabadi, who is also head of the country's sports organization, was blamed by the sports faction of the parliament for what many Iranians term as a humiliation for their country.

Devotion not enough

"Every job needs the relevant qualification and heading a sports organization needs expertise and technical know-how. Just being a devout Muslim does not solve anything," Member of Parliament Hossein Eslami told ISNA.

"How can somebody like Aliabadi who has not even the slightest background in sports, never kicked a ball and knows nothing about football, let alone the [national team] players' names run such an organization," he said.

Aliabadi is accused of interfering in the team's affairs in Germany and taking the easy option by firing the Iranian Football Federation president Mohammad Dadkan, making him the main scapegoat for their efforts in taking just one point from their three group games.

Not qualified

Eslami said if there was no qualified person in charge, then Iran would suffer the same fate again at the next World Cup. The parliament is therefore expected to deal with the sports officials in a closed-door session and will also call on Ahmadinejad to get involved.

The Iranian team, widely regarded as the best in the country's history, finished bottom of Group D with only one point from a 1-1 draw against Angola.

The aftermath of the World Cup flop once again raised the question as to what extent the sports organization, which is part of the government, should interfere in sports affairs in general and soccer in particular.

Human Rights In Vietnam: July 2006

Amnesty International Testimony on Human Rights in Vietnam
New Report: July 12, 2006

Amnesty International Testimony on Human Rights in Vietnam, Before the Committee on Finance United States Senate Presented by T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia & the Pacific, Amnesty International USA , July 12, 2006
“S.3495 – A Bill to authorize the extension of non-discriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam”

Current Status of human rights

Key concerns:

• Restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association.

• The use of national security legislation and the criminal code to suppress criticism of the government. Much of this vaguely worded ‘catch-all’ legislation contravenes international law and standards to which Viet Nam is a state party.

• The continuing imprisonment of political prisoners.

• The use of severely repressive practices in some ethnic minority areas – notably the Central Highlands.

• Independence of judiciary.

• Restrictions on religious freedoms – continued intolerance of non-state sanctioned religions and denominations

• The application of the death penalty

Deterioration in the following area:

• The internet is an area which appears to be worsening with arrests and secretive procedures.
• Amnesty International is concerned about how the new internet regulations will be used.

Improvements in the following areas:

• Political restrictions appear to have eased ahead of the upcoming APEC summit in November and the WTO negotiations.

• The recent openness in the debate about corruption scandal involving the Ministry of Transport. This scandal led to the first ever appearances for questioning by ministers before the National Assembly, which has investigated the allegations.

• For the first time, the assembly raised a more independent voice vis-à-vis the Communist Party. Parts of the hearings were broadcast on radio and television.


Media are State controlled, censored, and chiefly used as propaganda tools. However, the above mentioned corruption scandal has resulted in an increase in investigative reporting; the media played a role in placing the scandal in the public domain.

Independence of Judiciary

Politically related trials in past years have routinely concluded in a matter of hours, without due process and with heavy jail sentences handed down to those convicted. Accused are regularly held in incommunicado detention, and consequently family members are often refused access to prisoners. Vaguely worded "national security" and spying charges are often used for people who have never advocated use of violence, and thereby criminalize peaceful dissent.

The 2004 criminal procedure code introduced increased rights for defendants, and a new law on legal aid was adopted by the National Assembly last June. Despite this and the fact that legal aid is spreading through the National Legal Aid Agency, access to lawyers remains very limited, as does awareness about free of charge legal aid for poor and vulnerable. Access to lawyers is still distant.

Crackdown on Internet users

On July 1, 2006 a new decree on sanctions for "administrative violations in the culture and information sector" entered into force. Instead of promoting the use of the Internet as a tool for development and exchange, the decree is one in a string of laws, decrees, and decisions that stifles access to and use of the Internet.

Some worrying elements of the decree:

• Introduces further control and prior permission of use of the Internet and circulation of e-mails by the State.

• Introduces fines for journalists for publishing articles with anonymous sources, or refusing interviewees to read prior to publishing.

• Enables authorities to punish offences that are not in the Criminal Code

• Imposes fines of up to 30 million dong (2,000 US dollars), for disseminating "harmful" information by media. Local authorities and police appear to have discretion to define "harmful information".

• Imposes fines for revealing "Party or State secrets" (up to 30 million dongs/2,000 dollars)

Read the Complete Report:

See also:
The United States: A Nation

Built on Hope, Prayer

Adapted from essays written by John Carey and published in The Washington Times

We Americans don’t discuss hope much. Hope, it seems, is for sissies. Americans like action: like John Wayne kicking in the bad guy’s door, six-shooter in hand.

And some people shy away from discussing hope because the concept of hope puts one on the road to prayer and this, WE KNOW, is taboo to a segment of the world’s population.

But there is a day, every four years, when Americans celebrate hope. And that day is Inauguration Day.

And we listen to our elected president’s words. We judge our president-elect by these, his first words, as our commander in chief.In history, there are many themes that seem to resonate through the inaugural addresses. Education, poverty, crime, war, and peace all appear over and over in inauguration day speeches. But the importance of God’s guidance and the wonderful goodness of hope permeates many of the great American inaugural addresses. We should not be surprised that many presidents invoke the name of God, maybe even offer a prayer themselves for the success of the nation (and their presidency?), and offer us hope at the inauguration. Their task is looming large; their support sometimes fleeting.

One might wonder at the overconfident man in such a difficult situation. Normal men ask for God’s help and offer us all a hopeful vision of the future.

On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy said, “Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.” He asked us to answer a “call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ‘rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation’ --a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.”

On another January 20, in 1969, Richard M. Nixon reminded us, “Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope that many of man's deepest aspirations can at last be realized.” He also said, “We see the hope of tomorrow in the youth of today.”

President Lincoln, in his second inaugural, looked with hope at the end of the Civil War. “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Lincoln delivered these words on March 4, 1865. Just one month and 10 days after he delivered this speech, on April 14, Lincoln was assassinated.

President Eisenhower evoked hope. On January 20, 1953, he reminded the nation that “we view our Nation's strength and security as a trust upon which rests the hope of free men everywhere.”

President James A. Garfield suggested a halt in the march of mankind, just for a moment, to reflect upon the importance of hope. In his March 4, 1881 inaugural, he said, “Before continuing the onward march let us pause on this height for a moment to strengthen our faith and renew our hope by a glance at the pathway along which our people have traveled.”Inauguration day is a day of hope and prayer.

No other day in American life is so steeped in prayer. No other day in the American calendar so often reverberates with the theme of hope.

Oh, many moments in American life begin with prayer: including the opening of House and Senate sessions in the capitol. But at our inaugurations, one can feel the sincerity of men thrust into the maelstrom. Greater Washington seems to become a great cathedral of hope and prayer: before it immediately returns to a nation that separates church and state.

What, exactly, is hope? You can’t buy anything with it and nobody can prove that it helps you in life. So what is hope?

Hope is an amputee veteran of the war in Iraq who wants to learn to ski.

Hope is the cancer victim who won’t give in.

Hope keeps the terminally ill calm and the pinned- down platoon together.

Hope is the antithesis of despair, the enemy of our darkest fears.

Hope and prayer drive my friend in South Carolina to fight his multiple sclerosis.

Hope is one of those emotions unique to mankind. It sometimes defies reason and fights off evil thoughts of surrender.Prayer goes hand-in-hand with hope; and America was founded by men deeply governed by their hope and prayer and belief in God.

The Founding Fathers established the United States, wrote the Declaration of Independence; the Bill of Rights and the Constitution; and created a nation firmly rooted in the belief in God and freedom of religion protected by the separation of church and state.

Many of the Founders and their forefathers fled Europe to escape religious prosecution. They wanted this new nation to allow them freedom of religion and thus the very nation is rooted in a belief in God.

The Declaration of Independence starts this way: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

After signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, who was called "the firebrand of the American Revolution," affirmed his obedience to God by stating, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. From the rising to the setting of the sun, may His kingdom come."

James Madison, the fourth president, made the following statement, "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Madison is often referred to as "The Father of Our Constitution."When historians at the University of Houston conducted a 10-year study of the ideas that shaped our republic, they found 94 percent of the Founding Fathers' quotes in 15,000 documents were based on the Bible.

"God created all men equal," one of the most fundamental and important acclamations of our government, became an underlying reason for the Civil War, a fundamental reason for the Emancipation Proclamation and a keynote of equality ever since.

Every president of the United States is sworn into office, by reciting an oath while he has one hand on the Bible. The oath ends, "So help me God."

Every session of Congress since 1777 commenced with a prayer by a minister paid by the taxpayers.Every military service of the United States pays uniformed religious ministers for the officers and men in service.

These ministers are from all faiths that recognize the importance of God in human life. Nearly every base has a chapel.

The Ten Commandments are carved into the doors of the Supreme Court and appear prominently in the court's chambers.

Every piece of U.S. currency bears the words "In God We Trust."

In America, you are even free to start your own religion. Nobody (except possibly the Internal Revenue Service) will interfere, so long as you don't do anything outside the normal bounds of decent behavior.

So, as we all celebrate the blessings of American freedom, justice and government every day, perhaps we should reflect upon the roots and tenets of our democracy.

We are not a Godless people. Or are we? Yes, our democracy is evolving and we are open and accepting to that evolution. But let us not allow the evolution to turn into a careless revolution or even an unintended erosion of the principles by which we live and we are governed.

I am one of those historians that thinks the Founders were pretty smart. Their belief in God, hope and prayer encourages me every day.And inauguration day is America’s unique day of hope.

Whatever the speech, whoever the president-elect: a key player in every inauguration day is bound to be the Almighty and his right hand man: Hope.

Paralyzed: U.N. Ineptitude Worsens

Paralyzed? UN Reacting BadlyTo International Events
By John E. Carey
July 21, 2006
A shortened version of this essay appeared on the Internet at:

The U.N. is setting a new standard of ineptitude and weakness in international conduct. Starting in early July, the United Nations and the world diplomatic community started three uninterrupted weeks of shameful mismanagement.

First, North Korea launched seven missiles on America's Independence Day, clearly violating agreements it had made to forgo missile launches while engaged in the "Six Party Talks."

North Korea's blatant provocation to the will of the international community caused a U.N. standoff that is still not fully resolved.Russia and China stonewalled the efforts of the U.S. and Japan to provide meaningful sanctions against North Korea. We are left with the dreaded "tough diplomatic language" from the U.N. Security Council."

The Dear Leader" must be terrified.

Currently, the U.N. is, well, paralyzed, as Israel battles terrorists including Hezbollah.It is pretty clear that Iran has been backing the terrorist.

"Iran is standing by the Syrian people," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi proudly told reporters.

Hey, until that statement, I didn't even know Syria or Iran was for sure part of this battle. Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Israel was not tough enough to counter Iran and also warned against an attack against Syria.

"Thanks be to God, despite its criminal and savage nature, the Zionist regime and its supporters in the West do not have the power to look in the same way towards Iran," the fiercely anti-Israeli president wailed.

"If Israel commits another act of idiocy and aggresses Syria, this will be the same as an aggression against the entire Islamic world and it will receive a stinging response," Ahmadinejad said in a telephone conversation with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.

The hard-line Iranian president, who said Israel should be "wiped off the map" or moved as far away as Alaska, has also compared Israel's military strikes on Gaza and Lebanon to tactics used by Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler.

The U.N. has reacted with: nothing.

Israel and Hezbollah are engaged in a life or death struggle.

Hezbollah, backed by Syria, Iran and large part of Lebanon, has proclaimed its intent to remove Israel from the earth.

Israel, backed by the United States, won't go without a fight. In fact, it looks like Israel may now be in the business of shelling its way to a new buffer zone on the border with Lebanon.

How do you make friends with a nation, or dare I say a people (What did Ahmadinejad call it? "The Entire Islamic World") when they are not shy about screaming that they want to destroy your country?

Israel's move against Hezbollah has revealed one of the reasons behind everyone's frustration in the region of South Lebanon.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon - known by its acronym Unifil -- has a long history of ineptitude, laxity and corruption.

As a "peacekeeping" force, Unifil is a joke.Some might say that the U.N.'s totally ineffective "peacekeepers" have allowed this pot to come to a boil. Other smart Americans say we should give the U.N. more of a chance to solve the problems of the Middle East and elsewhere.

Well, Unifil has been working to keep the peace in the Middle East for only 28 years. How much more time should we give them?

"They [Unifil] are barely able to take care of themselves," said Timur Goksel, referring to the UN peacekeepers. "How can you expect them to do their work?"

The blue-helmeted UN Unifil soldiers include a moderately trained and semi-disciplined Irish brigade. These Irish UN troops were routinely referred to as the "whisky army" by both Islam and Jewish observers who came into contact with them.

The Israeli-backed Christian militiamen - known by the Unifil acronym LAUIs (Lebanese Armed and Uniformed by Israel) countered any effort by the Irish troops to stray far from their base at Camp Shamrock.

So each side had its own peacekeepers to balance the status quo. And the U.N. [really with U.S. dollars] paid the peacekeepers selected by both sides to do just about nothing.

And we hate to give red meat to "red necks" but our dear friends the French command Unifil just now.

Over the past few years, with the U.N. paralyzed, Israel consolidated its border "security zone" and Iran began to openly support the terrorists, many of whom are called the Lebanese Shia Amal movement.

Rememeber: these guys are in a life or death struggle.All the other cast members in this play, excepting the Israelis and their sworn and vocal enemies, only have ridiculous cameo roles.

Speaking of ridiculous cameo roles, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, top Democrat in the House of Representatives, called on the Bush administration not to charge evacuees, saying, "A nation that can provide more than $300 billion for a war in Iraq can provide the money to get its people out of Lebanon."

We asked the U.S. Department of State about this. Maura Harty, assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, said that a 1956 law enacted by the U.S. Congress required the State Department be reimbursed for an action like the evacution from Lebanon.She added that Americans unable to pay could sign a voucher to reimburse the government.

Before the State Department dropped the plan, White House Press Spokesman Tony Snow defended it by saying the government has to charge evacuees because of a 2003 law."I dare say that it's something that is causing heartburn for a number of people, but it's the law," he said.

According to David Ignatius of The Washington Post, "The [Bush] administration's strategy is to let Israel do the dirty work of breaking Hezbollah and then move in a foreign 'stabilization force' to bolster the Lebanese army. Once Israel has pushed the guerrillas north, this international force would help the Lebanese army deploy to the southern border with Israel and the eastern border with Syria. The plan is for a beefed-up successor to the existing United Nations force in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL." ( )

Right now the U.N. is paralyzed again, or further, depending upon ones point of view.

Unable to effectively manage and organize the evacuation of innocent civilians from Lebanon, the U.N. is enviously eying USS Nashville, USS Trenton, USS Whidbey Island, USS Iwo Jima, USS Gonzalez, a bunch of CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters, the commercial liner "Orient Queen," [leased by the U.S. to evacuate U.S. citizens and their families] the U.S. Marines, and a protective cover including U.S. Navy destroyers.

Americans are leaving Beirut under a security umbrella of protected comfort and moving toward home in a fairly rapid manner.Non-Americans are mostly leaving by cargo ship to make the five hour U.S. vacationer's cruise ship journey in the hold of a hot cargo vessel in a 16 hour manner without toilets.

Today, July 21, the motor ferry Rahmah, with a capacity of 1,400 passengers, arrived in Lebananon and the high-speed ferry Victoria M, with a capacity of 330, also started taking Americans out.

"It feels wonderful to be back in the States. We just want to thank so much the State Department and the people that helped the government, the Marines, to help get us out," said one arrival at BWI.

But Americans who left Lebanon with European evacuees on non-U.S. vessels said they encountered a far rougher journey."We went on a cargo ship from the port of Lebanon. ... It was horrible. There were no facilities on the ship, just get out alive, that was it. We were on the ship for about 16 hours. It's a trip that takes about 4 or 5 hours," said Tom Charara from Long Beach, Calif.

The cruise ships the U.S. chartered to bring out U.S. citizens — equipped with a duty-free shops, gourmet restaurants and beauty salons — normally carry up to 800 vacationers each on Mediterranean cruises.

The U.S. Marine Brigadier General on the scene managing the civilian evacuation said he would wrap up the operation soon; and the Americans may have room for some of the allied civilians."That would be my suspicion," said Marine Brig. Gen. Carl B. Jensen, who was leading the operation. "It wouldn't surprise me at all if we had some excess capacity," Jensen said. "We will of course make that available to other nations to assist in their orderly departure," he added.

Amid all this: long-time U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton critic, Senator George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican, has suddenly become aware of the good Ambassador's qualifications to represent the U.S. at the U.N. Voinovich stated publicly that he would support Bolton if the president re-nominates him to the post as expected.And, in a news flash, Voinovich declared that Bolton is "not perfect."

We need more Senators with this kind of deep insight and commitment amid the chaos of war.

Voinovich assumed for himself even less than a ridiculous cameo role.Don't forget: When Voinovich took his courageous last stand -- against Bolton -- he wept.

Apparently, leaving the fate of the world -- not to mention the Voinovich grandchildren -- in the hands of a man as mean as Bush ally John Bolton, unraveled the Senator back then. Thursday he went on TV to say, something like, "OOPS. I was mistaken. Bolton isn't a heathen and he follows the president's lead."

Despite some criticism from the American liberal left, American evacuees coming out of Lebanon have mostly praised the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Navy and the Marines: but nobody has anything good to say about the U.N.

And then there's this this: on July 14 a court handed down the first guilty verdict in the "Oil for Food" scandal at the U.N. In that caper, sneaky insiders at the U.N. and other influence seekers made millions from Saddam Hussein while they were supposed to be enforcing post Desert Storm sanctions.

And where is the U.S. media in all of this? CNN, for one, is mostly showing us heart-breaking stories of American tourists dislodged from their summer vacations.

Personally, we have little compassion for people who ignore the warnings of the State Department, travel to a war zone just as it is heating up, neglect to register with the embassy, then cry when war, to almost no informed observer's surprise, erupts.

Americans should take heed that we are in a world-wide war against terror that has any number of ramifications and dangers -- especially when one travels to the Middle East on summer holiday.

The U.S. Department of State, Ambassador John Bolton, and the U.S. Armed Forces are demonstrating true professionalism.

The rest of the bit players, especially Kofi Annan's U.N., should be ashamed. But shame is an emotion that has lost its impact on most world "diplomats" and "peacekeepers."

Multi-lateralism doesn't seem to always be in the best national interest of UN member states.

So don't forget for one second that this is an all or nothing proposition for the Israelis. And not a joking matter at all. Or a matter to be left entirely in the hands of the UN.

Our thanks to all involved at the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. /