This post has been pulled up by MvdG: please take the time to read Marc’s post and comment on it. (more…)

If you had walked into last night’s GOP YouTube Debate without any preconceived notions or exposure to the campaign so far, you might well have thought that Mike Huckabee was the clear GOP frontrunner. He tuned down some of his harder Christianist positions and played the inclusive card while confidentially displaying the executive style he developed as Arkansas governor. The numbers that came out earlier appear to support the Huckabee surge so with last night’s debate he is beginning to look very solid, although he feels more like a Veep than a frontman who can deliver the goods in the end. (more…)

Using data acquired from the International House of Pancakes, scientists have documented that Kansas is not, in fact, as flat as a pancake. It is, in fact, a great deal flatter. (more…)

While of minor importance to most Turks in comparison to their national football team’s efficient victory over a weak Bosnia-Herzegovina side and the team’s resulting accession to the Euro 2008 tournament, this past week also featured the Turkish government culminating an impressive flurry of foreign affairs activity. Although the Turkish national team has little chance under its coach, Fatih Terim, whose arrogance shadows his remarkable flair for dramatic dress-shirt and jacket collars, the government’s latest efforts will surely give Milli Takim fans something to talk about beyond their team’s early exit from the European football championship tournament this summer. (more…)

The following article appears today in the Dutch daily Friesch Dagblad.

Next week the umpteenth conference for peace in the Middle East will take place, this time in Annapolis. By coincidence this week Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jeruzalem – 30 years ago, the first official visit to Israel by an Arab leader – was commemorated. That visit led to talks between Israeli and Egyptian teams in Camp David, which after almost two weeks of dramatic negotiations resulted in a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Annapolis is the capital of Maryland, the same state where Camp David is located, but I doubt whether the names Annapolis and Camp David will have the same weight in the history of the Middle East.

The aim of the conference, organized by President George W. Bush, is to issue a document which – more or less based on the almost forgotten “route map for peace” that was issued by Bush five years ago, with the support of the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – eventually must become the key to a Palestinian state and an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. One of the main reasons why that goal will almost certainly not be reached is the very weak position of the three main participants in the meeting: the American President, the Palestinian President Abu-Mazen and the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Not one of them enjoys any real and heartfelt support and confidence among a majority of his people.

The most important difference between Camp David 1978 and Annapolis 2007, in addition to the presence of the Palestinians, is the host. I am definitely no fan of Jimmy Carter, and I have serious objections against much of what he has written and said about Israel in recent years. Still, it goes without saying that the man won his spurs in the history of Israel with his role in the genesis of the Camp David accords. From the start of his presidency peace in the Middle-East was one of his priorities. Without the courage and the initiative of Sadat nothing might have happened, but without the personal involvement of the American President in the negotiations between Israel and Egypt Sadat and Begin would not have become the historical figures that they are today. At crucial moments during the talks Carter’s intransigence was the deciding factor.

I am not exactly a Bush-basher, partly because for many Bush-bashers Bush is simply a synonym for America, but I believe that of all the areas in which the man failed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of his biggest failures. From 2000 onwards he let Israelis and Palestinians muddle on on their own. Some Israelis have called Bush jr. the most Israel-friendly president ever. I think that a real friend would have showed much more involvement. Before the invasion of Iraq – which I supported hesitantly, partly as a result of an instinctive consideration: “Look who opposes it!” – I wrote in an article for the Dutch daily Trouw that Bush and his government should have spent the period after the fall of the Taliban on thinking out and selling a comprehensive development program and peace plan for the Middle East, rather than on disseminating the “Baghdad delenda est” mantra. It is obvious that such a program and plan never existed. Annapolis is a nice photo op to conclude eight lost years, but it is mainly a matter of way too little much too late.

So, is the whole Annapolis circus pointless? No, it would be too harsh to say that. Every opportunity that is seized to show that Israeli and Arab officials and political leaders can talk and negotiate more or less on the basis of equality already is an achievement. In that respect men like Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin gave a brave and fruitful example. In Israel most people are very cynical about the purpose and the outcome of Annapolis. Yet the only ones who utterly oppose the conference are the fanatics, they declare loud and clear that the conference is a sell-out of Israel’s interests. Just like at previous occasions extremists on both sides of the conflict are interested in a complete failure of this peace conference. The Palestinian terrorists and their Iranian and other puppet masters keep their end up. In their eyes Abu Mazen is a traitor, and the number of attempted terror attacks has risen once again in the last couple of weeks. After all, terror leads to Israeli reactions, which make it impossible for Abu Mazen to fulfil his promises and which make Hamas once more attractive – or less unattractive – as an alternative. Israeli politicians such as Binyamin Nethanyahu and the ultra-rightwing minister Lieberman almost appear to be pleased to prove that they have been right all along: here you go, giving in only leads to ( more ) terror. When you look at all those who are trying very hard to turn Annapolis into a failure you would almost hope that Ehud Olmert is right when he says that the mere fact that the conference takes place already turns it into a success and a victory.

As the facts on the ground in Iraq change, the words of MSM’s pundits follow suit:

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman

For more on what’s happening on the ground, see this article in The Times of London.

As the situation in Iraq gets better, media coverage gets worse. Says the Pew Research Center:

News coverage of Iraq, like public interest in the situation there, is now significantly less than it was at the start of the year. In January, roughly a quarter of the overall newshole (26%) in newspapers, TV newscasts, websites and radio was devoted to news about Iraq. In October, the war received only half as much coverage on average (13%), according to data compiled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index.

Good news, of course, is less interesting. The cynics among us might also claim that the drop-off represents the media’s attempt to avoid eating humble pie.

Of the decline in public interest, Pew says this:

. . . public interest in news about the situation in Iraq is now less than it was earlier this year or in 2006. Since June, about 30% of the public, on average, said they have followed news about the situation in Iraq very closely. In 2006 and the first two months of this year, about 40% on average paid very close attention to Iraq news.

Democrats beware.

New York Times editorial, November 17:

It has been two long months since Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, cowed Congressional Democrats into silence, championing President Bush’s misguided course on the war.

New York Times article, November 20:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods [in Baghdad] are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

By the Times’ logic, “President Bush’s misguided course on the war” has produced real “security improvements in most neighborhoods.”

Further to the Gazette’s earlier posting on John McCain, I think everyone who would value a return to integrity, honesty and decency in a GOP candidate should re-evaluate the obviousness of the Arizona Senator as the nominee. Andrew Sullivan makes the case, convincingly.

The following makes me wonder whether some kind of quid pro quo has been reached between the U.S. and Iran. If so, is it in any way related to the U.S. position on the Iranian nuclear program and is it a signal that Washington and Tehran may soon be (or already are) negotiating?

From the New York Times:

The Iraqi government on Saturday credited Iran with helping to rein in Shiite militias and stemming the flow of weapons into Iraq, helping to improve the security situation noticeably.

The Iraqi government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, speaking at a lunch for reporters, also said that the Shiite-dominated government was making renewed efforts to bring back Sunni Arab ministers who have been boycotting the government for more than four months.

Speaking about Iran, he said that that government had helped to persuade the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to ask his Mahdi militia to halt attacks. Mr. Sadr ordered his militia to stop using weapons in early September, and officials say that the militia’s relative restraint has helped improve stability. They say it also seems to have helped decrease the frequency of attacks with explosively formed penetrators, a powerful type of bomb that can pierce heavy armor.

Mr. Dabbagh’s comments echoed those of the American military here, who in recent days have gone out of their way to publicly acknowledge Iran’s role in helping to slow the flow of weapons into the country. [My emphasis]

Needless to say, this story is now generating disgust around the world, the intensity of some of the reactions (and comments on this site) is quite remarkable. At higher levels reactions have been swift too with a debate in Canadian parliament yesterday:

“This is a tragic and grievous incident,” Mr. Day told the House of Commons. “We want to find out answers that can prevent these things from happening in the future.”

But Day, the federal Public Security Minister, refused to commit to a public inquiry though at this point. Given that the victim, Robert Dziekanski, was a Polish immigrant, Warzaw has entered the fray too:

Poland’s ambassador to Canada said Thursday the conduct of the four Mounties who tasered a Polish immigrant was out of line and called for immediate measures to prevent anyone else from suffering the same fate.

Other worthwhile links for more on this case are the Canadian blog The Politic which offers some terse commentary here and British Columbia’s key webzine The Tyee.

In today’s Washington Post, John Podesta, Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis make this claim:

Rather than push for a realistic end to U.S. engagement, the Bush administration claims doomsday scenarios would become reality if a phased U.S. withdrawal began. Iraq, it says, would become a terrorist sanctuary, incite regional war or be the scene of sectarian genocide. These arguments are as faulty as those that led us into Iraq, and progressive leaders must push back.

Do the authors present a counter-argument to the Bush Administration’s “faulty” arguments? No. Not a word. For them, it is self-evidently true that Iraq would not become a terrorist sanctuary, would not incite regional war, and would not be the scene of sectarian genocide. Unlike Podesta, Korb, and Katulis, I lay no claim to perfect foresight. The only thing I do know is that these events are possibilities. To rule them out is demagoguery.

While Ahmadinejad claims that the just-released IAEA report vindicates Iran, these quotes from the report suggest otherwise:

. . . since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant to the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing.

[ . . . ]

Although the Agency has no concrete information, other than that addressed through the work plan, about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially important in the light of Iran’s undeclared activities for almost two decades and the need to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

The emphases are mine.

From an editorial in today’s Washington Post:

Mr. Chavez’s apologists like to dismiss the Venezuelan forces opposing his deconstruction of democracy — which include the Catholic Church, the private business community and labor unions as well as students — as a corrupt elite. So it’s worth noting what some of Mr. Chavez’s long-standing allies are saying about his constitutional changes. The political party Podemos, whose members ran for parliament on a pro-Chavez platform, call it “a constitutional fraud.” Mr. Chavez’s recently retired defense minister, Gen. Ra¿l Isa¿as Baduel, said it was an “undemocratic imposition” and that its approval would amount to “a coup.” (more…)

Remember my original post Beware Air Travel? Here is one of the comments it yielded:

It seems odd to criticize the ‘incompetence’ of the security personnel without mentioning the behavior of the passenger. He (and the other woman who recently died under similar circumstances) may be innocent in terms of terrorist risk, but that’s not the point: they’re being subdued because they’re posing a direct threat to the passengers and staff in the terminal with their irrational and violent behavior.

It is was a fair comment at the time, but as some suspected the ‘threat’ wasn’t all that urgent. We can now test this assumption against the video footage that Canadian authorities released yesterday. If you can stomach watching this go ahead, but do not think you will find any material that would support the continued use of Tasers by security personnel.

Once more: we are increasingly equipping our law enforcement apparatus (be it in the US or Canada) with tools and training that appear to be overly focused on ‘conflict ending’ rather than ‘conflict resolution’. That trend is unacceptable for any free society and needs to be reversed.

Ignacio Ramonet is the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique (not to be confused with Le Monde), a decidedly left-wing, anti-American publication. Last August, he heaped praise (in French) on Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Truthout — an American left-wing website — translated Ramonet’s words into English.

Here, in its entirity and with my emphases, are the thoughts of a rather prominent useful idiot:

Few world leaders are the objects of as hateful demolition campaigns as Mr. Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela. His enemies have stopped at nothing: coup d’état, oil strike, capital flight, assassination attempts… (more…)

Britain’s Prime Minister talks tough on Iran:

The greatest immediate challenge to non-proliferation is Iran’s nuclear ambitions, hidden from the world for many years in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has a choice - confrontation with the international community leading to a tightening of sanctions or, if it changes its approach and ends support for terrorism, a transformed relationship with the world.

Unless positive outcomes flow from Javier Solana’s report and the IAEA, we will lead in seeking tougher sanctions both at the UN and in the European Union, including on oil and gas investment and the financial sector. [My emphasis] Iran should be in no doubt about our seriousness of purpose.

At the New York Times, John Burns (who has been reassigned to London from Baghdad) says that this is the “bluntest” warning that Britain has yet given to Tehran.

I first used “turn of the tide” in a post dated October 12. Joe Klein of TIME seems to agree:

The reduction of violence is real. The defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq–sneezed at by some antiwar commentators–is nothing to sneeze at. The bottom-up efforts to reconcile Sunnis and Shi’ites across the scarred Anbar/Karbala provincial border, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, quite possibly reflect an Iraqi exhaustion with violence that has to be taken seriously as well. There is no question that the performance of the US military has improved markedly under the smarter, more flexible and creative leadership provided this year by General Petraeus. And the withdrawal of U.S. troops is beginning.

These developments, says Klein, are undermining the antiwar movement: “The refusal of the antiwar movement–or some sections of it–to recognize these developments isn’t helping its credibility.”

Klein proffers these words of caution for the Democrats:

There are fewer votes now in Congress–and less cause–to cut off funding for the war than there were last Spring. A renewed campaign on the part of the hapless Democratic leadership to cut off the supplemental funds will only increase the public sense of Democratic futility. It will also play into the very real, and growing, public perception that Democrats are too busy wasting time on symbolic measures (like trying to cut off funds for the war) and shoveling pork (the water projects bill) to pass anything substantive for the public good. Too much time, and political capital, has been wasted fighting Bush legislatively on the war. I’m sure the President and the Republican Party are salivating over the prospect that Democrats will waste more time and capital over it this month…especially at a moment, however fleeting, when the situation on the ground seems to have improved in Iraq. Democrats need to think this over very, very carefully before they proceed.

Is it my imagination, or have the Democratic presidential candidates and congressional leaders stopped saying that the surge is a failure and that the war is lost?

Related posts (at my blog):

“Turn of the Tide in Iraq”
“Declining Casualties in Iraq”
“Turn of the Tide in Iraq”
“Hope“

David Frum summarizes the current state of political affairs in his home country. The unexpected and prolonged strength of Stephen Harper’s minority conservative government, combined with a steady move towards to right on the provincial level, has in only a few years time turned around Canada. It was an overdue process of political re-alignment which has been assisted by high commodity prices, fueling a booming economy. It is up to Harper to sustain this unusual alignment of the stars, something which will continue to be a difficult balancing act.

If you’re wondering what level of education is required to understand this blog, here’s the answer:

I’m sure it’s a mistake, for the main owner of this blog tries to bring the level of discourse down as much as he possibly can.

From now on, however, he will - he told me in private - try to use big words as often as he possibly can - which isn’t very often. “Lets raise the level!” he said.

Obviously, that’ll never happen. But you can’t blame the poor fellow for trying.

If you’d like to test your favorite blogs, click here. (more…)