Russian Intelligence

There has been news floating around for some time that indicates the Russians attempted to aid Saddam Hussein’s regime with military intelligence pertaining to America’s invasion.
There have been hints that America had known that Putin was duplitious and was fed bogus American troop strategies knowing Russia would betray America. This became part of the shock and awe, Hussein thought America was coming one way and they came another.
It is almost humorous that America knew what a so-called ally (Russia) would actually do. The lesson is serious though, America cannot trust Russia. Russia obviously is following its own National Interest. That National Interest deviates from the America’s National Interest or Russia would not be continously attempting to undermine the War on Terror. Russia is constantly fraternizing with Islamofascist Iran. The Ruskies have even had invited consultations with Hamas – a particular murderous terrorist organization. One wonders if they have contact al Qaeda in anyway, Russian moves would indicate that possibility.

Russian Intelligence

When it comes to his friend Vlad, President Bush always seems ready to forgive and forget

Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A22 


YOU’D THINK that evidence that a supposedly friendly country had delivered detailed military intelligence to an American enemy at a time of war would quickly provoke a reaction from the U.S. government: at the least, a demand for a full explanation, followed by a reassessment of relations with that country. But that’s not how the Bush administration handles Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

For some time the administration has been in possession of captured Iraqi documents describing how the Russian ambassador in Baghdad supplied Saddam Hussein with information about U.S. troop movements before and during the invasion of Iraq, including the critical intelligence that U.S. forces planned to bypass Iraqi cities and press through the "Karbala Gap" to Baghdad.

Yet it was not until they were questioned about the documents on national television over the weekend that senior national security officials offered that they would ask the Russian government about them. And even that was qualified.

"I do think we have to look at the documents and look very carefully," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "But I don’t want of jump out ahead and start making accusations about what the Russians may or may not have known." Fair enough, but a Pentagon study has already been through at least part of that exercise. It found no reason to doubt the documents’ authenticity.

The news that Moscow would have helped Saddam Hussein fight U.S. forces might be unwelcome to those administration officials who still try to portray Mr. Putin as a partner of the West and a worthy host for the next summit of the Group of Eight nations. But it shouldn’t be surprising. As has been well documented, Russia did its best to weaken and then break the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq, and then to prevent the 2003 invasion. In exchange it reaped lucrative economic concessions from Saddam Hussein, including the payment of large bribes to senior officials and politicians.

Moreover, Mr. Putin has done his best to undermine or defeat U.S. policies in much of the rest of the world. He has fought President Bush’s efforts to promote democracy in the Muslim countries of Central Asia, rushing to embrace the autocratic president of Uzbekistan when his massacre of opposition protesters led to a rift with Washington and the closure of an important U.S. air base. He welcomed the Islamic movement Hamas to Moscow just as the Bush administration was trying to arrange its international isolation. He is propping up the dictator of Belarus even as the United States and European Union impose sanctions on him for staging fraudulent elections.

Ms. Rice and other Putin apologists ignore all this in part because they believe Russia will be helpful in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But Russia hasn’t been helpful. Since its compromise offer to allow Iran to enrich uranium in Russian facilities failed to gain traction, it has dedicated itself to blocking concerted action by the United States and its European allies in the U.N. Security Council. Meanwhile it is discussing the sale to Iran of surface-to-air missiles. As Mr. Putin knows, Iran wants those weapons in the event its drive to obtain nuclear bombs eventually leads to a military confrontation — with the United States. But the possible consequences of bolstering the defenses of a U.S enemy may not deter him. After all, he has suffered none for Russia’s actions in Iraq.

Abbas approves Hamas cabinet

Apparently Abbas is a typical Mohammedan. He has been telling the West that Hamas is an unacceptable partner to form a PA government. Abbas has told Israel that Hamas would not be allowed to form a government without accepting Israel’s existence. As usual of Mohammedan diplomacy it is all smoke and mirrors of deception and duplicity.

Abbas approves Hamas cabinet

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas notified Hamas officials on Saturday that he would accept their proposed cabinet line-up even though its platform does not endorse previous agreements or peace initiatives with Israel, a major sticking point in the two-month negotiations that have followed the terror group’s landslide parliamentary victory in January. The new Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said the Palestinian Authority parliament would approve the new ministers Wednesday, a day after Israel’s national elections. (ICEJ Email Updates)

There is some lying somewhere. This kind of deception does not bode well for Israel. On the day of this posting Israel is on the verge of an election. There are some serious goings on that may determine Israel’s existence. A Palestinian entity will not be a peaceful coexistent neighbor for Israel. Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Some tough choices are ahead.

View From The Right Criticism of Neocons

The Blog – The View From the Right – has a post that is highly critical of Neocons and their view of Islam. Lawrence Auster was wrote the post. Basically his gripe is that Neocons do not distinguish between Islamism and Islam. According to Lawrence Neocons give to much credence to the evils of Islamism as an Islamofascist ideology and not realize the evil of Islam as a religion.

That far I do have to agree with Auster.


I consider myself a Neocon, yet I am extremely unhappy with the Bush Administration’s definition of the threat of Islam. The religion is inherently violent by nature and ideology. I do not know if one can have a battle of ideology with Islam because its nature is ingrained into the community of its adherents.


The West has come to understand that individuals will differ in ideology even among likeminded people. That is why in the 21st Century there is tolerance between Catholic and Protestant and between liberal and Conservative and much in between in the religious and secular scale. Disagreement in the West is a matter of tolerance and respect of the infrastructure that maintains the public peace. Matters of victory are usually played in elections at best and courts at worst. The numbers entail where the spoils of victory go.


In Islam it is different. The infrastructure is the traditional interpretation is a community Imam that may be an association of a group of Imams. The interpretation of Sharia Law is ingrained in the community without toleration of deviation. The very nature of infrastructure maintenance is tied to unwavering religious into the communal life. There is no secular. Even in so-called secular Turkey, Islam Sharia is the measuring rod of law. The result is a draconian enforcement of cultural norms as interpreted by an Imam or group of Imams.


That far I agree with Lawrence Auster. I do not agree with that Neocon ideology is a fixed political component. Neoconservativism is quite elastic as influenced by Strauss. Neocons develop an ideology that adjusts according to what the national interest is best benefited. Democracy is a tool or mean to an end, not the end itself.

Below are Lawrence Auster’s criticism. You got to read my critique beforehand.


The importance of “Islamism” to the neoconservatives

The significance and danger of the liberals’ and neoconservatives’ use of “Islamism” instead of “Islam” is apparent: as long as we tell ourselves that only a small ideological faction of “Islamists” is our problem, rather than Islam itself, we will fail to see who our real adversary is, and we will fail to defend ourselves from him.

Many of us understand that point. What we don’t yet fully appreciate is how important the “Islamist” construction—or its ridiculous variant, “Islamofascist”—is to the neoconservatives themselves. The essence of neoconservatism is the view that our nation and civilization are nothing but a universalist democratic ideology, equally accessible to every person on the planet. To the neocons, all the substantive realities that constitute our shared existence—religion, history, tradition, culture, constitutionalism, nationhood, peoplehood, our way of life, our way of being—are as nothing. To the neocons, the only real thing is the universalist ideology, plus money (the latter being the theme of Norman Podhoretz’s incredibly vulgar book My Love Affair with America). Since the neocons see our nation as only an ideology, they can only conceive of a threat to our country in ideological terms, that is, as a false ideology that is opposing our true ideology. They cannot conceive that a people or a culture or a religion could be a threat to us, because people, culture, religion and other such substantive realities are not real to the neocons; only ideology is real. And this is why they call our enemy “Islamism” (which is an ideology) instead of Islam (which a religion and, according to the teachings of Islam itself, a nation).

The neocons’ ideological view of reality served America well during the Cold War, when our adversary was indeed an ideology. But it does not serve America, indeed it puts us at mortal risk, in the civilizational and demographic war of Islam against the West.

And this is why our argument that the neocons should say “Islam” instead of “Islamism” falls on deaf ears. For the neocons to hear what we are saying, they would have to let go of their most fundamental philosophical orientation toward the world and admit the possibility that the world consists of peoples and religions and civilizations that are profoundly, often irreconcilably, different from each other; they would have to admit that the universalist idea is false. Thus the neocons’ use of the word “Islamism” is not simply an intellectual mistake on their part; it is, at present, the linchpin of their political being, their life-jacket in the stormy seas of reality.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 25, 2006 01:51 PM


Olmert and Israel’s Future

There is a huge election soon to occur in Israel. Prime Minister Olmert is the current successor to a physically disabled Prime Minister Sharon. Sharon created the Kadima Party due to opposition from members of the Likkud Party that originally put him in power. Essentially Likkud stood for the Conservative vision for Israel and the retention of the Land acquired as the result of Arabic invasions.
Sharon convinced a cadre of followers there would never be peace for Israel as long as Israel managed Samaria/Judea (West Bank) and Gaza. Therefore Sharon decided to unilaterally disengage from Palestinian Authority administered areas. In this case Israel would be Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be on their own.
It sounds good except for some glitches: Israel has settlements scattered through these areas by people that believe the Land is part of Sovereign Israel. A majority of evangelical Christians agree. Israel is the Land of Promise to the descendants of the son of Promise – Isaac. Mohammedans claim right of first birth – Ishmael. Christians and Jews stand on the Word their perspective Word of God in which the Mohammedan Quran then is a demonic revelation, there negating Mohammedan claims.
With all that in mind here is an article from ZionNet:
Olmert’s Arragance
By Ari Shavit, Haaretz
In September 2000, the Palestinians began a terror offensive against Israel. They did this because they refused to accept the Camp David proposal, which promised them the entire Gaza Strip and 91 percent of the West Bank in exchange for full recognition of Israel and an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Ehud Olmert is elected prime minister and implements his convergence plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinians will have sovereignty over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of the West Bank, and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending the conflict.
Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives of its wars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the State of Israel. The history books will record Olmert’s unconditional withdrawal as the unconditional surrender of Zionism. No, it will not be the end. But it will be the beginning of the end. While relying on big money on one side and big journalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the beginning of the end.
At first glance, Olmert’s plan appears enchanting – no fear, no hesitation, and very Israeli. Here, we’ll take our destiny in our own hands. Within three years we’ll evacuate some 80,000 settlers. Within less than five years, we will undergo a final disengagement from the Palestinians and converge within the borders of a flourishing lowlands country. We will surround our existence with a high wall, which will protect us from both the craziness of the Land of Israel and from the threat of Palestine. And so, in one term, we will isolate ourselves from all the sickness and terrors of the Middle East. So simple. So clear. How did we not think of this sooner. Why did we wait so long so that the man who saved Jerusalem could also save the State of Israel.
However, on second glance it becomes clear that the Olmert plan has a small flaw: It has no Palestinians.
This is a plan whose logic is simplistic and patronizing. This is a plan for Israelis only, which ignores its ramifications on Israelis. It takes an extreme unilateral position to the point of absurdity, totally ignoring the fact that the conflict is bilateral and the political reality is multilateral. The plan, then, is an arrogant one, and the hubris that characterizes it is no less than the hubris of the person who formulated it.
What Olmert plans to do in the next few years is to establish an armed Hamas state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Via the nearly complete withdrawal, Olmert will promise Hamas almost total control in the Palestinian state for generations. The Palestine of Olmert will be hostile, dissatisfied and violent. Its founding ethos will be “We’ve chased them out of Ofra, we’ll chase them out of Tzahala too.”
Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring its demilitarization, it will have significant military capability. Since he is establishing it without removing the right of return from the agenda, it will have a destructive claim against Israel, whose legitimacy is recognized by the international community. The combination of political sovereignty, military power and a commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert’s Hamas state into one that will endanger the very existence of the State of Israel.
Despite the irony, the convergence plan will not implement the Bush vision, but will destroy it. It will not build a stable two-state solution, but will create an unstable reality in which an Islamic Palestinian state systematically undermines the foundation of the Jewish democratic state.
But it is not just the stability of Israel that Olmert is endangering. He is also endangering the regional stability. A Hamas state will accelerate Jordan’s collapse. There is no chance that the Hashemite rule will stand up against a Palestinian state on its doorstep whose religious fervor has just subdued the Zionists. Egypt
will also be threatened. A victorious Muslim Brotherhood republic that controls a third of Jerusalem and devours the Temple Mount will be the beacon of zealotry for the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo. And in Damascus. And in Amman.
And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but also the anti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral process will disrupt the American strategy in the area and will bury U.S. President George W. Bush’s dream of stability and democracy in the Middle East.

Impeach President Bush!

I am a senior citizen.
During the Clinton Administration I had a good job.
Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse because of his policies:

  • I lost my job
  • I lost my home
  • I lost my health insurance
  • I lost my two sons in that terrible War in Iraq
  • As a matter of fact, I’ve lost virtually everything and become homeless
  • Instead of getting some help, I only got arrested
  • George W. Bush has to go!
  • We should do anything that Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Kerry want to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House with the next election

Sincerely, …

I hope if you have gotten this far, you realize this is a pun

To find out who this disenfranchised senior citizen is, CLICK HERE.

Hat tip Know Thyself

Who Step UP To The Plate And Buy …

Ok now listen up! 🙂
I found this obscure book I would like to buy.
It is called "The Life And Religion of Mohammed."
It was written by a Roman Catholic that studied Islam in India. Since I am a blogger, short of funds and love to answer Muslims when they get angry with me; I need a little help. So are there any gracious My Space guys out there willing to accomodate? If there is simply e-mail for postal information.

The Life and Religion of Mohammed
by J.L. Menezes


Father J.L. Menezes knew Islam up close: as a missionary in India, he devoted his priestly life to introducing that nation’s tens of millions of Muslims to Christianity. In The Life and Religion of Mohammed, he left us the record of his appeals: a frank, honest, and exhaustively researched exploration of the life of the "prophet" of Islam, the development and contents of the Koran, and an introduction to various Muslim sects.

Working from the earliest Islamic sources, Fr. Menezes provides a complete account of Mohammed’s life, from his days as a simple merchant to his triumphs as a leader of armies and revered prophet. Menezes delved so deeply into his subject that he was even able to describe Mohammed’s physical appearance. He explains why Mohammed couldn’t possibly be a true prophet, and reveals the true sources of his "revelations."

Fr. Menezes could be writing about today’s Muslim terrorists when he explains that "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God, the seal of the prophets; as the destroyer of idolatry; as preacher of one true God, and the reformer of morals: while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds, ordering prayers and alms deeds and at the same time propagating Islam everywhere by fire and sword."

Turning to the Koran, Fr. Menezes delineates the distinctive teachings of Islam, explaining the elements of the Muslim holy book that make it so difficult for Muslims to convert to Christianity — and showing how the Koran, when read honestly and without Islamic preconceptions, nonetheless depends upon and leads to Christianity.

The Life and Religion of Mohammed concludes with an "appeal to candor and common sense," inviting Muslims to think critically about their religion, and to embrace Christ instead. With Islam on the march everywhere and Muslims streaming into the U.S. in record numbers, the candor, common sense, and solid Christian faith of this book are needed more than ever.

Your guide into the dark mind of Mohammed includes:

  • The bizarre circumstances of Mohammed’s "revelations": "it was a painful sight to behold the nervousness of his features, the distortion of his countenance and the anxiety of mind portrayed on his face"
  • How worldly ambition gradually blinded Mohammed’s mind and overwhelmed his early searches for the true God
  • How Mohammed borrowed many of his ideas of Paradise from contemporary Jews and Christians — and mixed them with base and lewd imaginings
  • How Mohammed again and again justified his rapine and licentiousness with new "divine revelations"
  • Why Mohammed adopted — and later discarded — many Jewish customs and ritual observances
  • Islamic tolerance: Mohammed let Jews and Christians live in his domains — if they paid tribute and accepted second-class status
  • What the Koran really teaches about Christianity and Christ
  • What Mohammed learned from heretical Christian sects — and incorporated into the Koran
  • The early history of Islam: just as bloody as the life of its founder
  • How the Koran doesn’t limit Muslims to four wives, as is widely believed, but actually sets no real limit
  • Why the new religion Mohammed taught became so commonly identified with war and politics

The hard-to-find The Life and Religion of Mohammed is now only $19.95 — a 20% savings off the publisher’s price!

Bird Flu Is Man Made!

The Bird Flu (H5H1 strain) is the result of modern mass production of domestic foul. Whatever is being used to make huge chicken and turkey farms for domestic sale has created this flu that is lethal without antidote for humanity.
Virologist Earl Brown from Canada claims this strain of flu originated in Scotland in 1959 and some how made its way to China. It has been in China for nearly a decade.
This gives a good argument to abandon hormones or whatever in commercial meats. Is not Mad Cow disease also the result mass production of beef. I realise in that case it is spread to the human population by improper health cleanliness in the meat plants. Still I suspect hormones are affecting beef as well. It may be time to begin to hunt wild (not domesticated) bufalo or become a vegitarian.

Blame ‘Big Chicken’

By Wendy Orent
Sunday, March 19, 2006


Chicken never has been cheaper. A whole one can be bought for little more than the price of a cup of coffee from Starbucks. But the industrial farming methods that make ever-cheaper chicken possible also may have created the lethal strain of bird flu virus, H5N1, that threatens to set off a global pandemic.

According to University of Ottawa flu virologist Earl Brown, lethal bird flu is entirely man-made, first evolving in commercially produced poultry in Italy in 1878. The highly pathogenic H5N1 is descended from a strain that first appeared in Scotland in 1959.

People have been living with backyard flocks of poultry since the dawn of civilization. But it wasn’t until poultry production became modernized and birds were raised in much larger numbers and concentrations that a virulent bird flu evolved. Somehow, the virus that arose in Scotland found its way to China, where, as H5N1, it has been raging for more than a decade.

Industrial poultry-raising moved from the West to Asia in the last few decades and has begun to supplant backyard flocks there.

Poultry may represent a family’s greatest wealth. The birds often are not eaten until they die of old age or illness. The cost of the virus to people who have raised birds for months or years is incalculable and the compensation risible: In Thailand, farmers have been offered one-third of their birds’ value since the outbreak of bird flu.

Some researchers still blame migratory birds for the relentless spread of the bird flu virus. But Martin Williams, a conservationist and bird expert in Hong Kong, contends that wild birds are more often victims than carriers.

Researchers concede that the global poultry trade, much of which is illicit, plays a far larger role in spreading the virus.

The Nigerian government traced its outbreak to the illegal importation of day-old chicks. Illegal trading in fighting cocks brought the virus from Thailand to Malaysia in fall 2005. And it is probable that H5N1 first spread from Qinghai to Russia and Kazakhstan last summer through the sale of contaminated poultry.

But an increasingly hysterical world targets migratory birds.

In early February, a flock of geese, too cold and tired to fly, rested on the frozen waters of the Danube Delta in Romania. A group of 15 men set upon them, tossed some into the air, tore off others’ heads and used still-living birds as soccer balls. They said they did this because they feared the bird flu would enter their village through the geese. Many conservationists worry that what happened in Romania is a foreshadowing of the mass destruction of wild birds.

Meanwhile, deadly H5N1 is washing up on the shores of Europe.

Brown, the virologist, says the commercial poultry industry, which caused the catastrophe in the first place, stands to benefit most. The conglomerates will more and more dominate the poultry-rearing business. Some experts insist that will be better for us.

For instance, epidemiologist Michael Osterholm at the University of Minnesota contends that the "single greatest risk to the amplification of the H5N1 virus, should it arrive in the U.S. through migratory birds, will be in free-range birds … often sold as a healthier food, which is a great ruse on the American public."

The truly great ruse is that industrial poultry farms are the best way to produce chickens — that they are keeping the world safe from backyard poultry and migratory birds. But what’s going to be on our tables isn’t the biggest problem.

The real tragedy is what’s happened in Asia to people who can’t afford cheap, industrial chicken. And the real victims of industrially produced, lethal H5N1 have been wild birds, an ancient way of life and the poor of the Earth, for whom a backyard flock has always represented a measure of autonomy and a bulwark against starvation.

Wendy Orent is the author of "Plague: The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World’s Most Dangerous Disease."

copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.