From a despondent Associated Press:

Sunni tribal leaders sign a security pact in Hawija, 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007.

6,000 Sunnis Join Pact With US in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER

HAWIJA, Iraq (AP) — Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

The new alliance — called the single largest single volunteer mobilization since the war began — covers the “last gateway” for groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq seeking new havens in northern Iraq, U.S. military officials said.

U.S. commanders have tried to build a ring around insurgents who fled military offensives launched earlier this year in the western Anbar province and later into Baghdad and surrounding areas. In many places, the U.S.-led battles were given key help from tribal militias — mainly Sunnis — that had turned again al-Qaida and other groups.

Extremists have sought new footholds in northern areas once loyal to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party as the U.S.-led gains have mounted across central regions…

The ceremony to pledge the 6,000 new fighters was presided over by dozen sheiks — each draped in black robes trimmed with gold braiding — who signed the contract on behalf of tribesmen at a small U.S. outpost in north-central Iraq.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

About 77,000 Iraqis nationwide, mostly Sunnis, have broken with the insurgents and joined U.S.-backed self-defense groups…

Village mayors and others who signed Wednesday’s agreement say about 200 militants have sought refuge in the area, about 30 miles southwest of Kirkuk on the edge of northern Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Hawija is a predominantly Sunni Arab cluster of villages which has long been an insurgent flashpoint.

The recently arrived militants have waged a campaign of killing and intimidation to try to establish a new base, said Sheikh Khalaf Ali Issa, mayor of Zaab village.

“They killed 476 of my citizens, and I will not let them continue their killing,” Issa said…

The Iraqi government has begun resettling some of those Arabs to their home regions, making room for thousands of Kurds who have gradually returned to Kirkuk since Saddam’s ouster.

Tension has been rising over the city’s status — whether it will join the semi-autonomous Kurdish region or continue being governed by Baghdad.

“Hawija is the gateway through which all our communities — Kurdish, Turkomen and Arab alike — can become unsafe,” said Abu Saif al-Jabouri, mayor of al-Multaqa village north of Kirkuk. “Do I love my neighbor in Hawija? That question no longer matters. I must work to help him, because his safety helps me.” …

More good news from Iraq for our media to ignore.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

Of course the Associated Press had to point out the venality of it all.

From the archives of the New York Times:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Democrats; Clinton Defends Position on Iraqi War

By MICHAEL KELLY,
Published: July 31, 1992

For the second time this week, the festering matter of Saddam Hussein intruded into the 1992 Presidential race, as Bill Clinton found himself unexpectedly on the defensive today in attempting to answer Republican accusations that he had misrepresented himself as an early supporter of the use of force against the Iraqi dictator.

Mr. Clinton had called a news conference on the lawn of the Governor’s mansion here in hopes of scoring a few quick points against President Bush in light of economic figures released today that show the nation’s recovery weaker than Mr. Bush has been inclined to admit.

But the questioning quickly turned to accusations raised by the second of the Bush-Quayle campaign’s new daily anti-Clinton press releases. In the statement issued by the Republican campaign’s Washington headquarters, Mary Matalin, the deputy campaign manager, accused Mr. Clinton of “riding tall in the straddle” in suggesting in public comments that he had been “an early and unambiguous supporter of the President’s use of force against the Iraqi army.”

At issue is whether Mr. Clinton was among those political leaders who unequivocally supported military action against Iraq or whether he favored delaying the onset of war in hopes that the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations might force the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait.

In explaining his position today, Mr. Clinton seemed to suggest the he had been for both courses of action.

“What I said was that I had a great deal of sympathy with those who were arguing that sanctions had not been given adequate time,” he said. “But that the Congress could not afford to go on record, in my judgment, undermining the U.N. position that the war was legal on January 15, and that I thought the Congress should vote to support the U.N. resolution to make the war legal on January 15, and that they could argue tactically if they wished whether hostilities should commence on the 15th or on some later date.”

A review of Mr. Clinton’s public statements on the war supports his recollection of his position, but also appears to support the idea that he was, at bottom, a very late and very ambiguous supporter of the war, and that he later sought to suggest otherwise, in political appearances and interviews. ‘I Supported the Gulf War’

On a number of occasions, and as recently as Tuesday, Mr. Clinton has made remarks that indicated, in clear language, that he was a firm supporter of the war.

“I supported the gulf war, and supported being firm with Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Clinton told reporters in Illinois on Tuesday, in one of several such remarks he made during the course of statements harshly criticizing Mr. Bush for his handling of Mr. Hussein and the war.

He made a similar statement during a March 1992 breakfast with Washington reporters, saying, “I supported the President’s policy in the Persian Gulf,” and he used this stance during a televised debate last December to differentiate himself from his Democratic opponents in the Presidential primary process.

His reported statements in the weeks and months leading to the war were, in keeping with his statement today, much more ambivalent, and suggested a position neither precisely in support of nor precisely opposed to the use of force.

He does not appear to have taken a publicly reported position at all before Jan. 14, 1991, two days after Congress voted to give the President authority to go to war.

He was first quoted on the subject in the Jan. 15 issue of The Pine Bluff Commercial, in an article by The Associated Press and in an article the same day in The Arkansas Gazette.

In the Associated Press article, Mr. Clinton is quoted as saying that, if he had been a member of Congress, he probably — not certainly — would have voted with the majority to grant the President war-making authority, but that he personally agreed with the arguments voiced by the minority, that the United Nations sanctions ought to be given more time to work. “I guess I would have voted for the majority if it was a close vote,” Mr. Clinton was quoted as saying. “But I agree with the arguments the minority made.”

He suggested that a vote to give the President authority to go to war was not necessarily a vote for immediate military action, saying that many members had cast their votes even though they believed that the economic sanctions should have been given more time to succeed.

The Associated Press article, which ran under the headline “Clinton Waffles on War Decision,” quoted the Arkansas Governor as saying, “I agree with the arguments of the people in the minority on the resolution — that we should give sanctions more time and maybe even explore a full-scale embargo.”

Asked about that quote in today’s news conference, Mr. Clinton said: “I don’t know what the quote was, but let me tell you what I said. What I said was that even if I agreed with the arguments about sanctions, I still would have voted with the majority because Congress, in my judgment, shouldn’t take a stand undermining the impact of the U.N. resolution, and I still believe that.”

In retrospect, Mr. Clinton added, “It was clear the sanctions would not have worked.”

Mr. Clinton has never been able to be straight and direct about anything. No matter what.

Ever.

“I guess I would have voted for the majority if it was a close vote,” Mr. Clinton was quoted as saying. “But I agree with the arguments the minority made.”

And:

He suggested that a vote to give the President authority to go to war was not necessarily a vote for immediate military action…

Gee, where have we heard this line before?

Do we really want another eight years of such cowardly bullshit “leadership”?

By now you have surely heard the momentous news that Barbra [sic] Streisand has endorsed Mrs. Bill Clinton and will probably stump for her.

If not, here is one report from the (NYT owned) Boston Globe:

Streisand adds her big-star power to Clinton campaign

November 28, 2007

Barack Obama has Oprah Winfrey. Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris. And now Hillary Clinton has Babs.

In the presidential hopefuls’ competition for celebrity endorsements, Clinton showed off award-winning actress and singer Barbra Streisand yesterday. Streisand, who has campaigned for Democratic candidates for years and who sang at Bill Clinton’s 1993 inaugural gala, was effusive in her praise of the senator from New York.

“Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success,” Streisand said in a statement issued by Clinton’s campaign. “Smart, capable, and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.”

But earlier this year, Streisand appeared to be hedging her bets. Within a month of giving Clinton the maximum $2,300 contribution on Feb. 14, she also gave the same amount to Obama and John Edwards, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The statement does not say how actively Streisand will campaign for Clinton. She would have to go a long way to match the star power of Winfrey, who plans to hit the campaign trail for Obama in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire next weekend.

Of course it’s great to see Ms. Streisand offering to give Hillary some much needed support. But things have not always been so “transcendent” between these two historical titans.

From State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, by Jerry Oppenheimer, pp 241-243:

Political Gaffes, Personal Trauma

At the same time, Bill and Hillary experienced a series of difficult personal losses. Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s father, was the first.

He had not been well, and by the time the Rodhams moved from Park Ridge to Little Rock in 1987, his health was failing badly…

[O]n March 19, 1993, as Hillary’s first public hearing on health care loomed, her father suffered a massive stroke. Hugh had been in high spirits, having just made a cameo appearance on the TV sitcom Hearts Afire, one of several high-rated shows produced by Bill and Hillary’s pals and advisors, Harry Thomason and Linda Blood­worth-Thomason, key players in the Clintons’ Hollywood crowd.

Her father comatose and on life support, Hillary, along with Chelsea, flew immediately to Little Rock, while Hughie and Tony jet­ted in from Florida, beginning a long emotional vigil at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center. At night the family stayed in the Rodhams’ small red brick condo. Hillary kept in close telephone contact with her White House health task force, and spent time briefing Vice President Al Gore, who was chairing the hearing in her absence. Bill arrived in Little Rock a week later, to join the family.

With doctors offering little hope for Rodham’s survival, the family began to plan for the funeral…

After a couple of days, Bill flew back to Washington; he needed to make final preparations for his upcoming first summit with Russian president Boris Yeltsin, the White House announced. There was another reason for his return, however—he was expecting a special overnight guest.

“I was going over to see Hugh at the hospital, and thought I might see Hillary just to speak to her, see how she’s doing, and boom—she’s gone,” said Paul Fray [an early friend and political operative who served as campaign manager for Clinton's 1974 congressional campaign]. “When I got there, I said, ‘What happened, where is she?’ And this guy said, ‘You don’t want to know.’ I said, ‘What the hell are you talking about?’ He said, ‘This is off the record—but it looks like Bill’s got tied up with Barbra Streisand up at the White House.’ I said, ‘Man, you’re talking a bunch of crap.’ And he said, `Well, why else did Hillary go home while her daddy’s laying here get­ting ready to die?’ ”

Hillary had, in fact, rushed back to the White House after getting the news that Streisand—who performed at the inauguration—had spent a night in the plush and historic Lincoln bedroom while Hillary was grieving over her comatose father in a depressing and sterile hospital room. (The White House spin was that Hillary had returned to handle urgent business regarding her health care program.)

She had also heard that during her absence Bill, spiffy in a black-sequined tuxedo, had escorted Streisand and his mother, who had become very friendly with the singer, to the Gridiron Dinner, an annual media-politico event. There, in a party-hardy mood, the president wailed on his sax to the Coasters’ golden oldie, “Yakety Yak.”

Hillary was livid. Soon after her return, reporters noticed a vicious-looking scratch on the president’s face. Queried, White House spokes­woman Dee Dee Myers dismissed it as a shaving cut. Later, after leaving the White House, she hedged. “I’m the idiot who said he cut himself shaving before I’d seen him. Then I saw him—it was a big scratch, clearly not a shaving cut. Barbra Streisand was clearly around at the time,” she said.

Tales of a bloody confrontation between the Clintons prompted by Streisand’s visit circulated wildly. Paul Fray put it succinctly: “Hillary left Little Rock like a rocket, went back, and caught the son of a bitch. You know who got hit in the chops, who got smacked around.”

There were tabloid reports at the time, denied of course, that Bill and Barbra had had an affair, and that the First Lady had banned the singer from the White House permanently. “She, more than any other film figure,” commented London’s Daily Mail, which took a sharp interest in such matters, “has swift and easy access to Bill Clinton’s White House. She has stayed overnight at the mansion. The President drops everything to take her calls. Around the dinner tables of Wash­ington, there is light gossip about a romantic liaison between the Presi­dent and the formidable Streisand.”

As it turned out, Barbra Streisand was one subject about whom both Hillary and Monica Lewinsky seemed to see eye to eye, according to one of Linda Tripp’s secret tapes. Like Hillary, Lewinsky reportedly suspected Streisand had been one of the president’s women.

“Ugh. I hate her,” whined Monica. “She’s soooo annoying.” Tripp responded: “She gets prettier as she gets older.” But a catty Monica replied: “Where do you think that’s from? Plastic surgery probably. She’s probably had everything done but her nose.”

(If there had been a falling out between Hillary and Streisand, the diva attempted to smooth things over with money—she was listed as an early contributor to Hillary’s senate campaign.)

Hillary was still in Washington on the evening of April 7, when her father died, at age eighty-two. The Clintons immediately returned to Little Rock to be with the grieving widow.

It’s nice to see that everyone can forgive and forget, isn’t it?

From the defenders of the faith (Islam) at the New York Times:

Girl scouts enjoy a typical weenie roast.

To Muslim Girls, Scouts Offer a Chance to Fit In

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

MINNEAPOLIS — Sometimes when Asma Haidara, a 12-year-old Somali immigrant, wants to shop at Target or ride the Minneapolis light-rail system, she puts her Girl Scout sash over her everyday clothes, which usually include a long skirt worn over pants as well as a swirling head scarf.

She has discovered that the trademark green sash — with its American flag, troop number (3009) and colorful merit badges — reduces the number of glowering looks she draws from people otherwise bothered by her traditional Muslim dress.

“When you say you are a girl scout, they say, ‘Oh, my daughter is a girl scout, too,’ and then they don’t think of you as a person from another planet,” said Asma, a slight, serious girl with a bright smile. “They are more comfortable about sitting next to me on the train.”

Scattered Muslim communities across the United States are forming Girl Scout troops as a sort of assimilation tool to help girls who often feel alienated from the mainstream culture, and to give Muslims a neighborly aura. Boy Scout troops are organized with the same inspiration, but often the leap for girls is greater because many come from conservative cultures that frown upon their participating in public physical activity.

By teaching girls to roast hot dogs or fix a flat bicycle tire, Farheen Hakeem, one troop leader here, strives to help them escape the perception of many non-Muslims that they are different.

Scouting is a way of celebrating being American without being any less Muslim, Ms. Hakeem said.

“I don’t want them to see themselves as Muslim girls doing this ‘Look at us, we are trying to be American,’ ” she said. “No, no, no, they are American. It is not an issue of trying.” …

The Girl Scouts’ national organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., has become flexible in recent years about the old trappings associated with suburban, white, middle-class Christian scouting. Many troops have done away with traditions like saying grace before dinner at camp, and even the Girl Scout Promise can be retooled as needed.

“On my honor I will try to serve Allah and my country, to help people and live by the Girl Scout law,” eight girls from predominantly Muslim Troop 3119 in Minneapolis recited on one recent rainy Sunday before setting off for a cookout in a local park.

Some differences were readily apparent, of course. At the cookout, Ms. Hakeem, a former Green Party candidate for mayor, negotiated briefly with one sixth grader, Asha Gardaad, who was fasting for the holy month of Ramadan.

“If you break your fast, will your mother get mad at me?” Ms. Hakeem asked. Asha shook her head emphatically no.

The troop leader distributed supplies: hot dogs followed by s’mores for dessert. All was halal — that is, in adherence with the dietary requirements of Islamic law — with the hot dogs made of beef rather than pork.

It was Asha’s first s’more. “It’s delicious!” she exclaimed, licking sticky goop off her fingers as thunder crashed outside the park shelter with its roaring fire. “It’s a good way to break my fast!” …

[A] more common concern among parents is that the Girl Scouts will somehow dilute Islamic traditions.

“They are afraid you are going to become a blue-eyed, blond-haired Barbie doll,” said Asma, the girl who at times makes her sash everyday attire. Asma noted that her mother had asked whether she was joining some Christian cabal. “She was afraid that if we hang out with Americans too much,” the young immigrant said, “it will change our culture or who we are.”

Troop leaders win over parents by explaining that various activities incorporate Muslim traditions. In Minneapolis, for instance, Ms. Hakeem helped develop the Khadija Club, named for the first wife of the Prophet Muhammad, which exposes older girls to the history of prominent Muslim women.

Suboohi Khan, 10, won her Bismallah (in the name of God) ribbon by writing 4 of God’s 99 names in Arabic calligraphy and decorating them, as well as memorizing the Koran’s last verse, used for protection against gossips and goblins. Otherwise, she said, her favorite badge involved learning “how to make body glitter and to see which colors look good on us” and “how to clean up our nails.”

Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. does not issue religious badges, but endorses those established by independent groups. Gulafshan K. Alavi started one such group, the Islamic Committee on Girl Scouting, in Stamford, Conn., in 1990. The demand for information about Muslim badges, Mrs. Alavi said, has grown to the point where this year she had the pamphlet listing her club’s requirements printed rather than sending out a photocopied flier. She also shipped up to 400 patches awarded to girls who study Ramadan traditions, she said, the most ever.

Predominantly Muslim troops do accept non-Muslim members. In Minneapolis, Alexis Eastlund, 10, said other friends sometimes pestered her about belonging to a mostly Muslim troop, although she has known many of its members half her life.

“I never really thought of them as different,” Alexis said. “But other girls think that it is weird that I am Christian and hang out with a bunch of Muslim girls. I explain to them that they are the same except they have to wear a hijab on their heads.”

Ms. Farah, who served as an outreach coordinator in Minneapolis and remains active in the Scouts, said she used the organization as a platform to try to ease tensions in the community. Scraps between African-American and Somali girls prompted her to start a research project demonstrating to them that their ancestors all came from roughly the same place.

Ms. Hakeem, the troop leader, said she tried to find projects to improve the girls’ self-esteem, like going through the Eddie Bauer catalog to cut out long skirts and other items that adhere to Islamic dress codes.

All in all, scouting gives the girls a rare sense of belonging, troop leaders and members say.

“It is kind of cool to say that you are a girl scout,” Asma said. “It is good to have something to associate yourself with other Americans. I don’t want people to think that I am a hermit, that I live in a cave, isolated and afraid of change. I like to be part of society. I like being able to say that I am a girl scout just like any other normal girl.”

Right. It’s all about just “fitting in,” isn’t it?

But just who is assimilating whom?

The Girl Scouts’ national organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., has become flexible in recent years about the old trappings associated with suburban, white, middle-class Christian scouting. Many troops have done away with traditions like saying grace before dinner at camp, and even the Girl Scout Promise can be retooled as needed…

Troop leaders win over parents by explaining that various activities incorporate Muslim traditions. In Minneapolis, for instance, Ms. Hakeem helped develop the Khadija Club, named for the first wife of the Prophet Muhammad, which exposes older girls to the history of prominent Muslim women.

Suboohi Khan, 10, won her Bismallah (in the name of God) ribbon by writing 4 of God’s 99 names in Arabic calligraphy and decorating them, as well as memorizing the Koran’s last verse, used for protection against gossips and goblins.

Merit badges for memorizing the Quran?  Prayers to protect oneself from goblins (jinns)?

This isn’t your mother’s Girl Scouts.

But never mind all of that. It’s just another Western institution being destroyed before our very eyes. And we aren’t even allowed to complain. We have to be “flexible.”

And never mind that this is the self-same New York Times which normally hates Scouting with a purple passion. Scouts are “homophobic,” you know.

Of course so are Muslims. And they actually do something about it. (Beheadings. hangings, lashings.)

But that’s different for some odd reason.

From the DNC’s mouth organ, the Washington Post:

Military Progress Doesn’t Make War More Popular

By Peter Baker
Wednesday, November 28, 2007; A10

The debate at home over the Iraq war has shifted significantly in the two months since Gen. David H. Petraeus testified to Congress and President Bush ordered the first troop withdrawals, with more Americans now concluding that the situation on the ground is improving.

A new poll released yesterday underscored the changing political environment, finding the public more positive about the military effort in Iraq than at any point in 14 months as a surge of optimism follows the rapid decline in violence. Yet Bush remains as unpopular as ever in the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the public remains just as committed to bringing U.S. troops home.

The evolving public attitudes reflect, or perhaps explain, a turn in Washington as well. While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy. The focus of the presidential campaign, especially on the Democratic side, has broadened as well. Even antiwar groups that once denied that security has gotten better have recalibrated their arguments to focus on the failed efforts to reach political conciliation among Iraqi factions or the risk of war with Iran.

The shift has strategists in both parties reevaluating their assumptions about how the final year of the Bush presidency and the election to succeed him will play out. If current trends continue, Iraq may still be a defining issue but perhaps not the only one, as it once seemed, according to partisan strategists and independent analysts, particularly if the economy heads south as some economists fear…

Gee, could it be that the media is ignoring the good news on the ground and emphasizes other problems in the region?

The evolving public attitudes reflect, or perhaps explain, a turn in Washington as well. While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy.

What shameless liars are media are.

It’s the good news that has forced Iraq out of the headlines. It simply cannot be reported. And the Democrats would rather die than admit it, so they are on to other subjects that they can lie about without any fear of contradiction.

Even antiwar groups that once denied that security has gotten better have recalibrated their arguments to focus on the failed efforts to reach political conciliation among Iraqi factions or the risk of war with Iran.

Does any rational person imagine that Iraq’s political conciliation will happen faster if the US withdrawals? Or that pulling our troops out of Iraq will lessen the chances of conflict with Iran?

Of course not.

If current trends continue, Iraq may still be a defining issue but perhaps not the only one, as it once seemed, according to partisan strategists and independent analysts, particularly if the economy heads south as some economists fear.

Yes, if our media can’t talk us into losing the war in Iraq, maybe they can talk us into a recession.

Anything to help their Democrat overlords.

From his fans at Reuters:

Chavez: CNN may be instigating my murder

Wed Nov 28

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday CNN may have been instigating his murder when the U.S. TV network showed a photograph of him with a label underneath that read “Who killed him?”

The caption appeared to be a production mistake — confusing a Chavez news item with one on the death of a football star. The anchor said “take the image down” when he realized.

But Chavez called for a probe in an interview on state television, where he repeatedly reviewed a tape of the broadcast, questioning why the unconnected photograph and wording were left on screen for several seconds.

“I want the state prosecutor to look into bringing a suit against CNN for instigating murder in Venezuela,” he said. “… undoubtedly it is part of the psychological warfare.”

The anti-U.S. president often denounces plots to kill him without providing much detailed evidence. On Tuesday, he said a sniper trained his gun on him at a political rally this month.

Chavez has singled out CNN for biased reporting in what he says is a U.S.-sponsored campaign in the foreign media to destabilize Venezuela. CNN says its coverage is objective…

CNN certainly has a long history of what they have called “production mistakes.” Remember the X over Mr. Cheney, for example:

This, however, is probably the first one that was truly an accident. Given that CNN is on the same side as Mr. Chavez.

But, gosh, what a whiner sensitive soul Mr. Chavez is.

If he has a soul.

From the short-term memory loss sufferers at the New York Times:

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start

By PATRICK HEALY

November 28, 2007

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.

Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.

Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.

At the time of those remarks, though, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was not a presidential candidate, and Mr. Clinton was not campaigning on her behalf. Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are in a tight race to win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3; Mr. Clinton made his remark in Iowa yesterday, while his wife was campaigning in South Carolina.

One rival Democratic campaign circulated Mr. Clinton’s remark to reporters and, without speaking for attribution, accused him of fuzzing the historical record to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time.

Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. She has said she was misled by Mr. Bush, but has refused to apologize for her vote.

Mr. Clinton’s remark yesterday came in the context of opposition to Republican-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans like himself, and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military.

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Mr. Clinton said.

Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton said there were alternatives to war.

“He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles,” Mr. Clinton said of Mr. Hussein on the eve of the war. “I’m for regime change, too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change.”

Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said about the remark last night: “As he said from the beginning and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war in Iraq without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs.”

Fittingly enough, this is the photograph the Washington Post chose to run with their publication of Mr. Clinton’s latest whopper:

Of course the kindest thing that can be said about Mr. Clinton is that he is a pathological liar.

Lest we forget, here is a transcript of Mr. Clinton’s remarks on Wednesday, December 16, 1998, when he was facing impeachment for perjury and other crimes, via CNN:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Continue…

From the Gaia cultists at Associated Press:

An Indian man carries a television set through flood waters in the village of Nellie, in the Morigoan district, September 2007. Environmentalists and aid agencies have warned that decades of development in Asia will be reversed by climate change, threatening the lives of millions of people.

UN: Poor need $86 billion in climate aid

By JOHN HEILPRIN

Helping the world’s poor adapt to more floods, droughts and other changes from a warming planet will cost the richest nations at least $86 billion a year by 2015, an expert panel warned Tuesday.

“They must have help from the rich world,” said Claes Johnasson, a co-author of the report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program. “Climate is forcing people into human development traps.”

Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for “climate-proofing” developing nations’ infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel’s report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters.

The report recommends the biggest share be paid by the United States and other rich nations, based on aid targets and financing calculations by the World Bank and Group of Eight major industrialized nations…

It adds a dire economic perspective to previous U.N. scientific findings that carbon and other heat-trapping “greenhouse gas” emissions must stabilize by 2015 and then decline. Without the money, the panel found, a warmer world “could stall and then reverse human development” in the countries where 2.6 billion people live on $2 a day or less.

Scientists have reported that temperatures rose an average 1.3 degrees in the past 100 years, bringing the prospect of a century of extreme weather, rising seas, widening drought and disease and harm to fisheries, forests and farmland.

According to development officials, the consequences include women and young girls having to walk farther to collect water in the Horn of Africa, and people erecting bamboo flood shelters on stilts in the Ganges River delta.

“These impacts … go unnoticed in financial markets and in the measurement of world gross domestic product (GDP),” the report said. “But increased exposure to drought, to more intense storms, to floods and environmental stress is holding back the efforts of the world’s poor to build a better life for themselves and their children.” …

Because of global warming, he said, 600 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will go hungry from collapsing agriculture, an extra 400 million people will be exposed to malaria and other diseases, and an added 200 million will be flooded out of their homes.

The development panel says the greatest financial responsibility lies with the U.S. and other rich nations most responsible for the accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, mainly from man’s burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

“We’re suggesting 1.6 percent of (global) GDP – still very affordable,” Kjorven said. “The countries of the world that are the principal culprits, if you wish, for creating this problem in the first place need to act strongly to safeguard the future of those that have done nothing to cause this problem but are the most vulnerable.” …

Petsonk said developing nations’ carbon-trading markets have the potential to generate large flows of private capital that could help provide much of the development money the U.N. recommends to help the poor adapt to global warming.

Somehow the solutions to all of the problems of the world always come down to income redistribution.

And destroying capitalism.

From the Canadian Free Press:

Al Gore buddy owner of sunken ship that left huge carbon footprint on Antarctic Ocean floor

By Judi McLeod Monday, November 26, 2007

You’d never read this in the mainstream media:  The owner of MS Explorer that sank, leaving a huge carbon footprint at the bottom of the Antarctic Ocean Friday is an acolyte of teensy-weensy carbon footprint crusader Al Gore.

G.A.P. Adventures CEO and Explorer owner, Bruce Poon Tip [sic] and Gore have similar ideals, “filling their schedules with speaking engagements on environmental change to educate global audiences.” And that’s straight off of www.gapadventures.com.  In fact, as recently as last April, both Poon Tip and Gore gave presentations at the Green Living Show in Toronto.

“I expressed my admiration for Mr. Gore’s commitment and leadership which spans more than 20 years,” commented Poon Tip.  “I also invited him aboard our legendary polar expedition ship, the MS Explorer to visit the Arctic.”

The legendary polar expedition ship…”had at least five faults at its last inspection,” according to Greenpeace spokeswoman Bunny McDiarmid.  “Maritime records show the MV Explorer has completed more than 40 cruises to the ice, but has lately been suffering maintenance and safety problems.”

Maintenance and safety problems never kept the MS Explorer from setting out for the Antarctica two weeks ago…

There was little mention in the mainstream media that the passengers were comprised of eco warriors or that they had spent thousands of dollars to see ice at a much closer range than they ever dreamed…

The 38-year-old vessel was sold by Abercrombie & Kent (A&K) to G.A.P Adventures in 2004. A&K has since acquired Explorer II, now called “Minerva”…

Meanwhile, Greenpeace believes tourism in Antarctica should be strictly limited because of the fate of MS Explorer, but the silence is deafening from Poon Tip and Gore about the huge carbon footprint left on the ocean floor.

And indeed, at the G.A.P. Adventures site we find:

G.A.P Adventures CEO meets with Al Gore

May 29, 2007 – Not everyone gets to meet someone like Al Gore – a political leader and perhaps the most well-known climate change activist of our time, but G.A.P Adventures CEO, Bruce Poon Tip recently did! 

Gore and Poon Tip met because they share similar ideals, filling their schedules with speaking engagements on environmental change to educate global audiences. In April 2007, both leaders gave presentations at the Green Living Show in Toronto.

As part of the show, Poon Tip was invited along with a small group to have lunch with Gore, who spoke about the environment and showed segments from his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. Following the presentation, Poon Tip and Gore discussed many topics including the power of Gore’s documentary, ecotourism, the critical situation in the Arctic as well as Gore’s ambitious travelling schedule. “I give 40 presentations to global audiences every year and I was amazed that Mr. Gore, who told me he has 9 presentations a week, and speaks at up to 400 engagements a year was able to make his talk as fresh as if he was presenting it for the first time,” says Poon Tip. “I came away with renewed energy!”

Poon Tip was impressed with Gore’s dedication to global warming. “I expressed my admiration for Mr. Gore’s commitment and leadership which spans more than 20 years,” commented Poon Tip. “I also invited him aboard our legendary polar expedition ship, the M/S Explorer to visit the Arctic.”

Poon Tip and Gore have several things in common. They both dedicate their personal and professional lives to improving the environment, give many presentations on eco-friendly practices to global audiences and are striving to make positive changes for the survival of our planet. Chances are, they will meet again.

Isn’t irony ironic?

It’s only too bad Mr. Gore didn’t take up Mr. Poon Tip’s offer to cruise on the MS Explorer.

Though, perhaps the Antarctic has suffered enough already.

From the terrorists’ friends at Reuters:

Palestinians attend a protest, organised by a Hamas-led faction, against the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, in Gaza November 27, 2007.

Abbas slammed as “traitor” at anti-Annapolis rallies

27 Nov 2007

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA, Nov 27 (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of Palestinians joined anti-Annapolis rallies in Gaza and the West Bank on Tuesday, chanting “Death to Israel” and calling President Mahmoud Abbas a traitor for attending the peace talks.

Speaking at the largest protest in Hamas-run Gaza, leaders of the Islamist group which seized the enclave from Abbas’s forces in June said the president had no right to make concessions to Israel at the U.S.-hosted conference.

“Let them go to a thousand conferences, we say in the name of the Palestinian people that we did not authorise anyone to sign any agreement that harms our rights,” Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas leader, told a cheering crowd.

“Anyone who does so will be judged by history as a traitor.”

Hundreds also defied a ban on anti-Annapolis rallies in the West Bank, where Abbas holds sway, to attend protests held by a snall [sic] Islamist group in Ramallah, Nablus, Bethlehem and Hebron — where up to 3,000 people gathered.

Abbas’s security forces clashed with protesters, hitting out at the crowd with batons, shooting into the air and firing tear gas to disperse the rallies. A journalist was injured and up to 30 people were arrested in Ramallah, a Reuters witness said.

In Gaza, journalists estimated crowds of up to 100,000 people. Hamas put the number closer to 250,000 — similar to the turnout at a rally called by Abbas’s secular Fatah faction earlier this month for the anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death.

Waving Palestinian flags as well as the green Hamas banner and black flag of the Islamic Jihad faction, protesters shouted “Abbas is a traitor”…

While Abbas hopes talks will eventually lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim a right to all land that is now Israel.

“There will be no concessions over one inch of Palestine. We will defend this land by our flesh and we will water it by our blood,” Islamic Jihad leader Mohammed al-Hindi told the rally.

In Lebanon, several hundred Palestinians protested at the Ain al-Hilweh camp, home to 70,000 refugees, chanting “Overthrow the Arab traitors,” in reference to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Syria which are attending the conference…

It was ever thus, was it not?

It’s almost as if they don’t want peace. Which is maybe understandable.

If they weren’t blowing each other up, what would they find to do?

From those proponents of nuclear proliferation at the Associated Press:

Iran says it’s produced new missile

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said Tuesday it has manufactured a new missile with a range of 1,200 miles capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Mideast, the official news agency IRNA reported.

Iran’s Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said the Ashoura missile was produced by factories affiliated with the ministry, according to IRNA. He did not say whether Iran has test fired the missile or has plans to do so.

Many of Iran’s weapons development claims have not been independently verified.

Iran launched an arms development program during its war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has reportedly produced its own jets, torpedoes, radar-avoiding missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran’s standoff with the U.S. over its controversial nuclear program, which Washington claims is a cover for weapons development — a charge Tehran denies…

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shahab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 1,200 and 1,900 miles, that would enable it to hit much of Europe.

Let’s hope they don’t put them on their new home-built submarines (pictured above).

Of course all of these developments are for peaceful purposes only.

Iran launched an arms development program during its war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo…

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran’s standoff with the U.S. over its controversial nuclear program…

Nevertheless, according to the AP, it is all the fault of the US.

As always.

From those champions of legitimate governance at the Associated Press:

Musharraf bids farewell to troops

By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writers

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan – President Gen. Pervez Musharraf bade farewell to the military Tuesday, a day before he steps down as army chief and restores Pakistan to civilian rule in an effort to ease the country’s political crisis.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in a 1999 coup, said the president’s departure from the army would make “a lot of difference,” but insisted he needed to do much more to defuse tensions. Relinquishing the post of army chief has been a key demand of an increasingly adamant opposition to Musharraf both at home and abroad.

A guard of honor of about 150 army, navy and air force troops stood to attention as Musharraf arrived at the army headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. The colonial-style complex contains Musharraf’s office.

A military band played the national anthem as a grim-faced Musharraf, wearing a green-and-white sash over his uniform and a row of medals on his chest, inspected the troops on a small parade ground.

He held a brief closed-door meeting with other senior commanders, then traveled to the head offices of the navy and air force in the nearby capital, Islamabad.

He made no comment to reporters allowed to watch some of the events…

The general has purged the courts and quickly obtained a Supreme Court ruling validating his victory in a disputed presidential election last month…

Sharif and Bhutto both registered Monday to run in the election but, like other smaller opposition groups, they have threatened to boycott the vote to undermine its legitimacy…

Ever notice how our media is careful to never mention what the Supreme Court had to decide about the elections?

It was a procedural question, about whether someone can run for the Presidency while being in the military. Even if it was understood he would step down if elected.

Well, he did step down. So it is the most minor of a technicality.

But just like in our country, the opposition and the media will try to de-legitimize the elections any way one can.