It is a must see and read.

This video kicked up a serious fracas along with blatant cover up attempts Youtube deleted it and CNN refused to let Glenn Beck show it. See Death Cult Mickey still on air and AFP dubs Hamas Mouse resistance Mickey

What does McCain do?

He goes to Belgium where he uses a speech and a press conference to help improve US strategic position in that war.

First, he endeavors to restore European self confidence and trust in the transatlantic alliance:

Whether we turn our attention to the regime in Iran, the displaced in Sudan, troops under NATO command in Afghanistan, or to our own citizens, individuals everywhere look to the United States and Europe for unity and leadership. . . .

Not only do we seek European leadership, we believe it is necessary to make the world a better, safer place for our interests and our values. This means true leadership -- not a group of countries that merely follows American directives, as some fear, nor a coalition that opposes American power simply because of its country of origin, as others suggest.

He reminds the Russians and the Chinese that the American Congress holds some invaluble cards:

Asked what consequences there would be if Moscow and Beijing blocked such a move, he told reporters:"Clearly it's going to affect many areas of cooperation between our two countries.

"There will be a reaction in the U.S. Congress."

Bravo! Americans may not remember, but the Russians and the Chinese know the difficulties the Jackson Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act caused the USSR. The executive may be talked out of pulling the air out of the Chinese economy but there would be plenty of Congressmen who would recognize the political gold which can be mined by standing up to obstreperous Russian and Chinese governments.

Finally, he warned Iran that the military option is very much on the table (italics mine):

The Arizona senator, who has been of President Bush's most vocal supporters on the war in Iraq, dedicated much of his address to Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.

McCain urged"immediate" action by the U.N. Security Council in the form of"multilateral sanctions" against the country and refused to rule out the possibility of military force being used against Iran."To preemptively forswear options is to weaken our diplomatic hand," said McCain. "In the end, there is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran."

The essay version of his speech is well worth reading in its entirety. It leaves no doubt but that John McCain is not only tough but smart and a true patriot. He never forgets that we are at war and never puts victory in that war second to his personal ambitions. Indeed, my man, John McCain, comes through again.

In a similar vain, Martin Gross writes in"What McCain has to offer" as a presidential candidate:

So how does one choose the right man? C. Northcote Parkinson of Parkinson's Law fame had the answer. For every impossible job -- as per Winston Churchill or FDR in World War II or Reagan in the Cold War -- there is only one person who fits the bill. He called it a short list of selection. The times are so challenging that a prospective candidate might best be described, in caricature, by a help-wanted ad for the job.

"Wanted: A president of the United States. Must be willing to work 110 hours a week, setting aside time to fight the light heavyweight champion of the world before lunch. He must be anxious to suffer psychic torture by daily watching Oprah and Katie Couric on television in the Oval Office, then be interviewed by Mike Wallace -- all the while conducting four simultaneous wars throughout the globe as commander in chief. Must be willing to face editorial demonization by the media, tussle with congressional opposition including threats of impeachment from Sen. Russ Feingold, while dealing with Cabinet officers being discharged for corruption. He must be able to handle a low 20 percent approval rating without losing heart or his natural optimism. Most important, the president must be willing to die in office as a symbol of his dedication to the American people, a love affair that will not be requited until 30 years later. Apply Box 101, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., along with a non-refundable deposit of $10 million."

Who among the contenders would be courageous enough to respond to such a daunting ad? Only one: Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Why? Is he so hopelessly ambitious to suffer indignity for his personal goals?

Perhaps, but more important, he seems to be the only one who has that in-born authentic patriotic spirit that requires him to sacrifice for this nation. Plus he seems to have the sense of destiny, shared by Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan -- that he is the only one of his time capable of the onerous job of a president under shattering fire.

Besides, after years of torture by the communists in the Hanoi Hilton, he has already survived the test of the constant attack he will have to undergo as president.

At a 1936 meeting of a French think-tank, the Center for the Study of Human Problems, one of the conferees outlined the following scenario:

---"Let us imagine the worst in the simplistic, even improbable, form of a single nation conquering all others. Let us imagine Europe conquered by Germany. Well, I suggest that a Germany extended thus over the whole of Europe would no longer be the Germany that we know …. This would be Europe under a different name: a unified Europe. Or rather, it would be neither the Europe of today, nor the Germany of today, but something else; the European confederation of the future."1

Given the realities of Hitler’s New Order, such a prediction seems almost willfully naive. Bernard Bruneteau’s impressive accomplishment is to explain convincingly how a variety of French intellectuals came to hold such views, believing that their country’s defeat in 1940 could serve as the catalyst for establishing European unity. Their illusion, the author contends, was rooted in the vision of a united Europe they had articulated during the interwar years; it framed their initial reactions to the German occupation and allowed them to see potential in it, though some of them did so for longer than others. . . .

Bruneteau does not seek to homogenize this group, but he does identify common influences, networks and recurring themes in interwar ‘Europeanist’ discourse. Aristide Briand, who had sought a rapprochement with Germany during the late 1920s and early 1930s, was a crucial influence. Periodicals such as Notre Temps, L’Europe nouvelle and the Cahiers bleus encouraged the exchange and articulation of pro-European ideas. Greater continental unity was presented as the solution to a variety of problems. Building Europe would facilitate domestic reform, in which government by ‘technicians’ would ensure renovation of the state and social harmony through judicious planning. Just as critically, it would ensure peace with Germany.

Bruneteau emphasizes that the Europeanists did not allow themselves to be deterred by the rise of Hitler or the rapidly deteriorating international climate. Indeed, their desire for integration and peace intensified as the 1930s drew to a close. “Members of a minority, the partisans of a united Europe thus lived their engagement with a growing intensity; it sometimes took on a religious or eschatological character”; they came to hope for “a final deliverance, whatever its form and modalities.” (233)

Given this mindset, Bruneteau argues, it is possible to comprehend how these individuals could regard the collapse of 1940 as inaugurating a new European order. While some conceded the Nazi conquerors were harsh, they argued that in historical terms the Third Reich was performing a function comparable to that of empires in the past, from Rome to Napoleon – paving the way for a new era. The French had to recognize and adapt to the situation, in order to have a presence in the remaking of Europe. Some of these individuals also hoped that the Third Reich would evolve in a more moderate direction, facilitating the process.

Over the course of the occupation the Europeanists outlined their plans for the future. Their visions of economic coordination invariably rejected liberalism in favor of state direction. Africa and Eastern Europe were presented as promising sites for cooperative ‘development’ (exploitation) under Western European guidance. Commentators such as René Château encouraged new approaches to the study of history, in which an emphasis upon transnational trends and particular eras (such as the Carolingian Empire) would forge a common European consciousness. Cultural unity would also be forged in opposition to the negative examples of Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. Here again, Bruneteau highlights continuities with earlier thinking, noting that interwar anti-Americanism and critiques of national history prefigured such conceptions.

As he reconstructs the evolution of Europeanist discourse, Bruneteau stresses that it should not be seen simply as a response to Nazi pressure, even though the propaganda of the Third Reich took on some pan-European tones as the war turned against Germany. Nor were these intellectuals merely opportunists, seeking advantage under changed circumstances; their convictions were genuine and must be taken seriously. . . .

As Bruneteau stresses, there was an air of profound unreality about all of this. The lofty ambitions and communitarian rhetoric of the Europeanists contrasted starkly with the brutal, intensifying exploitation that characterized Nazi rule. While recognizing that some of the Europeanists he studies found aspects of the latter distasteful, Bruneteau surmises that in their devotion to the fantasy of a new, united continent they too often overlooked how it would be constructed. In this respect they were comparable to those who defended Stalinism after 1945. While some aspects of their ideas echoed in postwar discussions of European unity, Bruneteau seems to imply in closing that the wartime Europeanist vision also operated as a negative example, encouraging a more cautious and incremental approach to forging common institutions.

For additional insight see also: French Orientalism: The Mystique of Louis Massignon By David Pryce-Jones in the Covenant. The abstract begins thus:

Abstract: Louis Massignon revitalized for his contemporaries the assumptions that France was a Muslim power and that Jews had to fit into other peoples' conception of them, without right to any identity they might forge for themselves. France's pre-eminent Orientalist in his day, and a professor at the College de France from 1925 onwards, he nonetheless utilized scholarship to promote personal and political prejudices.

Yale Disgrace: Yale Genetics Professor Accuses Israelis of"Occupying" New Orleans

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East www.spme.net has learned that on Wednesday September 28, Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, Department of Genetics Yale University, whose books include: Bats of Egypt (1985), Mammals of the Holy Land (1996) and his latest book Sharing the Land of Caanan (2004) posted the following to a listserv of 912 self-proclaimed Professors For Peace located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/professors_for_peace/ The post was released on Friday, September 30, 2005.

- Israeli security agents (all with previous service in Israeli army or intelligence services) did not only provide services by training US troops in methods of “urban warfare” (read collective punishment and other war crimes) but are now in New Orleans getting taxpayer money to occupy our US cities (see http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/scahill ).

The article is about businesses, government projects and institutions and others hiring private security in New Orleans and the reference in the article to Israeli companies reads:

"... As business leaders and government officials talk openly of changing the demographics of what was one of the most culturally vibrant of America's cities, mercenaries from companies like DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and an Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting International (ISI) are fanning out to guard private businesses and homes, as well as government projects and institutions. Within two weeks of the hurricane, the number of private security companies registered in Louisiana jumped from 185 to 235. Some, like Blackwater, are under federal contract. Others have been hired by the wealthy elite, like F. Patrick Quinn III, who brought in private security to guard his $3 million private estate and his luxury hotels, which are under consideration for a lucrative federal contract to house FEMA workers."

Professors for Peace describes itself as"an international network of educators committed to promoting non-violent solutions to global conflicts and to countering racism and anti-immigrant aggression. Established in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, PfP works to respond to violent conflict by advocating resolutions that ensure racial, sexual, economic, and ecological justice. As educators, we recognize our responsibility to foster constructive dialogue in our classrooms, on our campuses, and in local, national, and international forums. We seek to work in alliance with other organizations and movements striving for peace, justice, and democracy...

"One only has to go to the listserv to see that these professors are neither for peace, justice or democracy. There is a preponderance of fabricated and falsified anti-Israeli propaganda on the Professors for Peace and other similar listservs which is making its way through college professor ranks as evidenced by this inflammatory piece with a reference that does not even verify the allegation. This stuff passes as academic verification, when in fact it is shoddy scholarship and propaganda to say the least. These are forums where professors abuse their academic freedoms.

"Yale should be ashamed of this kind of clearly shoddy scholarship and analysis which should must challenged at every level. This is completely irresponsible and a perpetuation of incessant lies about Israel that cannot be tolerated on our campus as scholarship. It is designed to incite and promote anti-Semitism, delegitimize the State of Israel and promote violence.

"The fact of the matter is that 'Israeli security agents' are not 'getting taxpayer money to occupy our US cities.' This is a boldface lie." said Edward S. Beck, President of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, a group of faculty seeking to promote academic integrity and honest debate and end and hold accountable those professors who choose to fabricate and falsify information to promote conflict in the region and anti-Semitism in the world." Beck concluded.

This was followed by a second message:

Yale Disgrace- Follow-Up and Update. Scholars for Peace in the Middle East has learned that Mazin Qumsiyeh may no longer be on the Faculty of Yale University's Department of Genetics, though he is listed at http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/fac/MazinQumsiyeh.php . SPME apologizes to Yale University if this is the case and advises Yale to disconnect Dr. Qumsiyeh's website, if he is no longer affiliated with the University. Scholars for Peace in the Middle East will make every effort to find out his current status. Dr. Qumsiyeh is listed as: -Cofounder and currently national treasurer and media coordinator of Al-Awda, -Palestine Right to Return Coalition (see http://al-awda.org). - Cofounder of the www.AcademicsForJustice.org and www.BoycottIsraeliGoods.org campaigns. - Vice President of the Middle East Crisis Committee (http://TheStruggle.org) (Source http://www.wildlife-pal.org/dr__mazin_qumsiyeh.htm For Further Information Contact: Dr. Edward S. Beck, President, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East 717.576.5038 or ScholarsforPeace@aol.com

Remember how Tomlinson was booted out of PBS?

Remember Larry Summers was forced to leave Harvard?

Couldn't they learn from the corrupt survivor Kofi Annan:

In most scandals, people adjust their standards of rectitude, depending on whether they support or oppose the person at issue. The subject’s enemies whip themselves into a fever of theatrical outrage, and the subject’s defenders summon up fits of indignation at the lies of the accusers. Scandals are playgrounds for partisans, and everybody else gets to play the role of the junior high school bully, ganging up on whoever seems weakest and most alone.

The Wolfowitz scandal is no exception. People who never called for Kofi Annan to resign amid the $12.8 billion oil-for-food scandal are calling for Wolfowitz’s head over a $60,000 raise. Employees at an institution that, according to one report, wasted $300 million last year, and where roughly 1,000 people make $175,000 to $200,000 a year, are suddenly outraged at lavish spending. Editorials and statements by critics around the world are carefully crafted to avoid mentioning any of the exculpatory evidence on Wolfowitz’s side.

There has indeed been an explosion of Machiavellian posturing. But the core reality is the context Wolfowitz allowed to develop. He let potential allies turn into enemies.

The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with. They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they’ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.

This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?

Brooks is not just talking. He is surviving as the conservative columnist in the New York Times! To be honest, I identify with the sad threesome. I have never mastered the political skills Brooks described. Indeed, I have always wondered how men like Summers and Wolfowitz made it as far as they did with so many Elsworth Toohis gunning for them?

Pollard’s life sentence was the most severe prison term ever given for spying for an ally. Moreover, as Alan Dershowitz repeatedly pointed out, Pollard’s sentence was far greater than the average term imposed for spying for the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States. Some justify the discrepancy by claiming that Pollard also spied for others and that his information he provided Israel reached America's enemies causing the country major harm. Former CIA director, James Woolsey, said it was not true that the information given to Pollard was leaked to other countries and Tenet does not make either claim. He only writes:

Many people in the intelligence community believed that Pollard hadn't been motivated by love of Israel alone. There are indications that he offered to spy for other countries.

I suspect that the reason Pollard was not released was also because Democratic Clinton, Albright and Ross were determined not to give Likud (read"Repulican") and Bibi a political victory. After all, James Carville, Clinton's campaign manager, was the man who helped Labor (read"Democratic") candidate Ehud Barak defeat Bibi in the following elections. Israelis understood as much at the time, but so no reason not to please, their friend, Clinton.

Retelling the incident at this point may also serve to undermine Bibi yet again. See, it says, his critics were right. Bibi was a lousy Poker player. Had he stuck to his guns, Pollard would have been released.

But wouldn't Tenet have resigned? Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin. Yes, he told Clinton he would because that was what Albright hinted she wanted him to do. Clinton needed a valid excuse to break his promise to Bibi and his CIA director's threat to resign (with the implication that freeing Pollard would damage US national security) was an excellent one. How do we know Tenet was wavering? Well, he reports that everybody was strengthening his hand. First he told Stan Moskowitz, one of Albright's men and when did nothing to stop him, he told his wife. She, too, failed him. Instead of trying to talk him out of it, she said,"Stick to your guns." Probably informed by Moskowitz and disappointed by Tenet's failure to follow through with Clinton, Madeleine Albright ambushed him. Tenet writes:

About midnight that Thursday, Madaleine came up to me and said:"If you're going to say anything to the president about Pollard, now is the time to say it."

"Why?" I asked, but she just repeated herself.

"If you've got something to say, say it now."

Madeleine was absolutely critical here: . . ."

Critical, indeed, without her encouragement, he probably would not have gone even as far as make the threat. She forced his hand and he saw Clinton. He did and afterwards,"fair" Dennis had to calm Tenet's nerves:"Don't worry," Dennis had to tell him,"In the end we will get the deal." Meaning, I believe, that the President will not blame him for scuttling the deal and nor will he have to resign.

And just to set the record straight. Bibi did not lose the Poker game to Tenet. He lost it to Dennis Ross. For Clinton did not back down because of Tenet. He knew him too well. When Bibi insisted, Clinton was still inclined to fulfill his promise. Only Ross stopped him: Tenet writes:

According to Dennis, he asked the president if he had promised Pollard to the Israelis. Clinton said no, but reading between the lines, Dennis believes that the president had all but walked up to that point.

Ross apparently knew just how truthful Clinton is. (No, I did not make a promise to that man!) Not that it stopped him from telling Clinton to ignore his commitment to Bibi. Making use of his best bureaucratic language he told Clinton to ignore his promise:

"You don't have a choice. . . . If you promised Bibi you would release Pollard, they you have to release him. But this agreement is too good for Bibi to give up. Hang tough and we will get a deal."

Yes, you could count on Bibi to put the good of his country ahead of domestic politics. So, Ross won his bet and, I am sure accolades from his bosses while Pollard is still languishing in prison 11 years hence. I cannot but wonder does being responsible for keeping a hostage this long keeps Ross (and Albright for that matter) up nights? For his soul's sake, I hope it does.

And just for the record - The US is spying on Israel all the time.

In the meantime, the Turkish parties hammered out a compromise bill securing the direct election of presidents:

The bill decreases the parliamentary term from five to four years and the presidency from a single seven year term to a five year one that can be extended by another five.

The proposal also sets a new quorum of deputies for a parliamentary session to go ahead. According to the new rule, the presence of one-third of deputies in the assembly would be enough for a session to go ahead.

According to the current constitution, a president can only serve a single term, while the new proposal allows the president to serve a maximum of two terms.

The support of twenty deputies will be needed for presidential candidates from outside Parliament. Additionally, parties that have received more than ten percent of votes in the national elections will be allowed to name a candidate as well. This last amendment was requested by ANAVATAN.

All in all, not bad.

If Bush has a reason to celebrate Sarkozy's election, the same cannot be said about Putin though not necessary about Russians anxious to hold on to some hard gained freedoms. They were not helped by the Chirac, Schroeder, Putin triumvirate.

Luckily that triumvirate is gone. First, Putin lost Schroeder and, now, Chirac. Sarkozy, like Merkel, prefer the US as he made clear only yesterday. Chirac must be turning in his new apartment:

In an interview ahead of the May 6 runoff, Sarkozy said,"If you asked me which of the [two] countries France will have closer relations with - the United States or Russia, known to us for its Chechen war -'the U.S.' would be my answer."

Speaking to Europe 1 radio, he said that if elected France's next president, he would raise the issue with President Vladimir Putin, as"Russian democracy has progress to make."

Last week I met a group of Russian investigative journalists visiting newsrooms in the US. They minced no words. Their freedom of press is severely curtailed not only by Putin but by regional Putin representatives actively protecting corrupt officials from media exposure. A French president not"too sophisticated" to care about the faltering Russian democracy is priceless.

Royal and Sarkozy are right. The vote yesterday was a triumph for democracy.