Osama Bin Laden Speaks

It takes Osama Bin Laden to remind us how badly George W. Bush has failed in the mission that was supposed to define his presidency - The War on Terror. While on Capitol Hill the debate rages on about how, when and if our troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, Bin Laden presents not one but two video tapes for our viewing pleasure. It is as if Bin Laden came over to the President and delivered two open-handed (aka "bitch") slaps, one for each cheek, in an attempt to re-focus him on the real terrorist - Osama Bin Laden himself.

It has been six years since the worst terrorist attack on America soil and the perpetrator is still sending us anniversary reminders of how utterly futile the attempts to capture or kill him have been. I am sure this message has not been lost on the rest of the world. Instead of worrying about saving face in Iraq, Bush should be more concerned about the power Bin Laden has to make America look stupid and powerless to stop the one person who is responsible for taking us down this road of fighting terrorism around the world. Remember what our President said on 9/13/01, two days after the Twin Towers were reduced to rubble:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

It is obvious that Bin Laden is not our number one priority. The war in Iraq has long overshadowed him. We have lost thousands of our military personnel to either death or serious permanent injury in a war that initially had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact we did Bin Laden a favor by invading Iraq and giving his Al Qaeda organization another battleground on which to prove themselves.

From all reports Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in "no man's land" between the Pakistan and Afghanistan borders. If we were serious we would let Pakistan know, in no uncertain terms, that Osama Bin Laden is America's number one priority and we will leave no stone unturned until he is either captured or killed. It is amazing how we can invade and occupy the entire country of Iraq, suffer thousands of casualties, threaten Iran and Syria and alienate ourselves from the rest of the world but we can't convince our staunchest ally to help us hunt down one man who is hiding in some tiny corner of their country.

Let's hope that the two bitch slaps that were delivered on the sixth anniversary will serve as a wake up call and remind all of us that we will never be safe until we complete our nation's number one priority.......Get Osama Bin Laden!!

The Russian Alternative

President Bush and President Putin have been waging a war of words over the US plan to put in place a defensive missile program in Poland and the Czech Republic (two former Soviet block countries). President Putin strongly opposes this seeing it as a threat to Russian security and a dangerous tilt in the balance of power in NATO's favor. President Bush sees it as necessary to counter the possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran which might be aimed at Europe.

Both nations seemed to be at an impasse until a proposal was made by Putin at the G8 conference being attended by both Presidents. The Putin proposal calls for the missile defense system to be placed in Azerbaijan, a country much friendlier to Russia than either Poland or the Czech Republic. He also said the location was a much better one for the defense of Europe from all missile threats coming from Asia.

"The first proposal is to use the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan," said Putin. Putin said that if the missile defense system were located in Azerbaijan it would reach the whole of Europe and present a better capability of defending the EU. By locating the missiles in Azerbaijan, Russia would not aim its own missiles towards Europe and would feel more a partner in developing the missile defense system. "This will create necessary grounds for common work," Putin stated.

President Bush seemed interested in the idea but did not make any commitments saying:

"This is a serious issue and we want to make sure that we all understand each other's positions very clearly," said Bush. "As a result of these conversations, I expect there to be better understanding of the technologies involved and the opportunities to work together. As a result of our discussions, we both agreed to have a strategic dialogue, an opportunity to share ideas and concerns between our State Department, Defense Department and military people"

White House National Security Advisor Steve Hadley called Putin's suggestions a "positive step".

"President Putin basically suggested that the proper approach would be for us to get appropriate experts together in a room, put all the proposals on the table and see if we can plot a way ahead that would provide protection to all three regions -- Russia, Europe, and the United States -- in a very transparent and open way," Hadley stated.

The Gabala radar station has a range of about 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) and is leased to Russia through 2012. The station, Russia's only military facility in Azerbaijan, plays a significant role in the Russian air defense system. Russian experts believe that the joint use of the Gabala radar would be beneficial for all parties concerned as it covers all potential missile threats coming from Asia, and could eliminate the need to place missile defense radars in Europe, including in the Czech Republic. Putin had stated that under the terms of the station's lease, Russia could invite the U.S. into the facility as a joint operator. Azerbaijan's President has assured Putin that would not be a problem if the U.S. and Russia agreed to jointly operate the Gabala radar facility.

It remains to be seen what if anything will come from this proposal but at the very least it shows that Putin is willing to accommodate some kind of defensive missile program as long as the Russians are involved as equal partners with the West.

Russia Angry Over US Missile Plans

Relations have not been so strained between Russia and the US since the days of the Cold War. The once cordially wary "friends" have been turning up the rhetoric against each other lately; all because of a US plan to include both the Czech Republic and Poland (two former Soviet block countries) in a missile defense system needed to counter a potential threat from Iran.

The Bush Administration plan is to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland. They insist that the plan is not directed at and has nothing to do with Russia. They also insist that they have the right to do whatever they deem necessary to protect America and its interests:

The US will not allow Russia to stop it from deploying anti-missile defenses in Europe, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said in Moscow. "I don't think anyone expects the United States to permit a veto on American security interests," she said after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

On the other hand the Russians see the US plan as a direct threat to Russia. President Vladimir Putin put it this way:

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response.

According to Putin "appropriate action" could include targeting nuclear weapons at Europe:

We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin. These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system" he said. And as if to prove the seriousness of his statements Putin announced the successful test firing of new Russian missiles calling it a response to U.S. plans to build missile defense sites across Europe, and suggested Washington is pursuing an imperialist policy that has triggered a new arms race.

In one of the tests, a prototype of Russia's new intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target 3,400 miles away on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the far eastern part of the country, officials said.

The military also tested a new cruise missile based on the existing short-range Iskander missile. "It can be used at long range with surgical precision," according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "Russia needs this weapon to maintain strategic stability." the new cruise missile, R-500, will have a range of up to 310 miles, the limit under a Soviet-era treaty that banned intermediate-range missiles.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference in Moscow. In a clear reference to the United States, Putin harshly criticized "diktat and imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will keep strengthening its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

As for the American assertion that the missile defense system was to protect against incoming missiles that Iran might launch. Mr Putin expressed skepticism:

“There are no such missiles – Iran does not have missiles with the range”. The US was insisting, he said, that the defense system was to be “installed for the protection from something that does not exist. Is it not sort of funny? It would be funny if it were not so sad.”

He speculated that the real motive was to provoke Russia’s retaliation and so “to avoid further closeness of Russia and Europe”.

The Chinese have also weighed in on the debate supporting the Russian position, saying it could shift the strategic balance of power.

"The Chinese side has always held that missile defense impacts the strategic balance and stability," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said when asked about the U.S. plan, which has drawn angry warnings from Russia. "It is not conducive to mutual trust between major powers and also regional security," Jiang told a news conference. "It can also bring new proliferation problems."

Both President Bush and President Putin are headed to the G8 conference in Germany where they will confront disagreements over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Kosovo, as well as human rights and missile defense. Mr. Bush has also invited Mr. Putin to the Bush family compound in Maine early next month, in what American officials hope will be a more relaxed setting where the two can try to mend fences.

Is Castro Back?

Fidel Castro has been very vocal lately and seems to be recovering from his operations related to diverticulitis, or inflamed bulge in the intestine. He has been ill since the summer of 2006 but now appears to be on the mend. Of his illness Castro admitted that his initial surgery had failed: ''It was not just one operation, but various,'' he wrote. ``Initially it was not successful, and that had a bearing on my prolonged recuperation.'' However he now says that he is recovering well: After ''many months'' of intravenous feeding, he was eating and his weight was back up to 176 pounds. ''Today I receive orally everything my recuperation requires,'' he wrote.

Castro may be on the mend but he is still not ready to assume the Presidency he handed over to his brother Raul. He has rarely been seen in public and many wonder if he will ever return to power. 'I think he's abdicated already,'' said Tony Zamora, a Cuban-American lawyer in Miami who visits Cuba regularly. ``He will continue to be consulted and listened to, of course, but I don't see him coming back at all.''

Castro himself apologized for his public absence by saying: ''I don't have time now for films and photos that require me to constantly cut my hair, beard and mustache, and get spruced up every day.'' To which Zamora had the following comment: ''He cannot shave and he can't take a haircut. That's really weird,'' Zamora said. 'He is clearly saying, `My role has changed. I was really sick and I need to take care of myself, so I'm not coming back.' ''

Castro, although in recovery, seems to have found a new role, that of commentator:

"For now, I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing, reflecting and writing about questions that I judge of certain importance and transcendence," Castro wrote in the statement carried on the front pages of Cuba's official newspapers and read on state radio and television. "I have a lot more material to go."

And he has certainly been busy commenting on everything from the $7 billion the British have spent on a new attack submarine which he says could have been used to train 75,000 doctors, care for 150 million people and build 3,000 clinics with new technologies, as Cuba does in other countries; to the expected rise in the price of grains due to the demand for bio-fuels especially corn. Also he has not forgotten to mention President Bush in his commentaries:

"Just yesterday, Bush bragged about having won the battle over his adversaries in Congress," he wrote in a four-page statement released to the media. "He has $100 billion, all the money he needs to duplicate, however he wishes, the sending of American troops to Iraq and continue the slaughter."

The statement was the 12th by Castro in recent weeks who seems to be enjoying his new role without the pressure of having to govern. But Castro is 80 yrs old and his brother Raul, who currently rules the island, is 75 yrs old. This leads many to wonder what the future holds for Cuba when its aging leaders are gone. Here are two video clips about Cuba. The first one takes a look at Cuba today. The second ponders on the future of the Communist island.

Cuba ---- A Country Frozen in Time

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhkLWRaxUJU]

El Plan Bush

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZQsMr01XU0]

The War will Continue

In a stinging, but not surprising, defeat the anti-war Democrats in Congress lost to President Bush in their bid to set a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. In fact the vote was not even close (Senate 80-14, House 280-142) to give the President exactly what he wanted, funds for the troops with no strings attached. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd all voted against the bill, as did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid leaders of the House and Senate respectively.

President Bush, in an interview after the House version passed, says, "By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way." "As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice."

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sixty-one percent of Americans say that the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and 76 percent say that things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found. Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

Congressional leaders were still sounding defiant after the vote and promised that this was not the end:

"This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and if anything, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was more emphatic. "Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," he said.

In the meantime commentators such as Keith Olbermann were not pleased with the performance of the Democrats and in this commentary below blasts them for collaborating with President Bush.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00zSRc7LJw]

".....The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted with the only caveat being not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks to the Iraqi government but OPTIONAL meaningless symbolism about benchmarks to the Iraqi government. The Democratic leadership has in sum claimed a compromise with the Administration in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats and the lives of our brave and doomed friends and family in Iraq......."

" .......The electorate figured this out six months ago........on the subject of Iraq, the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians for the last year or two years or maybe three, our politics is about now about the answer to one briefly worded question; Mr. Bush has failed, Mr. Warner has failed, Mr. Reid has failed. So, who among us will stop this war, this war of lies........there is only blame for this shameful and bipartisan betrayal.