November 24, 2006 Posts
02:11 Former KGB Spy Litvinenko Dies 16:57 Flying Imams' Mission: To Weaken Airport Security? 18:47 The End of Judiciary Committee Acrimony?
Former KGB Spy Litvinenko Dies
It's obvious that the Russians wanted former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko silenced. Today, they got their wish:
Mr Litvinenko fell ill after meeting a contact, an Italian journalist, in a sushi restaurant in central London. Dramatic photographs released this week showed him lying in intensive care. His hair had fallen out and his complexion was jaundiced. Last night he suffered a heart attack and doctors said his condition had worsened. Friends and relatives were said to be rushing to his bedside fearing the worst.Based on what I've read, the Kremlin's love of control and secrecy played a major role in their poisoning him after they killed Russian reporter Anna Politkovskaya. What's ironic is that Litvinenko was looking into her murder:
Doctors still do not know what caused his illness, although they have said he was poisoned. Initial reports suggested he had been poisoned with thallium, or with a radioactive material, but doctors have now said this was not the case. His friend Oleg Gordievsky, a former high-ranking KGB agent who defected to Britain, said Mr Litvinenko had been killed by two Russian secret agents who poisoned his tea during a meeting at a London hotel. Mr Gordievsky told Sky News: "He was fighting against the evil forces in Russia, against the authorities which are depressing democracy and liberal freedoms in Russia."
Mr Litvinenko, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was probing the murder of Ms Politkovskaya, who had become famous for exposing Russian atrocities in Chechnya. Thirteen journalists have been murdered in Russia since Mr Putin came to power in 2000. None of the cases has been solved.It seems that people that don't agree with Mr. Putin wind up getting poisoned, which is something that the old Soviet KGB specialized in. Here's a little glimpse of Ms. Politkovskaya's view of Putin's tactics:
Two years ago the Russian government denied any part in the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western presidential candidate in neighbouring Ukraine. He won the presidency after his pro-Russian rival was accused of trying to rig the elections.
She has harsh words for what she sees as the west's kid-glove treatment of Putin and Russia. "Most of the time they forget the word Chechnya. They only remember it when there's a terrorist act. And then it's, 'Oh!' And they start their full coverage up again. But virtually nobody reports on what is really going on in that zone, in Chechnya, and the growth of terrorism. The truth is that the methods employed in Putin's anti-terrorist operation are generating a wave of terrorism the like of which we have never experienced."Much has been written about President Bush's consternation at Putin's attempt to de-democratize Russia and it's former Soviet bloc countries. This Guardian article simply gives details about how Putin tried exerting his will on neighboring countries. It seems a forgone conclusion that he'd want Ms. Politkovskaya, Mr. Litvinenko dead just like he wanted Viktor Yushchenko dead when Yushchenko chanllenged Putin's candidate Yanukovych in Ukraine's elections in 2004.
The Bush-Blair "war on terror" has been of enormous help to Putin, Politkovskaya says. Many people in Russia gained perverse comfort from the pictures of US abuses in Abu Ghraib prison. "I've heard it many times. In Russia you hear people talking about it with pride: that, 'We treated the blacks like this before the Americans did, and we were right, because they are international terrorists.'
"Putin's begun to try to prove on the world stage that he's also fighting international terrorists, that he's just a part of this fashionable war. And he's been successful. He was Blair's best friend for a while. When, after Beslan, he began to state that we were seeing virtually the hand of Bin Laden, it was appalling. What's Bin Laden got to do with it? The Russian government created these beasts, brought them up, and they came to Beslan and behaved like beasts."
The Orange Revolution is the first big news event I wrote about when I started blogging. Putin and Ukrainian President Kuchma pronounced Yanukovych the winner even though the voters knew that was utter nonsense. Orange-clad Ukrainians swarmed the Independence Square in Kiev, forcing another election, with Yuschchenko winning handily.
The bottom line to all this information is that Putin's heavyhandedness is so obvious that it's impossible not to notice that he deals with adversaries in an old school Soviet KGB way. I don't know what the solution to his heavyhandedness is but it's something that must be stopped soon.
Posted Friday, November 24, 2006 2:13 AM
No comments.
Flying Imams' Mission: To Weaken Airport Security?
The more that comes out about the Flying Imam Fiasco, the more apparent it is that it was a stunt designed to give political cover to Democrats who want to weaken airport security. Here's what IBD opines in their editorial:
All six claim to be Americans, so clearly they were aware of heightened security. Surely they knew that groups of Muslim men flying together while praying to Allah fit the modus operandi of the 9/11 hijackers and would make a pilot nervous. Throw in anti-U.S. remarks and odd demands about seat belts, and they might as well have yelled, "Bomb!"I hope that Conyers' legislation gets extensive coverage on CNN, FNC and conservative talk radio. I pray that the NY Times makes this legislation its next major cause. I'd be positively giddy if there's a recorded vote on this so we can use it in commercial after commercial in 2008. Giving "Muslims special civil-rights protections" would tell Americans that (a) Democrats are in the back pockets of radical Muslim 'civil rights organizations'; (b)Democrats care more about appeasing a fringe group than about maintaining tight airline safety and (c)Democrats will neither be tough nor smart in the GWOT. In fact, this debate will show them to be the appeasers that they've always been.
Yet they chose to make a spectacle. Why? Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for "prejudice and ignorance." CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.
Giving "Muslims special civil-rights protections" is code for Democrats' caving on this important issue, which will cement in peoples' minds that they're more worried about not hurting someone's feelings than they are about protecting Americans.
Even if Conyers' legislation doesn't go far, at least Sen. Patrick Leahy has given us this quote on what Democrats' highest priority:
"The American people," Mr. Leahy's letter said, "deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism around the world."The majority of Americans couldn't care less about having "detailed and accurate information about" the Bush administration's "interrogation policies." They care only about being protected from terrorist organizations. Sen. Leahy's statement is proof that Democrats care more about "deep criticism around the world" than they care about preventing terrorist attacks. It's quite obvious that Sen. Leahy and other like-minded Democrats put a higher priority on being popular with the "World Community" than in implementing serious counter-terrorism policies.
You'd think that they would've learned from their mistakes in the 1990's that being popular in the "World Community" should be their lowest priority. Unfortunately, they're more worried about having backstabbing 'friends' than about measurable achievements. The unmistakeable truth is that Democrats' policies will either weaken national security or airport security or both. God forbid that happening.
This is the fulfillment of conservatives' predictions that 07-08 will be all about 'oversight hearings', which is code for "Let's dig into everyhing in hopes of embarassing the Bush administration."
Posted Friday, November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
No comments.
The End of Judiciary Committee Acrimony?
That's supposedly the LA Times' wish according to this editorial. The editorial's title is decent enough but anyone thinking that Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer will usher in a new spirit of true bipartisanship is living in the land of Oz.
A Democratic-controlled Senate could nudge both parties toward the center and expedite the overdue filling of 51 judicial vacancies. Democrats can effectively block any nominee, so the Bush administration should be inclined to greater moderation in its appointments. At the same time, the new Senate includes several moderate Democrats, so moderately conservative nominees, even for the Supreme Court, are likely to be confirmed.Notice the institutional bias in this paragraph. The LA Times' assumption is that Justices Alito and Roberts aren't mainstream justices. There wouldn't be a need for nudging "both parties toward the center" if the LA Times viewed Alito and Roberts as mainstream, which they clearly are. Further proof of the LA Times' bias comes when they say "the Bush administration should be inclined to greater moderation in its appointments."
- Since when is nominating justices who don't go 'ruling shopping' from foreign courts proof of moderation?
- Since when is nominating justices that take the Constitution at face value something that's viewed as outside the mainstream?
- Since when is nominating justices who look for heretofore unseen 'rights' a mainstream thing?
- Since when is nominating justices who insert their policy beliefs into their rulings mainstream?
- I'd bet that if you'd asked most people that they'd say they'd prefer judges that based their rulings solely on the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, our laws and our treaties obligations.
- I'd bet that these same people would be appalled at how 'consensus' justices have perverted the Constitution.
- I'd bet that most people don't know how adversely they've been affected by 'consensus' justices' rulings.
Posted Friday, November 24, 2006 6:47 PM
No comments.
