Howard Dean Opposes Bloomberg's Ground Zero Mosque

From the NY Post (ht JihadWatch):

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in a surprise move Wednesday, became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of a cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

“This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith," Dean said in an interview with WABC radio.

"We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.

"That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion … So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

Dean, one of the more liberal members of the party who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 before serving as head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), suggested the mosque should be moved.

“Well I think another site would be a better idea, again -- but I would look to do that with the cooperation of the people who are trying to build the mosque,” Dean said.

Dean became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of the mosque just blocks from Ground Zero.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How to Win the Clash of Civilizations

From today's Wall Street Journal:

The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.

But divide and rule cannot be our only policy. We need to recognize the extent to which the advance of radical Islam is the result of an active propaganda campaign. According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.

Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington's most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.

One editor's note for Ayaan Hirsi Ali--It's not just the Saudis. For decades, the US government has been subsidizing Islamist, fundamentalist, extremist ideology in the former Soviet Union, former Soviet bloc, China and elsewhere. To learn more, read Ian Johnson's A Mosque in Munich to learn how the CIA hired Tariq Ramadan's grandfather and sponsored Muslim Brotherhood operations around the world...so Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's US State Department sponsored trips to raise funds for the NYC Bloomberg Ground Zero Mosque are in line with a long tradition of Islamism as official US policy. Just take a look at the US-approved constitutions of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US put the Islam in...IMHO, if only to keep communism out.

Has CIA Paid for Bloomberg's Ground Zero Mosque?

After reading this column by Andrew McCarthy in National Review, and the light of Ian Johnson's book A MOSQUE IN MUNICH, about a CIA-funded 1950s mosque, one wonders if there might be some CIA money that has made its way to Cordoba House?

In recent years, the government, finally, has officially acknowledged that the CIA’s cut-out in Afghanistan was Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI). We prosecutors were forbidden to admit as much at the blind shiekh’s 1995 trial, even though U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan contras was probably a better-kept secret. The stipulation read to the jury — after 18 months of sealed litigation — conceded only that the United States had provided economic and military support to the mujahideen “through a third-country intermediary”; it did not identify our abettor. Years later, with the intelligence community feeling intense heat over its dismal pre-9/11 performance, the CIA could no longer afford to be so stingy. The 9/11 Commission thus disclosed that the “United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the [ISI] helped train the rebels and dis tribute the arms.”

ENDOWING THE JIHADIST HARVARD
Moreover, with not only the intelligence community but our nation under international criticism for having reared the terror network that has now matured into a worldwide threat, the State Department got into the act. In 2005, it issued a press release categorically denying that the U.S. had “created Osama bin Laden.” But this denial — reasserted in May 2009 — answers the wrong question. It’s not whether we “created” bin Laden; it’s whether we materially helped him and his network grow and evolve into what they became.

State tried to do the impossible: hold the CIA blameless but explain what actually happened. It dutifully reprised the story about how Afghans and Arabs despised one another, such that helping the former in no way facilitated the latter. Its impressive array of expert witnesses on this point included Dr. Sageman and Milt Bearden, who, like Devine, had helped run the CIA’s Afghan operation. In offering Bearden’s summation, State relied on an excerpt from Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, by CNN’s terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen:

CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were “very disruptive” . . . The Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass.

Yes, we’ve heard: They couldn’t stand being in the same jihad together. Again, though, the question is not whether the CIA recruited Arabs. In fact, to listen to Dr. Sageman, even al-Qaeda doesn’t recruit Arabs. As terrorism analyst Lorenzo Vidino observes in Al Qaeda in Europe — The New Battleground of International Jihad:

The studies on recruitment for jihad undertaken by Marc Sageman, a former CIA official and an adjunct professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, have revealed that al-Qaeda carries out no top-down recruitment; instead, spontaneously formed clusters of young radicals naturally team up with recruiters, who select those who have the skills and dedication that can be useful to the cause. “It’s actually very much like applying to Harvard,” says Sageman, pointing out that al-Qaeda’s problem is selection, not recruitment.

Exactly: The issue is not recruitment, but whether the CIA endowed the jihadist Harvard. Was the agency like today’s university donors who contribute huge sums but then disavow any responsibility for what’s being taught in the schools? Did the agency knowingly foster an atmosphere in which these spontaneously arriving clusters of Arab jihadists could easily — and quite foreseeably — find the opportunities, the trainers, and the means to become more effective, more networked terrorists? Did the agency do so knowing virulently anti-Western jihadists were finding each other? The answers to those questions are palpable.

Ironically, it is the State Department that gives up the ghost. In its angst to shift to Pakistan the blame for al-Qaeda’s rise, State inadvertently destroys the CIA’s fairy tale. Again, its expert source is Peter Bergen:

The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Put aside State’s remarkable candor in conceding that the CIA went through the ISI precisely in order to maintain deniability. This admission acknowledges that some of those purportedly peaceful Sufi Afghans turn out to have been . . . Islamists. In truth, the CIA well knew that there were Islamist-oriented Afghan factions, and that those factions were favored by the Pakistanis. Armed with this knowledge, the agency passed funding and arms to the Pakistanis, knowing a goodly share of it would go to anti-American Islamists, such as Hekmatyar, who had close ties to the Arabs. Hekmatyar, as Bergen relates, was (and is) an “Islamist zealot,” yet his Hizb party received fully 20 percent of the U.S. contribution — i.e., about about $600 million of the $3 billion total, and that’s without counting the considerable Saudi aid that came his way (the Saudis having matched U.S. aid dollar for dollar).

To be clear, it was not the CIA’s purpose to promote Islamism. Our government wanted to get assistance into the hands of the factions that would be most effective in combating the Soviets (though how effective Hekmatyar’s was in that regard is hotly disputed). It is just preposterous, though, to maintain that the fallout of this effort — the fueling of jihadism — did not happen. It happened in spades, and we did nothing meaningful to account for it.

Pamela Geller: Harvard Sells Out Israel

According to Pamela Geller, Harvard University has just sold off all its Israeli investments:

Look at how far we have sunk. America's once leading institution for higher learning pimps for jihad. We knew that these institutions like Harvard, Georgetown, etc., would unashamedly dance on demand when those Saudi 20 million dollar gifts began rolling in. Middle Eastern Studies departments are hotbeds of radicalism. Jewish students are persecute, harassed and physically threatened on these campuses.

If these institutions of higher learning get federal taxpayers dollars, is this not against the law? It's one thing when jihadist frenemies violate the Arab boycott of Israel. We expect that from these players, they lie and are incapable of being honest merchants. When Saudi Arabia joined the World Trade Organization, they promised to end their participation in the Arab boycott of Israel, but they have not done so.

But this is Harvard. It is wrong, outrageous, that these tools of the stealth jihad are supported by your taxpayer dollars and private endowments (many from Jewish families). The whole moral structure is disintegrating before our very eyes. These whorehouses do not deserve one thin dime from public or Jewish coffers. This is getting very ugly. I expect Tariq Ramadan will be offered the Edward Said chair at Columbia in no short order.

This is pure antisemitism. Where is the boycott of Sudan, Iran, Congo, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the 56 Muslim countries that brutally violate the rights of women, non-Muslims, Christians, Jews, dhimmis? .......The list is endless.

Harvard University fund sells all Israel holdings
No reason for the sale was mentioned in the report to the SEC. 15 August 10 17:15, Hillel Koren

In another blow to Israeli shares, the Harvard Management Company notified the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Friday that it had sold all its holdings in Israeli companies during the second quarter of 2010. No reason for the sale was mentioned. The Harvard Management Company manages Harvard University's endowment.

Harvard Management Company stated in its 13-F Form that it sold 483,590 shares in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) for $30.5 million; 52,360 shares in NICE Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: NICE; TASE:NICE) for $1.67 million; 102,940 shares in Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP) for $3.6 million; 32,400 shares in Cellcom Israel Ltd.(NYSE:CEL; TASE:CEL) for $1.1 million, and 80,000 Partner Communications Ltd. (Nasdaq: PTNR; TASE: PTNR) shares for $1.8 million.

Harvard Management Company's 13-F Form shows some interesting investments. Its two largest holdings, each worth $295 million, are in iShares ETFs, one on Chinese equities, and the other on emerging markets. Harvard also owns $181 million in a Brazilian ETF.

UPDATE: Trusted sources are saying that this has nothing to do with hating Israel, but is simply due to Israel's economic progress. The Harvard fund invests in emerging markets, but since Israel is a developed country, Harvard has shifted its money to less developed nations. And while I trust these respected sources, I'm not sold, because the timing is too advantageous to the Jew-haters, who will crow about it -- and Israel is so isolated, she needs all the help she can get.

More related to this topic in Andrew McCarthy's National Review Online article: "American Taxpayer: Financial Jihadist."

Moreover, given that Islam is not merely a religion but a comprehensive social system that rejects the separation of the spiritual realm from secular matters, SCF [Sharia Compliant Finance] is necessarily a political mission. Hayes and Vogel state without apology that “the surge in Islamic banking and finance is part of the much larger phenomenon of Islamic reassertion.” SCF is “an assertion of religious law in the area of commercial life, where secularism rules almost unquestioned throughout the rest of the world.” It quite intentionally challenges both “the presumption that modern commercial mores are per se more efficient or otherwise superior” and “the secular separation of commerce from consideration of religion and piety.”
That is a big problem for AIG under Uncle Sam’s management. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause has been construed to bar government action (including government underwriting of action) that is “pervasively sectarian.” Under our jurisprudence, the state is forbidden to act if its “secular purposes” are “inextricably intertwined” with a “religious mission,” as the Supreme Court put it in Bowen v. Kendrick (1988). SCF is Islamic proselytism, and our law prohibits the “active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity” — so said the high court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit against Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department, seeking to shut down AIG’s SCF business while that business is owned by the taxpayers. In response, the Obama administration has hilariously denied that SCF is really an “Islamic religious activity.” Someone will need to break that news to Professor Hayes, the guy who wrote that “the raison d’etre for the practice of Islamic finance is undeniably religious.” When the Treasury Department co-hosted a Harvard SCF seminar less than two years ago, it chose none other than Hayes to preside.

Treasury also counters that the public money used for AIG’s SCF programs is trivial. That is specious. Geithner has committed $70 billion of our money to AIG. Of this amount, the lawsuit has demonstrated that nearly $1 billion was poured directly into AIG’s SCF businesses, and billions more are available for diversion. How much public money is actually promoting sharia finance may be impossible to say with certainty. AIG jointly operates many of its branch offices, using consolidated accounting and non-segregated bank accounts. Neither the government nor AIG has ever issued any regulations or created any firewalls to prevent American taxpayer money from underwriting SCF activities.

The Obama administration could have suspended AIG’s promotion of sharia finance in order to protect constitutional norms. But, of course, if it were interested in constitutional norms, it would neither be running private companies nor embracing Islamists and their law. So congratulations: You get to fund the jihad, while the jihad gets to target you.

Wikileaks Founder Wins Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence

From Ray McGovern's column on Antiwar.com:

Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) is a group of former CIA colleagues and other associates of former intelligence analyst Sam Adams, who hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.

Sam did precisely that, and in honoring his memory, SAAII confers an award each year to a lamp lighter exemplifying Sam Adam’s courage, persistence, and devotion to truth – no matter the consequences. The Washington, D.C., presentations are held in the fall, usually before a large university audience; Dan Ellsberg, a charter member, is usually with us.

Sam Adams Annual Award recipients:

Coleen Rowley of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
Katharine Gun of British intelligence; in Copenhagen, Denmark
Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; in New York City
Sam Provance, former sergeant, U.S. Army, truth-teller about Abu Ghraib; in Washington, D.C.
Frank Grevil, major, Danish army intelligence, imprisoned for giving the Danish press documents showing that Denmark’s prime minister disregarded warnings that there was no authentic evidence of WMDs in Iraq; in Copenhagen, Denmark
Larry Wilkerson, colonel, U.S. Army (retired), former chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell at the State Department, who has exposed what he called the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal”; in Washington, D.C.

In April, the SAAII nominating committee decided unanimously to give this year’s award to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Stay tuned for information on time and place for the presentation. Or check with Geoff Morrell, who is likely to know as soon as we decide.

Top USAID Afghanistan Contractor Faces Corruption Investigation

According to the The Telegraph (UK), the New Jersey based Louis Berger Group (LBG), with a reported $2 billion or so in US government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been named in court documents alleging corruption in contracting...

Court papers filed in the US said there were criminal and civil investigations into allegations that Louis Berger "defrauded the United States Agency for International Development".

The investigation details only emerged when Derish M Wolff, chairman of the parent company Berger Group Holdings, sued the US government last week.

He complained he had been forced into resignation by the government as part of a negotiation to settle the three-year-long probe.

The company said it could not comment directly on the overcharging accusations and added: "Louis Berger Group has and will continue to co-operate fully with the US Government throughout the process as we work toward a resolution."

Details of the inquiry emerged as Hamid Karzai's government and its international backers continued to trade accusations of corruption and bribery.

London and Washington have repeatedly demanded Mr Karzai rein in his administration's graft and bribe-taking.

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, told a US newspaper last week that corruption was "the biggest single recruitment tool for the Taliban and the biggest single factor undermining [Afghan] government support".

Kabul has often retaliated that most corruption stems from foreign companies who handle lucrative aid work.

More at NorthJersey.com.

Russian Military Analyst: US Expands Central Asian Forces

From RIA Novosti, Alexander Shustov's analysis:

Now Pentagon is not going to confine itself with Kyrgyzstan and plans to build military facilities on the territory of five states of the region. It implies the redeployment of part of military infrastructure of the US from Afghanistan to the former Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan and also the construction of NATO facilities there.

According to “EurasiaNet” (an internet-portal financed by George Soros), US Central Command’s counter-narcotics fund was to allocate more than $40 million for the construction of military training centers in the cities of Osh (Kyrgyzstan) and Karatoga (Tajikistan), a canine center and helicopter hangar near the city of Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan) as well as for the strengthening of border check points in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Pentagon estimates the construction of each border check point at $5-10 million. The location of the US border check point in Uzbekistan is not disclosed out but the location of the check points in Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan is quite remarkable. The Serahs check point (Turkmenistan) is on the border with Iran and the Kyrgyz check point (where the modernization of electricity supply and water supply and sewerage system is planned) – near Batken. Both check points are of geo strategical importance - first in case of a war between the US and Iran and second - in case of destabilization of the political situation in this part of the Fergana Valley like it was in 1999-2000 during the invasion of Islamic movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

In Kazakhstan the US plans to build a new helicopter hangar near the city of Alma-Ata, a canine center and a center for inspection of transport vehicles, with the total construction costs amounting to $10 million. In Tajikistan the Americans plans to build a military training center in Karatoga (not far from the capital of Dushanbe) for Tajik servicemen. There they plan to practice combat actions in city conditions of a city and to train sharpshooters/spotters. The construction costs are estimated at $10 million. A similar center worth $ 5.5 million for practicing different kinds of combat actions in the course of border and counterterrorist operations should be built in the Kyrgyz city of Batken.

It has been known about the US plans to strengthen its military presence in Central Asia since last autumn when the Northern supply route through Russia began to function alongside with the transport route from Pakistan. It is known that Pentagon is working on the plan to deploy elite units of its special troops in Central Asia namely four battalions of the 3rd Special forces (airborne) group which has a long experience of fighting in Afghanistan.

In addition to Central Asia the US plans to deploy its forces in Southern Caucasus - in particular early warning radars in Georgia. It is expected that besides the radars Pentagon may locate a land military base and a naval base in Georgia with 25,000 servicemen.
Finally Pentagon is to build a special operations complex in Afghanistan near the Uzbek border worth $100 million. The complex with the area of 6 hectares will be located in Mazar-i-Sharif, 275 km north-west from Kabul and 56 km south from the Uzbek city of Termez. In 18 months the Americans are to build a united operational center, residential blocks, a communication hub, a center for tactical operations, storage facilities, a training center, a medical center, repair facilities a center for logistics, a canteen, recreation facilities and a doghouse. They plan to put the complex into operation in late 2012 early 2012. In longer perspective 2012-2016 the US Central Command plans to allocate another $3.8 billion on the construction of military facilities in the countries of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Even a brief look at the deployment of the US military objects shows that it almost fully repeats the geography of “the Eurasian Balkans” of Z. Brzezinski, who gave this geopolitical region a decisive role in fighting Russia on “the Grand Chessboard”. By locating its special troops, surveillance equipment and other forces in Central Asia and in the Caucasus after the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan in 2011 the US will ensure its military presence right besides Russia’s “belly” near the northern border of Iran and the western border of China. Here the Americans plan to deploy an intelligence network which will ensure control over the situation in the most important points of Eurasia.

Washington Examiner: Don't Build Ground Zero Mosque

From the Washington Examiner of August 13th:

New York City is known for rigidly regulating the location and specifications of buildings within its jurisdiction. But officials of the City That Never Sleeps have suddenly turned into extreme libertarians about protecting the religious and property rights of the prospective owners of the Ground Zero mosque. That's the $100 million, 15-story mosque scheduled to be built one block from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. The city's Landmark Preservation Committee eagerly approved the GZM application, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dismissed as religious bigots all who disagree with that decision.

Could these same defenders of every Muslim man's right to build a mosque wherever he owns property be the same ones who previously had no qualms about seizing private property to redevelop Times Square, condemning small businesses for a $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University, or confiscating another parcel on Sixth Avenue to make way for Bank of America? Is this the same Bloomberg who led the successful opposition to a recent state legislative proposal to limit local officials' ability to use eminent domain against private property owners? Surely it was a different Bloomberg who claimed that the Empire State Development Corp. should be able to force the sale of property for any "civic purpose."

Can there be a higher civic purpose than preventing construction of a Muslim propaganda and recruiting center so close to the murder site of 3,000 Americans? The initially proposed name of the mosque -- Cordoba House -- undermines claims that it will be used to promote interfaith peace and understanding. Evidently Bloomberg wasn't listening in history class when they talked about the bloody Muslim conquest of Cordoba, Spain, in 711.

The New York Times, whose Eighth Avenue headquarters sits on land forcibly seized by the city from 55 business owners, argued in a 2005 editorial entitled "The Limits of Property Rights" that the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision was "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest . ..." Yet the Gray Lady now insists that kowtowing to GZM was "not just the right thing to do, it was the only thing to do."

That's utter nonsense. Local governments everywhere in America routinely regulate location and construction of religious facilities without impinging on the First Amendment right to worship. There are also volumes of federal, state and local historic preservation laws that could be invoked to force GZM to a different site. We hope Bloomberg accepts Newt Gingrich's invitation to debate this issue. Maybe then the mayor will explain why he disdains historic preservation of the area immediately around the site of the worst domestic attack in American history.

Aland Mizell on Fethullah Gülen's Islamist Movement

From KurdishMedia:

In May 2010 media outlets and blogs spots across the Internet discussed Bill Gates’ Ten million dollar donation to the Gulen Movement’s publically funded charter schools in Texas whose agenda is to spread his version of Islam. Did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation not do their homework? Did they know about Gulen’s revolution? In the past Islamic groups have tried methods to impose their authority over people and take charge, but they mostly use force or violence to accomplish that goal. This kind of method gave Fethullah Gülen’s missionaries the advantage to grow fast as an alternative to these seemingly more radicalized Islamic groups...

...Why does America support Gülen’s missionaries in Central Asia and around the globe and even in the US? After the collapse of the Soviet Union the balance of power in the world changed, and more than 15 countries got their independence from the Soviet Union. There was a gap in power in the region seeking to be filled; additionally, most of these newly independent countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan were rich with the underground resources of oil, gas, gold, and other materials. However, a void for religion developed as well, so there was a competition among an Iranian brand of Islam, a Saudi Arabian version of Islam, and Gülen’s missionaries to fill the void. The US government gave its support to Gülen, because it mistakenly believed that Gülen‘s missionaries were less harmful compared to the Iranian Islamic movement Hezbollah, Saudi‘s brand of Islam Wahhbism, or other fundamentalist groups. The US thought that Gülen’s movement could be managed in the right way by using it to suit America’s purposes. Because many naively believe that Gülen’s preaches nonviolence and dialogue between the western and Muslim worlds, they let their guard down and fail to see behind his proclaimed agenda. They fail to understand that he is incrementally moving toward a return of the Islamic state such as the Ottoman Empire undertook. That is why when Gülen applied for a green card, he could not get it. Then some ex-CIA officers gave him reference letters for his application to demonstrate that he was a safe immigrant. Prior to this attempt, when Gülen could not get a green card the first time, he was looking for a place to go; if the US did not grant him a visa, he would have gone to China to continue his undercover operation. Gülen’s missionaries are trying to build the same platform as he used in Central Asia in the US by opening many NGOS, charter schools, Turkish cultural houses, and interfaith dialogue forums. In addition, he brings students from Central Asia as graduate students to teach in universities or to obtain official positions, opens TV channels and newspapers, organizes trips to Turkey, establishes Rumi forums, and holds conferences so that soon he will exert more influence in the US as well. Because he is wearing a moderate Islamic mask and because he is using education, he is perceived as less dangerous and therefore as an alternative to fundamentalism, but let’s see how long this honeymoon lasts between Gülen and America. America fails to understand that in the Middle East Gülen’s missionaries will be a future threat to the American national interest. Presently they do not have enough power to stand against America, but when they gain power, they will make their true intent known. They will be a threat to the American national interest; it is just a matter of the right time and power. The difference between Gülen’s missionary group and other Islamic groups is its focus on education and technology. By using the platform, they ensure that those who join them are wholeheartedly pledging their allegiance to the man and his cause and thereby avoiding direct conflict and arguments between the state and themselves. In the meantime the movement has placed its loyal members in various government agencies. Gülen and his followers are thirsty for power, because with that power, they will be able to do anything and to accomplish their objectives. They will not publically condemn or praise the other fundamental groups who use force to gain power. Because they know they are competing with the various powers first to gain a presence in the US and then to augment their influence, the movement enjoys being seen as the rational alternative to the overtly radical groups. However, simultaneously as Gülen extends his command in the US, he looks to enlarge his movement across the globe and to give an alternative to the West and to America to support his movement rather than those that use force to advance their cause. Gülen knows the West and America cannot be an enemy with Islam because of the world’s political climate, but that they want some kind of modern Islam that will embrace peace and not violence. But what the West’s leaders do not understand is that Gülen’s missionaries are one of the most dangerous forces against world peace. In 1999, in his speech, he advised his missionaries not to act until gaining all the power of every constitutional organization in Turkey and continues to his methodical plan there under the current Turkish administration. Now he is advancing this strategy in the West and in America.

But with his undercover methods, his leadership mostly avoids violence or direct confrontation with governments. One of Gülen’s methods of indoctrination is to focus on how to keep secrets and not to tell the truth, because Gülen’s missionaries teach that followers have to know the truth, but they cannot tell the truth anywhere or anytime, which means that his followers cannot tell their real goal. They can deny their actual purpose, and they do not tell that they are missionaries or that they disseminate Islam. For example, many of his followers did not wear the headscarf in Central Asia when they first went there because people would not be as attracted to them; consequently, Gülen ordered his female followers not wear the headscarf. Another example is that when the students were asked if they prayed five times a day, they would deny it, and they will not pray in front of their students. Now they are advancing their movement in Europe and in the US with different methods but still lie about their main objectives. They openly read Gulen’s and Said Nursi’s books, but do not reveal the plan to return to the Ottoman’s Quranic law. They believe Islam allows them to lie because they are in Dar al- Harb (at war) with infidels since Islam does not dominate in the region until they acquire enough power. Like a Trojan horse, they surreptitiously enter the territory but still act completely in the interest of the missionaries in order to help take over the agencies they are working inside of. In the beginning of the early 1970s, Gülen’s missionaries begin their undercover operation and over time made a significant breakthrough, so that his missionaries have taken over significant arenas in Turkey. Gülen’s agenda is not limited only to Turkey, but he aims to conquer the whole world. During the early time of Islamic history, Mohammed ordered all Muslims to have a good relationship with Jews because in that time Jews were in charge of commerce and were powerful, but after he got enough power, then he fought with them to establish an Islamic domain. Before that shift Muslims were praying toward Jerusalem, but then later when they got power, Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca.

Today Turkey is increasingly polarized between Turkey’s Islamic ruling party of Islamic Muslim missionaries (Gülen’s movement), the country’s old elites and the secular military. Secularists are trying to keep religion and politics entirely separate. His administration engages in ongoing battles to take control of the media, police, judiciary, and key government actors and remove them from the control of the secularists and military power...

US Military Strategy, Not Wikileaks, Placed American Allies At Risk in Afghanistan and Iraq

I've been reading some really incredible--that is, unbelievable--comments about Wikileaks on the internet, to the effect that it is not journalism, that it is irresponsible, that it has placed US allies at risk, etc. Not exactly the response to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers...

It made me realize the phenomenon of displacement and projection at work. Wikileaks should be applauded for exposing the failures of the US military--including the inability of the military to keep secrets, such as the names of sources. Why were any names in any cables? What happened to calling sources "Agent XYZ"?

In any case, Wikileaks is obviously journalism by any definition. The Wikileaks website meets every definition of journalism--because it is a journal of leaks published online, with additional commentary adding value and perspective to the published information. If that's not journalism, nothing is. The Wikileaks website is an online journal.

Second, when the Washington Post published its series about CIA contractors, titled "Top Secret America," critics charged that the Washington Post put American lives at risk, as well as turning locations into potential terror targets. So, what's the difference? None whatsoever, IMHO.

Third, the Wikileaks controversy points out that US military strategy has placed our allies in danger--not Wikileaks. It still boggles my mind that nine years after the attacks of September 11, 2001 Osama bin Laden has not been captured either "dead, or alive." The US government, it is documented, has provided money, equipment and ammunition to the Taliban (and presumably Al Qaeda operatives) in Afghanistan, through protection rackets as well as Pakistani government ISI-subsidy and material support. US-funded NGOs routinely pay protection to the enemy, as do US contractors hauling fuel and supplies.

Guess what? This is "trading with the enemy." It is illegal under existing US law. Yet no one seems to have been prosecuted. No firms have been blacklisted. And attacks on US soldiers, sailors and marines--not to mention charity workers--funded by the US Government, continue unabated.

Instead of cutting off all aid and assistance to the enemy, a US "hearts and minds strategy" (which lost the Vietnam war) has been redoubled. That is, the US is paying to be defeated, paying to send a fundamentalist imam to raise funds for a victory mosque in lower Manhattan, paying tribute to every enemy and potential enemy of the United States--in exchange for more attacks.

The US government admits that we cannot protect our allies by attacking Wikileaks...what kind of "credible deterrence" is that? The answer should be: Let the Taliban or Al Qaeda try to harm our friends. Any attack on a US ally will be met by the complete destruction of a Taliban village. They should be more afraid of us than we are of them, the names of US allies should be considered a "roll of honor," and Ronald Reagan's "make my day" should be the attitude.

Instead, the response from the Pentagon on down has been one of cowardice, fear, and whining. No wonder we are losing in Afghanistan. We are more afraid of the Taliban, than they are of the USA. That is why Wikileaks has done a great public service to the American public--the document release has finally made clear that the US government, and US military, is endangering the lives of US soldiers, US allies, and indeed, American civilians at home and abroad--through a policy of appeasement and capitulation to the forces of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism and extremism that destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11.

When Wikileaks made public details of this incredibly dangerous, ill-conceived, and unwise strategy, American powers-that-be, including mainstream media outlets that should pursue further investigations of US government failures, instead turned on the messenger and attacked Wikileaks for doing the job they have manifestly failed to do.

After nine years of war, expenditure of trillions of dollars, and deaths of thousands of soldiers, friends of America should be the pride of Afghanistan--not forced to cower in shadows, because America plans to abandon them to their enemies.

If the US can't protect our sources, we don't stand any chance of victory. It is the complaints against Wikileaks which undermine the war effort. The correct response would have been: "No problem, we can protect our guys."

The worst response yet is in an email that I received from "Reporters Without Borders." Whatever credibility this organization might once have had, they have now lost in my mind, by sending out a fatuous, stupid, craven, cowardly, dishonest, shameful email that reads like something composed by a GS-9 level federal civil servant attempting to CYA:

United States

Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: “A bad precedent for the Internet’s future”

Julian Assange
Founder
Wikileaks

Dear Mr. Assange,

Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article “Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010” on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April’s publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration’s U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article’s publication. We are not convinced that your wish to “end the war in Afghanistan” will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

It is true that you said that “a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports” were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being “reviewed further” and that some of them would be released “once it was deemed safe to do so.”

Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal “shield law” protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

We look forward to your reply,

Sincerely,

Jean-François Julliard
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

Clothilde Le Coz
Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC

Lucie Morillon
Responsable du bureau Nouveaux médias
Reporters sans frontières
internet@rsf.org
tel : +33 1 44 83 84 71
Skype : rsfnet
Twitter : luciemorillon

Memo to Jean-Francois Juilliard or Reporters Without Borders: There are NO "RULES OF PUBLISHING RESPONSIBILITY" in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Freedom of the press is exactly that, freedom of the press.

You have demolished your credibility entirely. You just don't know what you are talking about. So, please remove me from your email list.

Memo To The US State Department: Use Spell-Check On Official Email!

Actual spelling in header on an email received today from "U.S. Department of State" (emphasis mine):

South and Central Asia: India's Independance (sic) Day
Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:28:48 -0500

India's Independance (sic) Day


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
August 12, 2010

How To Tell If Someone Is Lying

From Pamela Meyer's new book LIESPOTTING: You can buy a copy from Amazon.com:

Document of the Week: Department of Justice FOIA Training Schedule

Here's the Department of Justice FOIAPost about their 2011 Freedom of Information Act Training Schedule (ht FOIABlog):

FOIA TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES: FISCAL YEAR 2011

The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, in conjunction with the Department’s Office of Legal Education, will be offering five different training programs on the Freedom of Information Act for the upcoming fiscal year. These courses will be supplemented throughout the year by specialized conferences held by OIP on topical issues related to improving transparency.

The regularly scheduled training programs for Fiscal Year 2011 are as follows:

The Freedom of Information Act for Attorneys and Access Professionals

This two-day program is designed for attorneys, FOIA specialists, and other FOIA professionals with limited previous experience working with the FOIA who are now or soon will be working extensively with the Act. This program provides an overview of the FOIA including a discussion of the President’s FOIA Memorandum and the Attorney General’s FOIA Guidelines. This course also provides specialized workshops on the various FOIA exemptions and on procedural issues, as well as a discussion on proactive disclosures and FOIA fees and fee waiver requirements.

November 30 - December 1, 2010, Washington, DC
February 22-23, 2011, Washington, DC
May 3-4, 2011, Washington, DC
July 12-13, 2011, Washington, DC
August 16-17, 2011 (Seattle, Washington)

Advanced Freedom of Information Act Seminar

This seminar is designed for FOIA professionals and legal advisors of all federal agencies. It provides advanced instruction on selected topics under the FOIA, including up-to-date policy guidance and views from the FOIA requester community. This program also serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas useful in dealing with problems that commonly arise in administering the FOIA.

April 6, 2011

Freedom of Information Act Administrative Forum

This program is designed for agency FOIA professionals who have several years of experience with the FOIA and are involved in the processing of FOIA requests on a daily basis. It is devoted almost entirely to administrative matters arising under the FOIA -- such matters as record-retrieval practices, multi-track queue usage, backlog management, affirmative disclosures, and automated record processing. Designed to serve also as a regular forum for the governmentwide exchange of ideas and information on matters of FOIA administration, this program brings together veteran FOIA processors from throughout the government and encourages them to share their experience in administering the FOIA.

June 8, 2011

Introduction to the Freedom of Information Act

This half-day program provides a basic overview of the FOIA for agency personnel who do not specialize in access law. It is designed for those who either work with the FOIA only occasionally or need only a general familiarity with the FOIA in order to recognize and handle FOIA-related problems that may arise in other areas of agency activity.

March 22, 2011, Washington, DC

FOIA Litigation Seminar

This course is designed for agency attorneys and FOIA professionals and focuses on the issues that arise when FOIA requests become the subject of litigation. The seminar will provide guidance on successful litigation strategy and will address in detail the preparation of Vaughn Indices and declarations.

November 17, 2010, Washington, DC

To find further information about these seminars, including application requirements and enrollment information, go to the Office of Legal Education, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/ole/, select “OLE Course Calendar,” then select “Description of courses,” and scroll down to the name of the seminar in which you are interested. For enrollment information, return to “OLE Course Calendar” and select “Procedures to attend a course.” (posted 08/09/2010)

What can one say? Training has become a substitute for action, IMHO. Much of this information could be put in a handbook accessible on the internet. After the FOIA officers take the training, what sort of supervision, incentives, or sanctions would be put in place to improve FOIA performance?

I attended one of these type of events at the Department of Justice, addressed by Attorney General Holder. So far as I could tell, it was about a capella singing and speechmaking. I didn't see any improvement of the handling of my FOIA requests. In fact, my pending request with the US State Department has been handled worse than a similar FOIA request made during the Bush administration.

IMHO, It would be far better for DoJ to start disciplinary action through the Merit Systems Protection Board to remove recalcitrant FOIA officers, than to hold "seminars."

A case in point: Washington, DC's WAMTA Metro held numrous "leadership training" programs for managers over the last few years. The predictable result has been the complete collapse of management and, indeed, the Metro system itself. Ten dead, at least in part due to spending on training seminars instead of track repair. A shambles where teenagers brawl on station platforms at night.

Action now, not training holidays in South Carolina, is needed from the Department of Justice to make FOIA more than just window-dressing, IMHO...

More State Department SNAFUs: Turkish and Azeri Ambassadors Blocked in Senate

I don't know why this isn't getting more press here in the USA. At a time of supposed "Muslim outreach," the Obama administration has nominated two ambassadors--to Turkey and Azerbaijan--who have been blocked in the Senate. No US ambassador in two majority Muslim countries next door to Iran? What message does that send? IMHO, not good.

What kind of vetting process did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton undertake before this debacle? She's a former Senator herself, so should have known how to find acceptable candidates who could have been approved by unanimous consent--unless she's picking a battle for ideological reasons (though Ricciardone and Bryza look more like technocrats than Democratic party political loyalists, at least on paper).

Obama should find and nominate acceptable replacements, ASAP.

Here's the story from Panorama, an Armenian website:

In a major embarrassment for the Obama Administration, Senators took an unprecedented action last week, blocking the President’s ambassadorial nominees for both Azerbaijan and Turkey!

The Administration showed a total lack of experience and poor judgment by ignoring warnings that Matthew Bryza and Francis Ricciardone, the nominees for Baku and Ankara, would meet strong opposition in the Senate.

The White House, State Department, and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had agreed in advance to rush the two nominees through the confirmation process, before the Senate went into recess until mid-September. Bryza was so confident of assuming his post in Baku in early August that he had even made arrangements to have his house in Washington rented!

Contrary to published reports, the Armenian-American community did not oppose Bryza’s nomination because of self-serving concerns. The larger question raised by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) was whether Bryza could represent U.S. interests in Azerbaijan in an objective manner. The nominee’s rough sailing in the Foreign Relations Committee was due to numerous allegations of conflict of interest involving both him and his Turkish-born wife’s employer, The Hudson Institute. The Bryzas were criticized for being "too cozy" with Azeri and Turkish officials, having received gifts from them on the occasion of their Istanbul wedding.

Matt Bryza’s evasive and unsatisfactory answers to Senators’ questions during his confirmation hearing prompted Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to ask Committee Chairman Sen. Kerry to postpone his confirmation until mid-September. Meanwhile, U.S. officials and others would have ample opportunity to fully review all issues raised during the Senate hearing. Should Senators judge that the allegations against Bryza are not serious enough to merit rejection, he could then be confirmed as the next Ambassador to Azerbaijan. However, if evidence of wrongdoing exists, it would be far better that it surfaces now rather than after he is posted to Baku, sparing the Obama Administration from scandalous disclosures and embarrassment.

On the other hand, Francis Ricciardone, the nominee for Turkey, seemed to be a perfect choice on paper. He is a 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service who served as deputy ambassador in Afghanistan, as well as the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, and is fluent in Turkish.

Unfortunately, Ricciardone carries a major liability that the Obama Administration unwisely ignored. There were loud complaints from neoconservatives that during his tenure as Ambassador to Egypt, from 2005 to 2008, Ricciardone had failed to support Bush Administration’s flawed efforts to promote democracy and human rights in that country. When neoconservatives realized that the Administration was turning a deaf ear to their objections, they sought to block his nomination. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) placed "a hold" on Ricciardone, after his confirmation by the Foreign Relations Committee, effectively blocking his approval by the full Senate.

Foreign Policy magazine reported that Ricciardone's critics believe "his strong personality and often blunt speaking style are the wrong mix for the current task at hand -- and that he has a tendency to get too close to his foreign interlocutors." The magazine also quoted Danielle Pletka, Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute, as stating: "Now is not the time for us to have an ambassador in Ankara who is more interested in serving the interests of the local autocrats and less interested in serving the interests of his own administration."

Blocking the confirmation of the Ambassadors to Azerbaijan and Turkey has attracted considerable attention in Washington, Baku, and Ankara. Major American, Azeri, and Turkish newspapers accused the Armenian-American community and the ANCA of undermining Bryza’s nomination. The Washington-based influential "Politico" journal reported that Bryza had ran into "opposition from the Armenian National Committee of America, a lobbying group." The AzerNews Weekly blamed Bryza’s problems on "the Armenian Diaspora," and Hurriyet, one of Turkey’s largest newspapers, reported that Bryza’s nomination was postponed "in response to pressure from Armenian lobby groups."

According to some press reports, the Obama Administration may not be willing to use its political capital to save either nominee. Lincoln Mitchell, an expert on the South Caucasus at Columbia University, told RFE that he does not believe the Administration is going to fight Senators from its own party to save Bryza. A similar assessment was made in Foreign Policy magazine by an aide to a Republican Senator about the Administration’s unwillingness to rescue Ricciardone.

The prolonged absence of U.S. Ambassadors from Baku and Ankara comes at a time of heightened tension in the relations between these two capitals and Washington. Given the Obama Administration’s multiple domestic and international crises on the eve of crucial elections in November, it is doubtful if it could afford to vigorously pursue the confirmation of its ambassadorial nominees for Azerbaijan and Turkey!

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Ramadan Mubarak!

From Haaretz.com:

Muslims around the world on Wednesday began their annual month-long fast, during which they refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and sexual relations from sunrise to sundown.

The end of this, the holiest month in the Islamic calendar, is marked by the festival of Eid ul-Fitr, which this year falls on Thursday, September 9.

Washington Times: US Government Pays For Mosques Around the World

From today's Washington Times editorial page:

The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque - on a trip through the Middle East to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is "a distinguished Muslim cleric," but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America.

By funding the trip so soon after New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission gave the go-ahead to demolish the building on the proposed mosque site, the State Department is creating the appearance that the U.S. government is facilitating the construction of this shameful structure. It gives Mr. Rauf not only access but imprimatur to gather up foreign cash. And because Mr. Rauf has refused to reveal how he plans to finance his costly venture, the American public is left with the impression it will be a wholly foreign enterprise. This contradicts the argument that a mosque is needed in that part of New York City to provide services for a burgeoning Muslim population. If so many people need the mosque so badly, presumably they could figure out a way to pay for it themselves.

Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were "uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution" when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as "stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups." But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for "inherently religious activities." It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.

The State Department is either wittingly or unwittingly using tax money to support Mr. Rauf's efforts to realize his dream of a supersized mosque blocks away from the sacred ground of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed by Islamic fanaticism. This ill-considered decision will raise the ire of millions of Americans and illustrates the limits of what the denizens of Foggy Bottom know about diplomacy.

Is Pamela Geller Today's Jane Jacobs?

This TV appearance by Ground Zero Mosque opponent reminded me somehow of the story of of Jane Jacobs, a middle-aged Jewish lady who lived in New York, the author of The Death and Life of American Cities, a severe critic of the US government's "urban renewal" programs. She took on "Power Broker" and "Master Builder" Robert Moses, and rallied opposition to stop his planned Lower Manhattan Expressway in the 1960s--a project that would have put a freeway through Greenwich Village, had it been built.

Every establishment institution, plus New York City's construction and real estate industry, had been on Moses' side at the time.

Nevertheless, Jacobs rallied public opinion to kill the Lower Manhattan Expressway.

It was never built.

Like Jacobs, Geller is an author as well as an activist.

Like Jacobs, she is taking on New York City's powers-that-be over an unpopular and ill-advised construction project planned for lower Manhattan.

Like Jacobs, she stands a good chance of success.

Why Did Michelle Obama Visit Spain?

I think it was to control the damage caused by a now-rescinded US State Department Travel Advisory containing this phrase:

...racist prejudices could lead to the arrest of Afro-Americans who travel to Spain...

UPDATE: A friend writes:

Michelle Obama happens to be the First Lady, not an ordinary African American visiting Spain.

I believe the warning should remain in effect. I say this because I, as an African American, experienced racial prejudice while on holiday in Spain. In late May of 1999, to be precise, I landed at Barcelona's airport sometime in the afternoon on a weekday. As I awaited my baggage, I was approached by a female security official who asked what I was doing in the baggage claim area. "I'm waiting for my baggage." I answered, somewhat baffled by her inquiry. She remained standing next to me until I retrieved my bags. She then inspected my ticket to verify that they actually belonged to me and then watched me walk out of the airport. What perturbed me about what I had been asked to do was that I did not see her question any of the other passengers who had been in the baggage claim area with me. And then I slowly began to understand why. I had been the only African American in the area and had been singled out because of my race. It was an insulting and rude welcome back to a country I had visited a year before.

Once in my hotel in Calella, a former fishing village an hour north of Barcelona by train, I twice overheard the owner ask one of his managers what I was doing there. On both occasions the managers replied that I was an American and that I was a guest. Still I could never rid myself of the feeling that I was an unwelcome guest the two weeks I stayed in that hotel. I must say that most of the people I met in Calella and Barcelona were cordial and pleasant. The maltreatment I received seemed to come from those in official positions, such as the police or security guards and/or Spanish men who owned or managed business establishments.

Strolling around Barcelona's old town or Barri Gotic, I noticed two uniformed police officers who seemed to go wherever I walked, matching me stride for stride. Finally I stopped and asked them if they were following me. "Si". One of them replied. "Why?" I asked in english. Apparently they understood me, since one them said I looked like a terrorist. Needless to say I found it simply ridiculous. What did a terrorist look like in 1998 Europe? Earlier I had been in the Las Ramblas district and picked up a newspaper that I still carried. The police officers pointed to the paper while explaining that it was published by a radical Spanish group who had been suspected of various terrorist acts. Whether they were being truthful or not, I had no way of knowing. But there were a few more people in Barri Gotic who carried the exact same newspaper who were not followed or stopped. The exception: They weren't African American or of African origin. Nonetheless, I was allowed to carry on without further incident.

One night back in Calella, an African acquaintance and I attempted to enter a disco near the beach. We were stopped by two Spanish doormen who informed us that we weren't allowed inside. My African friend asked why. "No blacks," was their bursque response. Though I had already experienced a couple incidents of subtle racism, I was still shocked by what I had just heard. And it was difficult for me to comprehend fully the why of it. Gabriel, the African from Gambia, was fluent in Catalan. He argued furiously with the two doormen to no avail. Fortunately, there were a couple of other discos we were able to get into.

It was Gabriel who encouraged me to visit Girona, a short distance by train south of Calella. It was siesta time when I arrived. Most of the shops were closed. I walked around until I found a gift shop that was open. But as I did, I sensed I was being followed. Glancing back, I saw a man in plain clothes who stopped each time I did. Once inside the gift shop, I greeted a woman who appeared to own the place. She politely returned my salutation with a smile. The plain clothes man entered and uttered something in Catalan what I deciphered to be: "Are you okay with him in here?" In Catalan the woman replied that she was fine. And the man, who was certainly some sort of police official, departed. Again I was not the only individual on the streets of Girona that afternoon. There were others out and about. Naturally I was a stranger, but obviously a tourist and not a criminal. What made me stand out? I was African American, and the only one in the eye view of the plains clothes police officer. I made a vow that day - that I would never return to Spain again. Nor would I recommend the country to anyone I knew, no matter what race or ethnic origin.

It has been eleven years since I last visited Spain. If the U.S. State Department has issued a warning to African Americans not to visit the country because of the threat of arrest, what has Spain been doing to clean up their act in all the years gone by? Apparently nothing. Maybe it would be a good idea for the State Department to make available to the American public specific information they may have that prompted officials in Washington to issue such a warning. The Spanish could use a little inducement. If our First Lady's visit was one of reconciliation, we owe them absolutely nothing.

Rangel Responds to Charges

From C-Span:IMHO, Rangel may have been targeted by New York State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell, IV, who could be trying to do to Rangel what Rangel long ago did to Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.--with Santo Domingo serving as Rangel's Bimini...call it "payback." If Rangel is censured, Powell IV stands first in line for Rangel's seat.

Maloy Krishna Dhar on the Future of Afghanistan

From the Sri Lanka Guardian:

What are the options? Militarily, a situation may not soon arise for the USA to run away from Afghanistan, though 58% of people expect the President to pull out by mid 2011. However, home realities may force Obama or his successor to disengage from Afghanistan after arranging some kind of international recognition of Afghanistan’s “neutral status” respected by the major powers and all regional powers like India, Iran, and Pakistan etc.

Let’s have a look at the map of Afghanistan. The whole of Afghanistan is not controlled by Karzai government or the US/NATO forces. Iran has a big say in the provinces of Nimroz, Farah, Heart and part of Balochistan; Pakistan controls Helmand, Kandahar, Qalat. Paktia, Khost, Ghazni, Gandez, Jalalabad, Asdabad etc provinces through Talibans of Mullah Omar, Hekmatyar and Haqqani groups. In Northern areas non-Pushtuns have their own militia and are generally aligned to the western forces. The Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmenistani elements have more or less good relationship with the USA and the Russians. China has a common border only with the Afghan province of Faizabad. But China’s presence in Pakistan is rather significant and China is an important member of Sanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which Central Asian Republics, Russia and China are permanent members. Amongst other nations India, Pakistan and Iran enjoy observer status and Afghanistan has the status of a guest. There cannot be any international solution of the Afghan problem without Chinese involvement and agreement. Pakistan knows that it has the tacit support of China behind its ambidextrous policies in Afghanistan and Jammu & Kashmir. In most of such security related matters China and Pakistan work in tandem.

There cannot be any solution without Iranian help as well. Iran is the only Shia nation in the world which has reckonable military power. The USA tried to use Sunni leader Saddam Hussain against Iran. Later they themselves destroyed him. Conflict between Iran and the west is not new. It started over the oil issue and now it has expanded to the contentious issue of nuclear capability of Iran. The USA is in the historic habit of looking at Iran through the Sunni Wahhabi prism of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, moderate Jordan and other allies in the Middle East. The western powers have not gone back into the history of culturally rich Persia which now desperately wants to attain geostrategic status in the Middle East. Western dalliance with Sunni powers has produced wars after wars. Should they not have a second strategic and geopolitical look at Iran?

In case the USA cannot tame the Pakistan army and neutralize the ISI, as proved by WikiLeaks documents, how long it would allow itself to be blackmailed by a country which is nuclear empowered and which has the tarnished record of nuclear proliferation? Can the entire American people agree to pay the Pakistani generals for all the time to come in the name of fighting terrorism, while the same army diverts the fund to kill the American soldiers? A vibrant democracy like America shall not allow its President, the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA to fund Pakistan with American blood-money for getting their own children killed. The bluff has already been called. It is matter of time when Washington should think of alternatives to an unfaithful bed partner.

Americans are open to radical thinking. What’s wrong if a Shia power develops nuclear research capability in collaboration with the USA and Russia? What if such an agreement is reached? In that case can Iran be used to secure the flanks of Afghanistan in a multination guarantee? Perhaps such an agreement with Iran can be a viable step to ensuring a “neutral” Afghanistan and preventing Pakistan from unduly fiddling with its internal and external affairs. There are recent indications that both Moscow and Washington are gradually looking at the feasibility of this option. Friendly Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan should be better assurance to “neutral” Afghanistan than the wolf- at-the-door, Pakistan.

Is a “neutral” Afghanistan possible? Well, some loud thoughts are rebounding from one capital to another. The Kabul Conference held on July 20, 2010 had discussed many items regarding internal and external affairs and providing service to the people. However, none of the super-powers emphatically spoke in terms of a neutral Afghanistan. Some discussions had taken place about future dispensation in Afghanistan, but most leaders were of the view that Afghanistan’s independence and sovereignty should be assured by the international community. Obviously, Pakistan did not enjoy the interlocution and later deputed General Kayani and ISI chief Pasha to have separate discussions with Karzai about Pakistan’s sphere of influence in Afghanistan. Karzai also leaned towards Pakistan with a view to stabilizing his personal position, rather than the position of Afghanistan. But, his relations with the western community are visibly improving.

The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke on the eve of the conference, exuding a high degree of optimism about the war. He wrote that NATO was “finally taking the fight to the Taliban” aimed at the “marginalization of the Taliban as a political and military force … [which] will encourage many who joined the Taliban to quit their ranks and engage in the reconciliation effort.” Starting the transition does not mean that the struggle for Afghanistan’s future as a stable country in a volatile region will be over. Afghanistan will need the continued support of the international community, including NATO. The Afghan population needs to know that we will continue to stand by them as they chart their own course into the future. To underline this commitment, I believe that NATO should develop a long-term cooperation agreement with the Afghan government.’ Obviously he had the support of Obama administration. Obama intrinsically supports the “neutral” Afghanistan idea.

Russia is not so emphatic about “post war” role in Afghanistan, but supports the “neutral” thesis. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointedly underlined in his statement at the Kabul conference the importance of recognizing Afghanistan’s future “neutral status”, which would preclude any sort of permanent foreign military presence. To quote Lavrov: ‘The restoration of the neutral status of Afghanistan is designed to become one of the key factors of creating an atmosphere of good-neighborly relations and cooperation in the region. We expect that this idea will be supported by the Afghan people. The presidents of Russia and the US have already come out in favor of it.’

The Chinese position is ambiguous. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi chose to visit the idea of a “neutral” Afghanistan, but somewhat tangentially. He said: The international community must give continued attention to Afghanistan and follow through on the commitments made in London [conference in January] and the previous international conferences on Afghanistan. We should respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty and work together towards the early realization of ‘Afghanistan run by the Afghans’. We want to see a peaceful, stable and independent Afghanistan.’ It appears that China is leading Pakistan in a joint approach to the Afghan imbroglio.

India has always supported the “neutral” status of Afghanistan and has recently reiterated, “India is committed to the unity, integrity and independence of Afghanistan underpinned by democracy and cohesive pluralism and free from external interference.”

However, Pakistan is not at all interested in any kind of Indian presence in Afghanistan. According to Chris Alexander, Canadian diplomat and former head of UN mission in Kabul wroting in an article in Globe and Mail (Aug 2, 2010), “The Pakistan army under General Kayani is sponsoring a large scale guerrilla war through Afghan proxies-whose strongholds in Balochistan and Waziristan are flourishing. Their mission in Afghanistan is to keep Pashtun nationalism down, India out and Mr. Karzai weak.” Kayani had reportedly offered peace to Karzai in case he agreed to shut down all Indian consulates in Afghanistan.

Though rendering support to “neutral” Afghanistan the USA is planning to set up a permanent military base in northern Afghanistan near Mazar-i-Sharif in Amu Darya region over an area of 17 acres. The base is about 35 km from Uzbek border and is likely to be a part of strings of US bases in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan etc Central Asian countries as part of its forward military missions in the region. Russia and China are not strategically happy with such US plans and consider the Mazar-i-Sharif base as an American plan to have a permanent foothold in Afghanistan.

All said and done, the Afghan kaleidoscope is still uncertain and Pakistan is still busy exploiting Washington’s vacillating indetermination over what to do with an unreliable ally. Obama should decide or face the wrath of the American people. The people can read history faster than the leaders can do. The same had happened in Cambodia and Vietnam. Now in South Asia Washington cannot afford to dance tango with an unfaithful partner which is conspiring with the Talibans, and is known to have links with al Qaeda. Whose war is the USA fighting in Afghanistan? Its own or Pakistan’s?