"all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

At American Digest, a line-up or reactions to Ahmadinejad's speech and Columbia University President Bolliger's surprisingly critical introduction.
I thought it was typical American leftward university PC'ism to have invited the Iranian hustler. The line that all the world's problems are either America's (Mcbushitler) fault or made worse by her intervention (though we saw during the 90's how well NON-intervention worked out). I was actually surprised that the political right made such a stink, it's so expected of this part of the contemporary culture. I felt that if it is opposed by the political right, then that made inviting Ahmadinejad all the more righteous to a left leaning institution. It looked to me that after the invite was delivered, it became apparent that perhaps it wasn't the wisest move. There could have been one big reason, there could have been several smaller reasons.
Maybe the realization that the U S Military is still looked at with respect by the students, even if they hate the commander-in-chief. Maybe the wealth of their parents found the economically foolish attitude that favors enemies of the nation to be beyond stupid.
It was a Columbia U student group that invited the Minutemen to speak several months ago, and then the rest of the student body violently trashed their "right" to speak freely without much administration concern. It is righteous if it is anti-right. Unless it's just not right.
Whatever the reason, Columbia extended an invitation to speak. But when the invitee arrived, Columbia Chancellor Bollinger gave the Iranian leader a verbal thrashing that was just plain rude. I would have no problem if the president were allowed to speak and then in the q & a was completely toasted with the questions. It's not that difficult to reveal a lying hypocrite and bully.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch , quoting an AP story, thinks Bollinger looks good and Ahmadinejad looks ignorant and wimpish. Gateway Pundit , live blogging the speech, thinks the Columbia audience took a hit, looking like typical collegiate, immature morons.

"SO FAR... Not a peep from the audience. Not one peep!
The audience is his to lose. He has them in the palm of his hand.
They are cheering him on now!
Good Lord!
* * * * *

They are cheering the genocide promoter again.
This country is in worse shape than we realized.
Now, Ahmadinejad is lying about the treatment of non-Muslims in Iran.
(More applause)
...
Mahmoud is explaining that the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism.
Mahmoud says his government was the first to fight terrorism.
How sad... He is shifting the blame for terrorism on the US and the audience is eating this crap with serving spoons.
How very sad.
The schools in this country are failing miserably.

Mahmoud is pushing for more research on the Holocaust and the audience is not saying a word- not a peep.

"Serendip concentrates more on his comments about gays and women.

"In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you that we have it."
...
But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime. It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran."

We in the U S set ourselves up for this kind of circus by trying to continue the charade of being "fair to all." You can't on the one hand try to perpetuate that concept (whether it's actually possible or not) and on the other derogate Ahmadinejad's position as President of a major Middle Eastern power. If one invite's another to one's house, one shant insult the other once the other arrives. Now, whether you SHOULD have invited him in the first place is an entirely different matter.

What's With The Military Violence In Iran?

There are stories from press outlets that, though fascinating, I hesitate to chat about because not enough is known to form opinions. This entry from Gateway Pundit is such a case. Gateway Pundit: More Clashes in NW Iran- 16 Guard Members Killed in Fighting GP's article is lengthy for the breadth of it's sources but simply reiterates the story's core many times. I'll lift excerpts from two sources GP used to give the gist...

Orumiyeh, 28 Feb - It is reported that, in a clash with guerrillas that broke out in the course of an operation conducted by the Iranian military in the Soma Biradost area near the city of Orumiyeh in East [Iranian] Kurdistan, at least 16 Village Guards and Revolutionary Guards have been killed, and three guerrillas have also lost their lives.
According to information obtained from Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) sources, the Iranian military launched an operation against the guerrillas on Monday in the Soma Biradost area near Orumiyeh. It has been learned that the battle that broke out during the operation, in which hundreds of Revolutionary Guards and Village Guards took part, lasted for hours.

I read this and was reminded of the backing the Afghans received from the U.S. in their war against the Soviets. Well, I am allowed to hope! It's not necessarily us, though, it certainly could be the Iraqi Kurds themselves. That would confuse me because a few weeks ago the U.S. military busted up a supposed "diplomatic mission" of (what turned out to be) Quds commanders from Iran in Irbil, an Iraqi Kurdish city, that seemed to rile the heck out of the Shiites and the Kurds. I'm familiar with the Kurd political parties PUK and PKK, but I've not heard of the PJAK mentioned in Pundit's story. That could well be the source of my confusion. This version from IranFocus sorts that bit out for me...

An Iranian Kurdish rebel group said it had shot down the aircraft, the Brussels-based Kurdish news agency Firat said.
It said the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which is fighting Turkey, shot down the helicopter with a shoulder-held missile, killing eight soldiers and capturing one.

What a hoot if it was Soviet made!

Various Iranian Kurdish rebel groups have fought a low-level conflict against Tehran for many decades claiming neglect and discrimination by central government.
Iran operates an ageing fleet of aircraft mostly dating from before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Still, I'd like to think that the U.S. intelligence and military are telling Ahmedinejad that we have some tricks up our sleeves and that we know the standing of the mullocracy is feeble to their subjects at this point in time. We may not be able to invade, we may not have the cohones even to bomb their oil facilities or nuclear sites, but we don't have to. Their unemployment rate is higher than the 11% the Iranian government claims. Unrest toward the bullying and failing Ayatollahs is very widespread especially with the non-Persian and non-Shiite population. Iran looks strong only to the ignorant. They could do some damage to be sure, but they have to be careful, they know how precarious their position can quickly get. This incident is one of a few that I'm aware of over the past couple of weeks. Whoever is behind these events is targeting the Revolutionary Guards. Another Iranian media source says...

A senior PKK terrorist commander was killed by IRGC forces in the northwestern city of Orumiyeh on Monday.
In continuation of a series of military operations recently carried out in Orumiyeh, West Azarbaijan province, by the Islamic Revolutionary Gurads Corps (IRGC) forces, to wipe out the separatist terrorists in the northwestern region of the country, a leading commander of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) known as Dr. Afagh and two other terrorists were killed and several others were injured, BAZTAB reported from Orumiyeh.
Afagh, one of the three top PKK commanders in Iran, was active in several Iranian northwestern cities who is said to be responsible for the killings of the innocent civilians and Iranian military officers in the area.

Again, this could be a simple case of Iranian vs Iranian, but I think it's not likely. This region of the planet has more cloak and dagger double back antics than the uninvolved could possibly sort out without a guide. Which brings me back to my original sentence. How can we possibly form any opinions about how the military is handling the Iranians or the Syrians or Musharraf, for that matter? We haven't got a clue. That's my problem, but here is an example of someone who doesn't let the unseen and unknowable diplomatic machinations slow them down. I think that if the U.S. State Dept wants to tell the Iranian Diplomats to shove it over dinner, that's okay with me. That may not be what's going on, but I'm allowed to hope!

Will Israel Do Something About Iran Nukes?

I looked around the GulfNews website and found that, no, they don't refer to the capital of Iraq as "Occupied Baghdad." The article reports the words of an Israeli official, "ultra-rightwing Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman."

Occupied Jerusalem: Israel will have to confront the perceived nuclear threat from Iran on its own, the country's ultra-rightwing Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said yesterday.
"We will have to face the Iranians alone, because Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons," he told public radio when asked about a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

The Dubai paper also provides an informative link to a pdf page describing the Israeli Arrow missile program.

The test is being seen as a message to Iran as it continues to
press ahead with its nuclear programme.

These questions, what will Israel do, get answered in forums far from the ears of the press. One can't help but think that some conversations are going on at some level. I don't see Armageddon but an unprovoked Israeli response would not work out well for them. Of course, if the Americans did something, Israel would still be blamed. (We do everything they tell us, you know).

Mixing Metaphors: The $64 Million Dollar Gorilla!

What is Bush going to do, if anything, about Iran? The period for surprises may be over for this lame-duck presidency. But Pres Bush had been surprising none the less. He made a couple of veiled threats to Iran during his speech, but their communications with the American public has been calmly insistent that there are no actions planned against Ahmadinejad.
This Cox and Forkum cartoon puts to paper what ignoring Iran looks like to those of us outside the beltway.

espresso beans topowerline

Bush And Terrorists - Lots 'O Links

Negroponte says al Queda is in Pakistan...

"Pakistan is our partner in the war on terror and has captured several al Qaeda leaders. However, it is also a major source of Islamic extremism," Negroponte said in written testimony submitted to the panel.
"Eliminating the safe haven that the Taliban and other extremists have found in Pakistan's tribal areas is not sufficient to end the insurgency in Afghanistan but it is necessary."

Condi and secdef Gates face Congress seeking support for the President's "surge" plan...(Look at the AP's choice of photo) Let me give you a hint - the dem's and even some rep's will only oppose you - even if you use their ideas, like more troops! Get it?

Bush and top members of his national security team sought to rally support for the troop buildup a day after he unveiled his plan for turning around a conflict that has lasted nearly four years and cost more than 3,000 American military lives.
Instead, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found themselves embroiled in the first pitched exchanges in a battle that is likely to dominate Congress for months or longer and is already shaping the 2008 presidential election.
"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential contender, told Rice. While he is a Republican, administration officials were defending the plan for the first time to the Democratic-controlled Congress.

There's several changes being made in combat zone timing...the duration and frequency of duty. But the most interesting part of this article had was peripheral to that message - having to do with the deployment of Patriot missiles...

As part of Bush's plan for boosting U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a brigade of National Guard soldiers from Minnesota will have its yearlong tour in Iraq extended by 125 days, to the end of July, and a Patriot missile battalion will be sent to the Persian Gulf next month, the Army said Thursday.
Maj. Randy Taylor, a spokesman for the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss, Texas, said the Patriot unit was aware of the announced deployment. He said no formal order had been received Thursday.
The dispatching of a Patriot missile battery, capable of defending against shorter-range ballistic missile attacks, appeared linked to Bush's announcement Wednesday that he ordered an aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East, which would be in easy reach of Iran, whose nuclear program is a U.S. concern.

Just my opinion here, but I think the major chieftains and players have decided that the U.S, doesn't have the necessary ruthlessness to whip a "unity gov't" together that's strong enough to placate the restless militias and populations. I think they're seeking their own "exit strategy" for the perceived eventual "re-deployment" of American troops, and that the Kurds and Shia are looking to Iran, and the Sunni's to the House of Saud to supply them with arms and intelligence. What Iran's end game is - is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they think they can take a sizable chunk of Iraq for themselves. Particularly the heavily Shiite south, including Basra and the Gulf coast. A missile attack is, in my view, unlikely, but the Patriots are a good show of resolve. The aircraft carrier group (in addition to the fleets already in place) is likely a warning to Iran. Events such as what is described in this AFP account of a raid in Kurdish Arbil make me wonder just who in Iraq counts the Iranians as allies.

The White House declined to comment specifically on the operation, but unapologetically defended it.
"If we get information that is actionable that the Iranians are interfering with Iraq, with Iraqis, or in any way going to harm Americans that we're going to take action," said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
"The president made it clear last night that we will not tolerate outside interference in Iraq. And that's what the Iranians are up to."

...

"We expect the Iraqi government to act quickly for the release of these people and to condemn the US forces and not let them disturb the two countries' relations with their illegal and spontaneous action," a senior foreign ministry official reportedly told Iraqi ambassador Mohammed Majid al-Sheikh.
The Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq -- normally a staunch supporter of US policy in the region -- also condemned the raid and demanded the immediate release of all prisoners taken.
"The presidency and the government of the Kurdish region of Iraq express their disapproval of the operation against the Iranian consulate," said a statement from regional president Massud Barzani's office.

Iranian Arms Smugglers in US Custody In Iraq

Military spokesman General William Caldwell has confirmed that the US has detained Iranians. Top levels of the Iraqi leadership are unhappy. Two of the 10 mentioned are Iranian, the rest are not identified.

"These 10 individuals are still in the custody of coalition forces," said Caldwell, confirming a pre-dawn raid that has increased tensions between the US-led coalition and Iraq's embattled government. Iraqi leaders cited by the New York Times, which broke the story last week, said the Iranians were detained at the compound of powerful Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who met US President Bush at the White House this month.

And I guess I haven't been paying as much attention as I thought, I didn't know this...

Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) was founded by Tehran to mobilise Iraqi exiles against their own government during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
Today, the movement is an important part of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition.

I was aware that most Shiites in Iraq have "ties" to Iran, I didn't know sciri was actually formed in Iran.

European Court Unfreezes Iranian Opposition Group's Assets

The interesting part of this artoicle is the info in the last paragraph...

The move is likely to further erode relations between Iran and Europe, which are already at odds over Tehran's nuclear program. Europe, the United States, Russia and China apparently agreed last week to recommend sanctioning Iran at the U.N. Security Council, although it is unclear what kinds of sanctions they will back.

I hadn't heard that these folks could agree about anything...