Is the Bush DOJ the gang that can't shoot straight?

---

Account frozen...

Iran rejects Russian plan for nuclear compromise

By Ali Akbar Dareini
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 13, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran ruled out a Russian proposal aimed at easing tensions over its nuclear program yesterday, drawing criticism from a senior lawmaker in Moscow who said the decision destroyed the last chance for compromise before the U.N. Security Council takes on the issue this week.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also warned that Iran is considering large-scale uranium enrichment at home as a response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to refer Tehran to the Security Council.

However, Tehran did back away from a threat to use oil as an economic weapon if the council should impose sanctions.

Russia had sought to persuade Iran to move its enrichment program to Russian territory, which would allow closer international monitoring. Iran reached basic agreement with Moscow on the plan, but the details were never worked out.

“The Russian proposal is not on our agenda any more,” Asefi said. “Circumstances have changed. We have to wait and see how things go with the five veto-holding countries (on the council).”

The comments effectively meant the Russian proposal was dead after the nuclear watchdog agency referred Iran to the Security Council, which can impose political and economic sanctions, last week.

In Moscow, Konstantin Kosachev, the head of international affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, harshly criticized Iran, saying the decision meant the end of chances for a compromise on the issue, according to Russian news reports.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies any intention to build weapons, saying it only aims to produce energy.

A Western diplomat, who insisted on anonymity in detailing the confidential discussions, said a new meeting among the permanent council members – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – was planned today to look at a revised draft statement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran had no intention to use oil as a weapon in the confrontation, contradicting a statement a day earlier by Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to continue to provide Asia with the oil it needs . . . and will not use oil as a foreign policy instrument,” he said.

Is the Bush DOJ the gang that can't shoot straight?

It's an easy thing to do by e-mail, if the lawyer, Carla Martin was against the death penalty.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Iran rejects Russian plan for nuclear compromise

If Iran really only wants domestic energy in mind, they could allow inspections and they could have their own power plants.

However, because they don't want to be open about it, they do want to develop weapons to do the following:

link to text below
As millions of Iranians held anti-Israel rallies, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told a gathering in Teheran: "The presence of Israel is a very big threat to regional nations and states. There is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."


Hasn't Iran basically declared war on Israel when even the president says that?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Account frozen...

A burning fuse - Iran confronts the U.N. Security Council

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

March 14, 2006

Global diplomacy intended to stop Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons moves this week to the United Nations Security Council, sent there by a resounding vote of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Even Iran's would-be friends, like Russia and China, supported the referral because Iran gave them no credible reason not to.

Most of the world, Europe and the United States included, now believes that Iran's civilian nuclear power program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. That's the only interpretation that fits Iran's long pattern of deception and defiance of the IAEA, which has given Tehran every conceivable chance to demonstrate it is interested in only the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Iran's rejection of Russia's compromise offer to enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil, and thus preclude diversions for weapons making, stripped Tehran of its last diplomatic fig leaf. Barring a verifiable course change by Iran, the Security Council, or perhaps a subsequent coalition of major powers acting together, represents diplomacy's last chance. Make that coercive diplomacy's last chance.

Under provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, the Security Council is authorized to punish violations by imposing economic and political sanctions.

But unless Iran is convinced that the Security Council can summon the will to enforce the NPT, diplomacy will have squandered its global consensus card, and to no avail. Clearly, Iran's mullahs and certainly its firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doubt the Security Council's will to act. Specifically, they expect either Russia or China, both heavily invested in Iran and either of which could veto any serious sanctions, to foil Security Council enforcement.

While this drama plays out over the next month or so, the Bush administration and America's European allies should privately be considering whether there might yet be some third choice between a veto-neutered Security Council and resorting to a military option fraught with risk. If the Security Council cannot act, it may then be time to test the feasibility of an approach to Iran involving the United States and a select group of resolute allies not subject to a Russian or Chinese veto.

The current Iranian regime almost certainly cannot be talked out of its suspected determination to go nuclear. But it might be coerced into at least a protracted delay if the unmistakable alternative were the use of force.

The stakes could hardly be greater.

A nuclear-armed Iran ruled by an Islamic fundamentalist government whose president last year said “Israel should be wiped off the map” would destabilize the Middle East and invite war. The time to prevent that is running out.

hey sen boxer has sent me another email. how.. wonderful..

Dear Friend:

In less than five years, authorities have uncovered some 40 tunnels across America’s borders. In some cases, they are little more than a narrow crawl way. In other cases, they are well-engineered tunnels with ventilation and lighting systems and reinforcements. Regardless of the complexity of their construction, all of these tunnels pose a threat to our security. They provide a direct passageway into the United States for illegal narcotics, banned weapons, potential terrorists, and others who would be stopped at a port of entry.

I am pleased to support United States Senator Dianne Feinstein’s legislation to make the construction of these tunnels a crime. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act, S.2355, authored by Senator Feinstein, would criminalize the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless permitting of construction of a tunnel between the United States and another country. This law would enact stiff penalties for illegal tunnel construction, punishing those who construct, utilize, or otherwise facilitate the creation of these tunnels that pose such serious risks to Unites States domestic security.

Passing the Border Tunnel Prevention Act is an important step in the fight to make America more secure. I commend Senator Feinstein for introducing this legislation and will work with her to make sure it becomes law.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

The day after Israel attacks Iran

By Jeff Kamen; co-author with Robert Kupperman of the book, “Final Warning: Averting Disaster in the New Age of Terrorism” (Doubleday). As a broadcast journalist, he makes documentary films for the U.S. Air Force and other clients in and outside the national security community.

March 15, 2006

Imagine the day after a very possible tomorrow, in which precision Israeli air strikes have destroyed much of Iran's nuclear facilities and another Israeli bombing run also has killed the ruling theocracy. The men who had publicly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” and the means for making the weapons to do that have been eliminated.

How would Muslims around the world react to such an Israeli pre-emptive strike? What would happen here in the United States? The horror unleashed by the artificially pumped up controversy over the cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad gives us a frame of reference. Supported by Iran and Syria, the radical European imams who created that crisis pushed their agenda of portraying Islam as a victim and other faiths as victimizers. In response, innocent people were killed, and consulates were burned in widely dispersed rioting by mostly uneducated fundamentalists in nations with large Muslim populations.

In Nigeria, Muslims slaughtered innocent Christians. Within hours, other Christians in Nigeria took up arms, hunted down Muslims and killed them before government security forces were deployed. Meanwhile, in Paris, a pattern of torture murder of Jews by radical Muslims has recently surfaced, despite the politically correct muzzle worn by most French journalists and politicians, which has kept France in the dark on this frightening trend. In the aftermath of an Israeli military strike against Iran, French Jews may well find their nightmares coming to life in broad daylight and in larger numbers.

What is clear is that unless there is a comprehensive diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis – complete with verification regimes, the pieces will soon be in place for a rapidly rising crescendo of action and reaction without a predictable outcome for any of the players. Thus far, Iran has not agreed to anything resembling the necessary safeguards and guarantees.

Meanwhile, a security alert was issued in Israel for its border with Lebanon after the Iran-backed Islamist Lebanese militia Hezbollah appeared to be preparing for a possible attack. (It was Hezbollah that carried out the truck bomb suicide mission that killed 241 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut in 1983 after the Marines were ordered in as peacekeepers. Following the slaughter of the Marines, President Reagan withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon and Hezbollah's power grew rapidly.)

How much longer can the Israelis afford to wait before taking out the Iranian nuclear threat and the would-be nouveau Hitlers who rule Iran? How long would the United States wait under the same kind of threat to its very existence? There is good reason to believe the Iranian leadership is seriously miscalculating Israel's red lines, its resolve to survive and its preparedness for sudden, decisive action. It may be that the ayatollah and his followers are intoxicated by what they imagine to be a moment of historical significance in which their special brand of fanatical, violent Islam is in the ascendancy, and the rest of the world will soon bow down in the direction of Tehran.

It is a terrible miscalculation that could well cost all of us dearly in unintended consequences, including some that can be predicted now.

If Israel does conduct those air strikes, there is no doubt that Hamas and its allied militants in the Palestinian territories (recipients of aid from Iran) will send suicide bombers against Israeli civilians. We should expect the same in the United Kingdom, Denmark, other allies, and here in the United States.

But there will probably be far fewer suicide bombings in the United States than other forms of violence, which do not require either planning or partners. Here is one numeric model that might be of some use in calculating the enormity of the risk where we live:

If the United States is home to 6 million Muslims and only one-tenth of one percent of them are potentially violent extremists or become radicalized by the Israeli action, that leaves 6,000 angry, violent men and women whose own brand of Islam tells them that it is far better to die in jihad than to live. In all likelihood, at least half of the 6,000 will be unknown to the FBI and other federal agencies.

That makes 3,000 potential lone wolves (an FBI term referring to unaffiliated, self-starting terrorists) determined to strike a blow against anything Israeli, Jewish, or even just plain American – including other Muslims who don't agree with them. In that scenario, local police would find themselves challenged as never before. Our country's roughly 18,000 city, county and state law enforcement agencies need to be fully aware of what may well be coming at them. So should individual Americans of all backgrounds, including moderate Muslims who would also become targets of the enraged extremists since, to the jihadists, moderate Muslims qualify as “infidels,” just like the rest of us.

Now is the time for moderate Muslim leaders to help law enforcement prevent Islamist terrorism by guiding them in understanding which individuals might be most at risk for becoming lone wolves and, of equal importance, by speaking out against terrorist ideology and behavior.

Nonviolent American Muslims and their mosques (like temples and churches and their congregations) deserve the protection of the police and of their Christian and Jewish neighbors in the event of widespread Islamist attacks on the home front. Federal officials must have plans in place for just such a scenario, which becomes more likely each day.

Is that the same guy who claims bird flu is an Iranian plot.... ?

.....that the bird flu weapon of mass destruction will be 'delivered' via migratory flight patterns from the vast covert wetlands incubators in Iran?

If we're going to sit around and dream up fears of ultimate doom, let's get down to something with some substance...

...something we can point to as a casus belli that's beyond reproach.

________________

Avian flu has been around for centuries, and even the particularly virulent form H5N1 has been known since 1959, and human infection has been recorded since 1997.

Why the recent emphasis? Why are the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense so deeply involved in preparations for an impending bird-flu pandemic?

The H5N1 virus is not transmissible from human to human, so a pandemic is impossible unless the virus undergoes a random mutation.

However, any random mutation of any virus could potentially be very dangerous to humans.

What if the HIV virus suddenly mutated into a form where it was transmitted by casual contact or even worse, through the air?

What if the ebola virus suddenly mutated into a form that remains dormant for six months before killing the victim?

Why aren't we panicking about those possibilities, which are as likely (or rather, as unlikely) as H5N1 mutating into a human transmissible virus?
______________________________________________________

Iran has the "weapons" and the "means of delivery."

Time is of the essence.
_____________________

The American public feeds on the grist from the fearmongers.... feeling safer yet?

---

A word from our Prez

Remember Bill Clinton?

Well that explains everything

including his visit to China

A word from our Prez

That is the forth video that did not happen!!

That is the forth video that did not happen!!

Oh you mean THIS video.

Even though Steve Ballmer does his monkey dance every time we say it, this is the SETI@home forum for BOINC users only!

Hmmm... I may have to change that link.

---

Account frozen...