United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said today that Russia appeared to be backing away from its previous commitments concerning sanctions on Iran for its nuclear ambitions.

Seems Russia, with backing from China, has introduced a series of amendments in the Security Council that would soften some of the proposed sanctions and delete others entirely.

We all knew this was coming. The Russians are heavily invested in Iran's nuclear program and will not take action that will cost them desperately needed cash. The other side of the coin for Russia, though, is that Putin wants very much to return the Rodina to its former glory--equivalent in power and influence to the United States.

For China, the logic is simple. The Chinese are using their resounding economic successes to finance military programs that will enhance their status on the global stage. Part of the plan for becoming the next superpower involves obstructing U.S. actions whenever and wherever possible, especially within the confines of the United Nations.

Nothing meaningful will emerge from the U.N., no matter how much bargaining Ambassador Bolton does. The question is, will we do anything on our own?

The latest television campaign ad in the Virginia Senate race features two of the primary election approaches engineered by Democratic strategists for this November’s mid-term contest: attacking the President’s judgment and competence and appealing to the patriotism and dedication to service of current and former military members. These two campaign tactics, along with a third, newer strategy that just emerged in recent weeks, form the core of Howard Dean’s plan for winning back the House and Senate after twelve years of Republican control.

The first part of the campaign strategy centers on attacking the Republican candidate, Senator George Allen, by framing him as “guilty through association” for his support of the President and his policies. The ad focuses on Allen’s voting record and tells viewers that their Senator is in lock step with the current administration because he supports George Bush “…96% of the time.”

Rather than advancing any particular issue stance or Democratic initiative, the strategy is designed to take advantage of low presidential approval ratings by casting anyone who agrees with the President as part of the problem with the direction the country is heading, and not as part of the solution. Any area in which the President is doing well, such as overall economic growth, is conveniently left out while attacks are launched on the war in Iraq, embryonic stem cell research, tax cuts for the “rich,” and health care.

The second part of the campaign strategy focuses on the Fighting Dem’s, a group of military veterans who, having served their country in uniform, now seek to serve her in the halls of Congress. The Virginia ad has as its final statement the phrase “Jim Webb, decorated combat veteran….” Across the country, Democratic candidates with military service in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are pushing their veteran’s status as part of a campaign pitch designed to convince voters that the Democratic Party is tough on terrorism and strong on national security, areas in which Democrats are traditionally thought of as weaker than their Republican counterparts. They have their own website and use their status as veterans to target a traditionally Republican demographic: the men and women of the armed forces.

Each of these individuals should be praised for their willingness to serve their country in uniform, some at home and some in harm’s way, and we owe each of them our most sincere thanks and respect. But does being a veteran necessarily qualify someone as strong on national security or tough on terrorism? Just serving in the armed forces does not automatically provide credentials lacking in those who have not served in uniform.

The final approach began to take form during the last few weeks, and was suddenly adopted by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts after he botched a joke, or insulted our troops, or was misinterpreted, or…. Okay, I’m not sure what he did. But whatever it was served as the catalyst for Senator Kerry’s inclusion in the strategy I choose to call “The Hiding Dem’s.”

As Election Day began to draw near, prominent Democrats known for their extreme liberal positions suddenly disappeared from the national scene. Speaker of the House wannabe Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and would be majority leader John Murtha are nowhere to be found.

Now, Senator Reid may be laying low so that he doesn’t draw attention to his Nevada land deals or his use of campaign donations for Christmas bonuses to the staff at the Ritz-Carlton. But what about Pelosi and Murtha? No supporting appearances. No public rallies. No major television spots. No Sunday morning talk shows. Just gone. John Kerry, too, has quickly shuffled to the rear after his latest foot-in-the-mouth gaffe. Could it be that these Democratic “leaders” are regarded by their party as too much of a liability this mid-term? Could it be that their support would alienate moderates and do more harm than good in the quest for control of the Congress?

For Democrats, this election season has focused on attacking the President and his policies, promoting a strong image on national security, and pushing the more moderate and appealing members of the party to the forefront. No real, detailed agenda has been advanced. No new policy initiatives have emerged. Just broad, sweeping ideas that appeal to the liberal base and incessant attacks on the President and his party.

The Democrats have based their entire strategy on the idea that the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress have handled everything in an inept and irresponsible manner. Their talking points don’t say how they, as a party, would have differed. We are just supposed to believe that they would have done better. Well, they may soon be given the opportunity to prove their claims.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El Baradei, warned recently that more than 30 countries could soon have the technological know-how to produce nuclear weapons. As North Korea and Iran push forward with their atomic programs, it seems that going nuclear is becoming fashionable on the international stage.

There are currently five declared nuclear powers (the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and China) and two other states known to have nuclear weapons (India and Pakistan). Add in a couple of more countries suspected of having nukes (Israel and North Korea) and the total number of nations known or suspected to have nuclear weapons grows to nine.

The world community has long suspected, and probably rightly so, that Israel possesses an atomic weapons capability, a charge the Israeli government consistently and adamantly denies. North Korea, we now know, has the capability to at least test a nuclear device of some sort. But whether or not the DPRK has the ability to produce an actual atomic weapon, or the ability to deliver a nuclear payload in an attack on another country, is a question still unanswered.

According to El Baradei, many states are developing nuclear technology that is designed for peaceful energy production. The problem, though, is that these programs could quickly and easily be modified to develop atomic weapons.

Iran and Brazil are known to be actively working on uranium enrichment capability, and other countries, including Australia, Argentina, and South Africa are seriously considering programs of their own.

Thirteen more states either have the ability to produce weapons grade uranium, could build the technology to do so, or could use nuclear waste for weapons: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Lithuania.

Four nations recently announced they were initiating nuclear programs (Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia) and fourteen more have expressed an interest in doing so, either for energy production or in response to regional realities. This group includes Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Namibia, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam, and Yemen.

Yemen is a known hotbed for terrorists, as is Algeria. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, though relatively friendly to the United States and the west, are constantly fighting their own internal battles against Islamic fundamentalists. The potential for global nuclear proliferation has never been greater, and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of radicals determined to employ them has never been more real.

The global community, under the auspices of the United Nations, has been completely ineffective at dealing with nuclear programs in unstable countries. Negotiations over Iran’s uranium enrichment activities are stalled as Russia and China try to protect their business interests. The economic sanctions resolution against North Korea was repeatedly reworded until it was weak enough to satisfy the DPRK’s main trading partner, China, and even then several nations decided to only selectively enforce its provisions.

The simple truth is that not every nation has an absolute right to nuclear technology. The consequences of nuclear abuse are too severe to permit unchecked global proliferation. Until a nation has a stable government that demonstrates its ability to be responsible in the international arena, and in its internal politics, it should be prevented from developing any atomic program, for energy or weapons production.

It is absolutely critical for the world’s major powers to confront North Korea and Iran, and to do so immediately and effectively. Neither country has demonstrated that it can be a responsible nuclear power, and neither country can be counted on to refrain from providing other rogue nations with nuclear technology.

There is no question that Kim Jong-Il’s cash-starved government would sell nuclear technology to any national government or transnational group willing to pay for it. Such sales would provide the North Korean dictatorship with the resources it needs to further insulate itself from a discontented population.

The Iranians, on the other hand, would probably use nuclear technology to dominate the Middle East. The Persian nation’s quest for regional hegemony is quickly becoming a reality, as Iran asserts its influence with Hezbollah against Israel and with the Shiite masses in Iraq, all the while taunting the United Nations and the west with its continued defiance over its nuclear program. But the potential for nuclear technology transfer from Iran cannot be discounted, either for political or economic reasons. Iran’s loyalties lie with whoever will help in the quest for regional dominance.

Both North Korea and Iran must be stopped before it is too late. The United States has taken the lead in countering both countries, but the problem does not belong to the United States alone. Other nations must step up and act like the responsible global players they claim to be. Membership in the nuclear club must be selective and limited to those nations who can use the technology in a safe and responsible manner. Going nuclear is a privilege, not a right. And the sooner the major powers of the world recognize that fact, and take action to support it, the better off the world will be.

Iran kicked off its "Great Prophet 2" military exercise today by firing off several missiles, including the Shahab 3 that can reach Israel.

The Iranians said the exercise was meant to stop the role of world powers in the Persian Gulf Region. Sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, confronting the world over its nuclear program, fomenting unrest in Iraq, aiming to stop the role of world powers in the region.....

Secretary General, can you see what's happening here?

France, Russia, China, can you see what's happening here?

Time is running out for dealing with an Iran in search of a nuclear weapon's capability. Keep concentrating on economic interests and you will be dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran ready to wipe Israel from the map and put its neighbors on notice that it is now the undisputed hegemon in the region.

News reports about Democratic Senator Harry Reid’s Las Vegas land deal had just begun to fade into the distant memories of most Americans when new allegations surfaced about the Nevada Congressman’s possible illegal use of campaign funds. With two reports of alleged impropriety in less than two weeks, I can’t help but wonder what’s going to come up next.

First, Senator Reid allegedly violated Senate ethics rules when he failed to report a real estate transaction that netted him $1.1 million in 2004 for property he had sold three years earlier. The Senator has attributed his failure to report the deal to a “clerical error” and promises to amend his ethics reports to account for the transaction. While he’s at it, Senator Reid has revealed that he will report two additional land deals that were also omitted from his ethics filings because of “clerical errors.”

The most recent news reports allege that Senator Reid used campaign donations instead of his personal funds to pay Christmas bonuses to the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton, where he maintains his Washington residence.

Such a disbursement of donated campaign funds for personal use would be a serious violation of federal election laws. Again, a “clerical error” seems to be the culprit since the bonuses were listed as campaign salary for two years and a contribution for one year. Now, I’m not real sure how campaign salaries and contributions are related to holiday bonuses for the staff at the Ritz-Carlton, but I’m certain that Senator Reid and his lawyers will clarify that for us soon enough. In the meantime, though, the Nevada Senator has agreed to reimburse his campaign for the bonuses that were paid out because of the “clerical error.”

Senator Reid certainly has some questions to answer, but he is not alone in his troubles. From Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney to Mel Reynolds and William Jefferson, and a host of others in between, congressional scandal has become the norm in our nation’s capitol. It seems like every time I turn on the television, news channels are talking about a sex scandal, bribery allegations, or ethics violations involving our elected representatives.

Personally, I think they should all go. Power tends to corrupt and virtually the entire Congress has been in Washington way too long already. Never before has a Congress been in such need of a complete overhaul, and I mean on both sides of the aisle.

I used to be opposed to term limits because I felt, and still do feel, that they deprive voters of their choice of candidates by automatically excluding a person based on time already served in Washington. But I have gradually come to the conclusion that term limits are a necessary evil.

Incumbents have a significant advantage over their challengers. Reelection rates in the Congress are typically over 90 percent, with Senate rates slightly higher than House rates. Are we to believe that this is because of the great job they are doing representing the American people? I find that a hard pill to swallow. The truth is that current electoral rules and congressional benefits, such as free travel and free mailing, favor incumbents and unfairly disadvantage potential challengers.

The November elections will be interesting this mid-term, with no one really sure just how the results will turn out. Democratic pollsters predict a sweeping victory for Howard Dean and crew, and Republican pollsters claim they will hold on to power in both the House and Senate.

But one thing is certain. Our Congress needs help, and not just on the Republican side of the aisle. The two-party system that is dominant in this country excludes viable candidates, deprives voters of choice, and all too often leaves Americans deciding on what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. Until voters are given real choice, the people of America will be faced with the corruption and scandal of Dirty Harry Reid and a corrupt congress.

 In a good article from The New Media Journal on Maryland GOP Senate candidate Michael Steele, Paul Miller talks about how the Democratic Party is not interested in African American politicians if they are Republican. 

October 28, 2006
"They are the faces and voices the media wants you to see and hear. Both are young, charismatic, intelligent and African American. More importantly, in the eyes of the mainstream press, they are Democrats. Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Tennessee Senate candidate, Congressman Harold Ford, are the featured stories and interviews in magazines, newspapers and on talk shows. There are other prominent African Americans running for high profile offices, but they are viewed with great disdain because they run under the banner of the GOP."

Are you kidding me? "Cut and run" is not a remedy!!!! The Dems are making every effort to use veterans as some kind of "proof" that they are tough on terrorists and strong on national security. The "Fighting Dems" campaign is a ruse to convince voters that somehow Dean and crew will do a better job against radical Islamists. God help us if they win.

I for one will gladly cast my ballot on Nov. 7 for George Allen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_el_se/democrats_iraq

After 41 rounds of voting, the UN still can't seem to elect a country to the final rotating seat on the Security Council. Neither Venezuela nor Guatemala have been able to muster the necessary number of affirmative votes and neither seems willing to back down.

Last week there was talk about possibly finding new candidates that member nations could compromise on. Such talks have picked up again this week with several alternatives offered up. 

Hugo Chavez has said that Bolivia would satisfy his country. Of course it would. Bolivian President Evo Morales is a socialist and close ally of Chavez. If the United States blocks Venezuela from the council, what makes Chavez think we will agree to Bolivia and Morales?

The back-and-forth over the remaining Security Council seat is just one more example of a UN bureaucracy that can't get even the simplest tasks accomplished. I mean, come on guys. It's a symbolic seat with no power. Only the permanent five matter anyway, and they can't agree on anything. Why are we still wasting time with this?

Strategic Forecasting, Inc. is reporting that trade between China and North Korea appears to be increasing, despite United Nations sanctions agreed to by the Chinese government.

STRATFOR cites a report in the New York Times that China has been importing increased amounts of coal and electricity into North Korea and Chinese entrepreneurs are buying shares in North Korean mining operations.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters today to "back off" with the persistent questioning about timetables for Iraq.

Why is it so hard for people to understand? Troop level increases or decreases must be dictated by the commanders on the ground in response to rising or ebbing levels of violence. We have some top notch guys running the show over there. Abizaid and Casey are two of the finest generals this country has ever produced.

Do people really believe that if we just leave everything will be okay in Iraq? Do they really think the violence will stop? The ignorance of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The federal government announced recently that it was creating a new law enforcement task force that will be charged with cracking down on violators of U.S. trade and travel sanctions against the island nation of Cuba. As part of the task force, personnel from the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, as well as agents from the FBI, will focus on individuals and businesses engaged in commercial activity, travel, and the transfer of currency to Cuba.

The sanctions, which have been in effect for more than forty years, and which will remain in place until free and fair elections are held, are supposed to isolate the Castro dictatorship politically, economically, and socially. The reality, though, is that they do little more than hurt the Cuban people while the Castro brothers maintain their firm grip on power.

Historically, economic sanctions have done little to change the behavioral patterns of bad governments and ruthless dictators. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote in 2003 that “The United States imposed 85 new unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1996 to 2001. But sanctions, which cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone, aren’t a policy; they’re a feel-good substitute for one.”

On most issues facing America today, I find myself on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Mr. Kristof. However, the question of economic sanctions provides a rare opportunity for us to agree on a policy matter. There have been very few instances where economic sanctions have hurt those in power. They almost always fail to achieve the policy aims of the nation imposing them and usually end up hurting the very people they are meant to help.

For economic sanctions to work against a particular state there has to be global consensus for their implementation. Sanctions imposed and enforced by one nation alone rarely have the desired effect because the sanctioned nation simply finds other trading partners to conduct economic activity. Too often, business opportunities and investment programs prevent countries from signing on to a sanctions regime, even though they may find the target country’s behavior objectionable.

Take for instance the recent discussions in the United Nations Security Council over Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. Despite a clear threat to regional peace and stability should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, Russia, France and China have thus far refused to go along with sanctions that would limit Iran’s access to nuclear technology. All three nations have business interests in Iran and all three stand to lose money if sanctions are imposed. Even if the United States unilaterally imposed sanctions to supplement restrictions already in place, the effect on Iran’s radical regime would be negligible at best.

In the case of Cuba, sanctions currently in place against the Castro regime are largely American, and as such are summarily ignored by most other nations. While Castro has certainly been deprived of American dollars, there has been no shortage of willing trade partners or arms suppliers for the communist dictatorship. Cuba has indeed experienced significant economic troubles since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those fiscal woes are the result of losing the island nation’s long-time economic and political sponsor and not the result of American economic sanctions.

Truth be told, sanctions imposed by the United States against Cuba hurt American businesses, Cuban-Americans with relatives living under the Castro dictatorship, and ordinary Cuban citizens. Fidel and Raul Castro have used U.S. economic sanctions as a scapegoat for the island’s depressed economic state without consequence.

The United States should aggressively promote democratic values and the promise of a better life without the Castros, especially through the large Cuban population in southern Florida. The end of communist rule in Cuba is a matter of “when” and not “if.” Eventually the regime will fall, much like the former Soviet Union did. In the meantime, other methods for promoting regime change should be explored and pursued, and economic sanctions that have done more to hurt the Cuban people than the Castro government over the past four decades should be lifted. 

I saw an AP report this evening where Senator Lindsey Graham said Iraq was on the verge of chaos. No kidding, Senator. War, by definition, is chaos.

One of the biggest problems in Iraq is that there is no clear cut battlefield with defined combatants. Kurds are fighting Sunnis, Shiites are fighting coalition forces and Sunnis, Sunnis are fighting everyone, jihadists are fighting everyone, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Senator Graham also said that everyone should be held accountable, specifically Rumsfeld and the generals on the ground. This makes no sense at all. Generals fight wars with the resources they are given. Just because things may not be going as well as we had hoped at this point doesn't mean we should just fire everybody and start over.

General Abizaid and General Casey are two of the finest commanders this nation has ever produced. They have a much greater appreciation for the complex realities on the ground in Iraq than does Senator Graham.

It must be nice to be able to sit in your office in Washington and criticize the guys overseas trying to win a war for their nation. We all understand, Senator Graham, that times are tough in Iraq.

But the problem is not Rumsfeld or the generals. The problem is a massive struggle for power by multiple groups who all know that someday, maybe in the near future and maybe not, the Americans will leave Iraq.

The Armed Forces Press Service recently quoted Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker as saying that the current level of soldiers in Iraq could remain constant through 2010. Naturally, this sounded alarms in the mainstream media, which had been reporting for some time that the Army planned to reduce troop levels significantly during late 2006 and into 2007.

There are two important things to note here. The first is pretty straightforward: troop levels are constantly adjusted to meet the conditions on the ground. When the level of violence dipped in Iraq, the commanders on the ground reduced the number of troops in the country to just over 100,000 and talked about further possible reductions. As the level of violence steadily increased this year, though, troop levels again went up, with some deployments accelerated and some re-deployments delayed. The same held true in Afghanistan, where NATO countries were called upon to increase troop levels in response to increased Taliban activity in the southern part of the country.

The point is that there is no magic formula for the number of soldiers on the ground. Troop levels rise or fall in direct proportion to the levels of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Calls for massive troop reductions ignore the realities in both countries. The fight is far from over and Afghanistan and Iraq could easily be lost if our resolve wavers.

The second thing to note is a bit more conceptual and thus more difficult for people to understand: we are an Army (and Navy, and Air Force, and Marine Corps) at war, but we are not a nation at war. What I mean by this is that everyday Americans go about their lives largely unaffected by the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority of the population doesn’t serve in the military and only a small number of people even know someone in the service, much less in the two primary theaters of the war on terror.

Everything they know about Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Kandahar, Bagram, and any number of other key battlegrounds is obtained from their nightly news broadcasts and local papers.

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines currently forward deployed understand what they are involved in. They risk their lives everyday while we argue over “stay the course” and “cut and run.” Unlike World War II, when the entire nation was engaged in the war effort against Germany and Japan, the Global War on Terror is witness to a select few volunteers putting everything on the line while the rest of us go about our daily routines in ignorant bliss.

This attitude concerns General Schoomaker. In a recent speech to soldiers and defense industry representatives he warned that support for the war effort had been “tepid.” In fact, he said, only 4% of the nation’s gross national product had been committed to defense, compared with 38% of GNP during the Second World War. “Ultimately, victory requires a national consensus…in words and actions,” he said. “Another 9/11 should not have to occur to shake us into action.”

While politicians and the public alike complain about the money being spent in the two war zones, a figure quoted at over $1 billion per week, military members across the country are cutting back on nonessential expenditures so that every available dollar can be used in support of the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On military posts throughout America, quality of life projects and family support programs are cutting back to free desperately needed funds for the war effort. The very people who volunteer to sacrifice so much for the rest of us are bearing the entire burden of the War on Terror while average citizens complain about gas prices or discuss Madonna’s adoption of a child from Malawi. As General Schoomaker said, providing the military with the funds it needs “…is a matter of national priority, not a matter of affordability.”

Most Americans don’t equate the War on Terror with World War II. The fight against the Axis in the 1940s was viewed as a fight for survival requiring the support of the entire country. Americans need to understand that we are again locked in a life-and-death struggle with a radical ideology bent on our subjugation and eventual destruction.

Americans accept Afghanistan because they can link the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11. Iraq may or may not have been a front in the Global War on Terror in March 2003. Intelligent people can debate that topic equally well from both points of view. But there is no question that Iraq has now joined Afghanistan as a central battleground in the fight against radical Islam. Jihadists from across the globe have flocked to Iraq to wage war on the United States and the west.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an October 16 speech that “There’s no way the United States can lose militarily against the terrorists, but the center of gravity of the war in Iraq is not in Iraq, it’s in Washington, D.C.”

If we pull out of Iraq now, our enemies will be emboldened. If we leave before the job is done, we will breathe new life into the cause of Muslim fundamentalists, much as the Soviet Union did when it pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989. The calls for troop withdrawals must be resisted, and we must stay until the fight is over.

The United Nations announced that voting for the lone remaining Security Council seat will begin again on October 25th. In the first 35 rounds of voting, neither Venezuela nor Guatemala was able to secure the number of votes necessary to win the rotating seat.

Of course, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed this as some sort of victory because he prevented the U.S.-backed Guatemala candidacy from winning the seat. But in reality, Chavez lost, and lost terribly. He desperately wanted that seat as a forum for denouncing the United States in the Security Council for the next two years.

Now I guess Chavez will be relegated back to the cheap seats in the general assembly.

The Associated Press is citing UN diplomats as saying that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program, even as talk of sanctions stalls in the Security Council chamber.

For lack of a better term, DUH!!

Why is this news? Is anyone surprised? Iran doesn't take the UN seriously, and why should it? Because of the tough sanctions regime imposed on North Korea for their testing of a nuclear device?

Kim Jong-Il is laughing hysterically at the impotence of the Council, and Ahmadinejad will soon be joining him. As long as Russia is footing the bill for the majority of Iranian nuclear work, don't expect anything meaningful to come out of the UN. As a veto-wielding power, Russia can be relied upon to do everything possible to preserve its business interests in Iran.

And that is really all you need to understand about the threat of sanctions.