June 15, 2004

Conflict Still Looms in Korean Peninsula

our years after the two Koreas held a landmark summit, their reconciliation efforts have taken a back seat to the international dispute over the North's nuclear ambitions - a standoff with no end in sight.

And even though a third round of six-nation talks aimed at ending the nuclear dispute is expected to begin next week in Beijing, the looming U.S. presidential election makes progress unlikely.

The November election has put North Korea in a wait-and-see mode in the belief it could get a better deal at the negotiating table if John Kerry prevails. North Korea sees President Bush as uncompromising and suspects U.S. policy would soften under his Democratic rival.

Two previous rounds of talks - both with Bush in the White House - have yielded few results beyond establishing the sharp differences between the two main adversaries, Pyongyang and Washington.
[Ooh, they just hate that being lumped in that "axis of evil!"--Jen]

By contrast the inter-Korean reconciliation process has plodded along since the summit on June 13-15, 2000, between North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Kim Dae-jung, the South Korean president who won a Nobel Peace Prize largely because of his campaign to engage the isolated North. The achievement, however, was marred by revelations that the North received illegal payoffs from the South in exchange for hosting the summit.

The South Koreans should know better than to bargain with Communists! (But they don't.)
Is it any wonder that we're taking some of our troops off the Korean border when they act like this?
The South Koreans can afford their own defense, have an adequate army of their own and have complained about the presence of our troops, so why not move them where they will be more appreciated?
This news story cites New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as a NorK negotiating expert--but I won't.
Richardson (Clintonista #8709) thinks we should talk nicer to the NorKs...
After all, it's not as if they had missiles that could reach the U.S.tipped with those "non-existent" nukes or anything.
Oops!

Purported Letter: Iraq Holy War in Danger

A leader of militants in Iraq has purportedly written to Osama bin Laden saying his fighters are being squeezed by U.S.-led coalition troops, according to a statement posted Monday on Islamic Web sites.

It was not possible to authenticate the statement allegedly from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian whose insurgent group claimed responsibility for the videotaped beheading of American Nicholas Berg.
[...]

"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."
[That was the plan! I love it!--Jen]

The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country "four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan." It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005.
[This means they're having to move the goalposts from the U.S. handover on June 30 to January so that they can still "win."
I love this, too!
They missed taking over by the handover and they know it.]

It also says insurgents are planning to intensify attacks on Iraqi soldiers and police, seen as collaborators with the U.S.-led coalition. Calling Iraqi forces "the occupier's eye, ear and hand," the statement says: "We are planning on targeting them heavily in the coming stage before they are fully in control."
[...]
The nine-page statement was longer than previous ones from al-Zarqawi, and uses classical Arabic language and poetry typical of militant leaders.
[...]
If the militants fail to take over Iraq, "we will have to leave for another land to uphold the (Islamic) banner, or until God chooses us as martyrs," the statement says.
[...]
The message also apparently seeks to reassure bin Laden that Iraqi militants are in league with his al-Qaida extremists.
[...]
The statement puts the Iraqi militants' enemies into four categories: the Americans, the Kurds, Iraqi police and soldiers; and the Shiites. Of the Shiites, it says: "If we succeed in dragging them into sectarian war, we could wake up the Sunnis."

Given what's been going on in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon, I seriously doubt the Sunnis need "waking up."
Note the confirmation that the "militants" in Iraq are tied to Al Queda, something which only the Left tends to doubt.
And significantly, VP Cheney today gave a speech affirmatively linking Saddam and Al Queda, something he and the Bush Administration has previously been reluctant to do before, even though we all knew of numerous ties.
All in all, this latest missive from al-Zarqawi proves that we are indeed pressing on to complete victory in OIF, so if you thought that we "retreated" in Falluja or Najaf or Kufa, worry no more!
(As if our Coalition troops would do anything less!)
And the "flypaper" theory is valid, too.
We fight the Enemy in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at the place and time of their choosing, like the streets of New York or Washington.

June 13, 2004

Iran Wants to Be Part of 'Nuclear Club'

Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran's highly controversial program.

"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."
[Ominous and threatening words indeed.
What this may do is to put Iran on an irreversible path to destruction.--Jen]

Kharrazi insisted that Iran would not give up its development of the nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full cycle, but is not now enriching uranium.

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making weapons, but the United States and its allies say Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has wrestled with the dilemma for more than a year.

"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an additional demand," Kharrazi said, apparently referring to demands by U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas. The demand also calls for aborting plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.

"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the nation of something that is a source of pride."

Iran has confirmed possessing technology to extract uranium ore, processing it into a powder called yellow cake and then converting it into gas. The gas is then injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for nuclear reactors.

Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which Iranian officials have maintained was from contaminated imported materials.

Kharrazi condemned a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany, France and Britain and being debated before the IAEA board meeting Monday which says Iran's cooperation has not been complete.
[...]

Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.
[I don't think I want to know what Mullah Kharrazi means by a "failure for all."--J.T.]

The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment, saying the issue was blown out of proportion. He did not say where the magnets were bought.
[Gee, who could it be that sold them this contraband equipment--France? China? Russia?
When Team Bush finds out, there will be hell to pay!--Jen]

Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a "higher number."
[...]
IAEA chief (and fellow Muslim and lover of the whole "Muslim Bomb" idea) Mohamed ElBaradei said last month his agency had not found proof to date of a concrete link between Iran's nuclear activities and its military program, but "it was premature to make a judgment."

Oh, brother...how I wish we could all stay wrapped up in our memories of President Reagan and his lovely vision of "Morning in America" forever, but he'd want us to confront the problems of our world today and Iran has just given us a vivid reminder that there are still 2 countries left to tackle in the "Axis of Evil" who show no signs of eschewing their evil.
A nation-state doesn't talk about being in the "nuclear club" if all they're going to do with nuclear materials is to use them for nuclear energy.
And I don't think that IAEA have been shown the real nuke sites in Iran yet.
Fasten your seat belt; it will be a bumpy night.
But America can't continue being that "shining city on a hill" if we're nuked into a nuclear winter by Islamist terrorists bent on our destruction.

Text of Margaret Thatcher's Eulogy

We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.

In his lifetime Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set himself. He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism. These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.

Yet they were pursued with almost a lightness of spirit. For Ronald Reagan also embodied another great cause - what Arnold Bennett once called `the great cause of cheering us all up'. His politics had a freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every nation - and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire.

Yet his humour often had a purpose beyond humour. In the terrible hours after the attempt on his life, his easy jokes gave reassurance to an anxious world. They were evidence that in the aftermath of terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained sane and jocular. They were truly grace under pressure.

And perhaps they signified grace of a deeper kind. Ronnie himself certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose. As he told a priest after his recovery `Whatever time I've got left now belongs to the Big Fella Upstairs'.

And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.

Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.

Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.

Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.

I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on his words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: `Let me tell you why it is we distrust you.' Those words are candid and tough and they cannot have been easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to a new beginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.

We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape with those words. It is a very different world with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president.

As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president.

Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively.

When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.

When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew `the Old Man' would never wear.

When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership.

And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding.

Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.

Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.

Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's `evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.

So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.

Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.

Therein lies perhaps the final explanation of his achievements. Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.

As an actor in Hollywood's golden age, he helped to make the American dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a fulfilment of that dream. He never succumbed to the embarrassment some people feel about an honest expression of love of country.

He was able to say `God Bless America' with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.

With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America".

Ronald Reagan's life was rich not only in public achievement, but also in private happiness. Indeed, his public achievements were rooted in his private happiness. The great turning point of his life was his meeting and marriage with Nancy.

On that we have the plain testimony of a loving and grateful husband: `Nancy came along and saved my soul'. We share her grief today. But we also share her pride - and the grief and pride of Ronnie's children.

For the final years of his life, Ronnie's mind was clouded by illness. That cloud has now lifted. He is himself again - more himself than at any time on this earth. For we may be sure that the Big Fella Upstairs never forgets those who remember Him. And as the last journey of this faithful pilgrim took him beyond the sunset, and as heaven's morning broke, I like to think - in the words of Bunyan - that `all the trumpets sounded on the other side'.

We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children."

How can I follow this eloquent, superbly articulate lady with my own poorly formed thoughts?
Although if she asked me, I'd follow her anywhere, as Baroness Thatcher is my heroine.
I can't hear or read her eulogy for Reagan of yesterday without crying or without the hair on my arms standing up.
Without trying to sound blasphemous or completely over the top, it's the closest I think I've come to hearing God speak to us, His people, through an earthly messenger filled with His grace.
Her words were ineffable and had the clarion sound of truth.
I don't know of an instance of someone speaking Truth to Power like this divine lady.
In the days and moments before she spoke, the networks and the media had been giving President Reagan grudging credit for being the prime mover in ending the Cold War probably or perhaps...
After the funeral and Baroness Thatcher's words, it could be doubted no longer (except by the most inveterate Leftists who refuse to concede defeat) and wasn't and I doubt will seriously be ever again.
May God Bless her and may He continue to bless our "special relationship" with Great Britain.

Baroness Thatcher is pictured her at President Reagan's interment service in California where she sat by Gov. and Mrs. Schwartzenhegger and when the assembled mourners sang the Star Spangled Banner, the former British PM knew all the words and sang along quite happily!
Earlier in the day at the National Cathedral, she sat with our former Cold War foe and now friend Mikhail Gorbachev.
What a lady.
What a historic, unforgettable and beautifully bittersweet a day, full of emotion:
I laughed. I cried. It is now an indelible part of me.