Visit my other blog for Non-Political Content

My alias, Out-Migrated Nodaker is up and running at http://nodak1.blogspot.com

Turkey to Invade Iraq? Huh?

From the Washingoton Post

Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there _ a move that could put Turkey on a collision course with the United States.

Turkey is facing increasing domestic pressure to act after 15 soldiers, police and guards were killed fighting the guerrillas in southeastern Turkey in the past week.

Where’s the coverage on this?

American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have repeatedly warned Turkey against entering northern Iraq, one of the few stable areas of the country.

U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson said Turkish, Iraqi and U.S. cooperation is a “more sensible way to go forward than perhaps to … try to do it unilaterally.”

Cut the irony with a knife!

Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, appeared to be addressing Turkish concerns when he said Tuesday that Iraqi Kurds “won’t allow anyone to harm our neighbors by using our territory.”

Oh, ok.

My take: Turkey has the same rights as Israel.

The American Petrocracy

Well, it has finally happened. The Conservative “It really was a war for oil” faction has gone public. They’ve come out of the closet so to speak. Of course, this group brings more historical facts to the table than the left does.

Kevin Phillips for The American Conservative writes:

Few lies have wound up injuring Americans more—in everything from automobile gas tanks and winter heating bills to diminished U.S. global standing—than a rarely revisited three-year-old fib-fest involving George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blair. Since World War I, history is clear: the British and Americans have been pre-occupied with only one thing in Iraq—oil. Yet in 2003, as their troops again disembarked, the pretense was all about good and evil, democracy and freedom. The disastrous outcome of the unacknowledged Middle Eastern mission, the struggle for petroleum, has rarely been discussed.

Part right. It has been discussed, but the emotionally based, America hating, left-wing communist types.

In the run-up to war, from Alberta to Texas, oilmen gossiped about the centrality of oil. Meetings of petroleum geologists buzzed about the so-called “peak oil” forecast that a dangerous top in global production was only a decade or two away. Specialized publications guesstimated how much taking over Iraqi oil could mean for profits and Exxon and Chevron. Polls of ordinary citizens from Europe to Latin America and the Mideast produced similar findings: people thought the invasion was about oil.

Yeah, and most conservatives didn’t deny that fact. The only people that denied it were members of the Bush Admin, interesting observation eh?

The cynic will say, yes, but why could Bush and Rumsfeld not talk a little bit about oil just as the first Bush had prior to the Gulf War? Strategically, there were major differences. In 2003, there was no Kuwait to liberate as a justification for tangling with Saddam. This time it was a flat-out invasion to topple Saddam and take control. Admitting that oil was a principal motivation would have lost the public-relations battle not just in the Middle East but around most of the world. The administration had to have some larger, more noble rationale, and the war on terror offered a broad umbrella. At every opportunity, officials of the Bush administration, not least the president himself, tried to tie Saddam Hussein to terrorism and, indirectly, even to 9/11.

Duh!

But here is where it gets very interesting.

This will strike many as an exaggeration, but the phenomenon is an important one. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals noted in 2003 that since the break-up of the USSR, “evangelicals have substituted Islam for the Soviet Union. The Muslims have become the modern-day equivalent of the Evil Empire.” According to University of Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer, by the 1990s many prophecy believers saw Saddam as the Antichrist or his forerunner, partly because Saddam was rebuilding the ancient evil city of Babylon. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye fictionalized the Rapture-Tribulation-Armageddon sequence so successfully that it sold a whopping 60 million copies in book and tape form. Most of the readers were Bush backers.

Politically, this confronted the White House with both a strategic dilemma and a parallel opportunity. On the plus side, the huge chunk of Bush voters would want to view the U.S. attempt to topple Saddam Hussein in terms of the war of good versus evil. Weapons of mass destruction were a prop but collateral to the larger biblical context. Invading Iraq would evoke that context because Saddam was one of the evil ones—maybe the Evil One, given his Babylon tie-in. Toppling him could aspire to biblical interpretation. Aiding Israel was also biblically vital. Bush had already carved out a related, overarching “good versus evil” posture with his heavily religious post-9/11 rhetoric.

The minuses were fewer but cautionary. It was fine for the White House to criticize the United Nations because the international body was a favorite whipping post among the high-octane preachers given to quoting the Book of Revelation. Oil, however, wasn’t part of the biblical prophecy framework. In LaHaye’s series, petroleum was a minor strategic gambit of the Antichrist, not the business of the good guys. Oil’s increasing centrality was a bad sign on the websites of omen-counters like raptureready.com.

Well, we knew it was just a matter of time before the Evangelicals lost favor with the traditional Conservative base.

Heres the crux of the matter:

If the Americans and British did act substantially for oil—and that seems highly likely—then it is fair to judge the Iraqi failure by oil-policy yardsticks and outcomes. The quick summation, obviously, is that whereas oil was selling at roughly $30 a barrel in 2002 as the White House was plotting its invasion and occupation, by late 2004 it cost a more painful $40 per barrel. By the time the operation was marking its third anniversary this spring, petroleum was flirting with $75 a barrel.

Read the whole thing.

Illegal Aliens Go Union

All I can say is this: I’ll load boxes for $15, in fact I’d do it for $14.

AGOURA HILLS, Calif. — The driver of a black Honda thought he would quickly enlist some guys to load furniture and boxes onto a truck — until he heard the men wanted $15 an hour. ”What? You don’t even have papers,” the driver told a clutch of Latino day laborers clustered around his car last week. But they stood firm.

”We do hard jobs other people won’t do,” Luis Cap, a Guatemalan, told the man behind the wheel. ”If you want to save money, that’s OK. You will have to find other workers.” The Honda drove off, the odd jobs unfilled.

Yeah, let them unionize. They would remove the need for their own presence in the country.

Much Ado About Nothing

Much has been said in the North Dakota Democrat Blog-o-Sphere about Gov. John Hoeven’s involvement in the situation between North Dakota State University President Joseph Chapman and the Chancellor of the North Dakota Board of Higher Education Robert Potts. Potts announced on June 30 that he was resigning as chancellor, with a year left on his three-year employment contract.

Rick Gion, Communications Director at the North Dakota Democratic-NPL characterizes Gov. Hoeven’s involvement as “meddling.” Mr. Gion seems to think that the governor shouldn’t be involved in dealing with public officials that he appointed. I wonder whom exactly it is that he and his party would have deal with these matters?

Dale Wetzel with Associated Press wrote that in an opinion by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem “Gov. John Hoeven became involved, meeting with board members John Q. Paulsen and Richie Smith in Fargo in late February to discuss Potts’ job performance as the top administrator of North Dakota’s university system.” Wetzel went on to say “Stenehjem’s opinion concludes board members did nothing illegal, although it depicts a swirl of behind-the-scenes conversations about Potts’ job performance, involving Chapman, Hoeven and board members. Potts’ own job evaluations, including one given to the chancellor last month, were generally favorable.”

Of course, Mr. Gion’s is a political operative trying to get his candidates elected, but Bill Brudvik is a lawyer asking the people of North Dakota to elect him as the top lawyer in the state. One would think that he would want to stay above the partisanship and run a campaign in the merits of his resume. It seems this is not the case.

Brudvik released a statement where he said the following: ““North Dakota’s open meetings laws exist to insure that the deliberations and decisions of public bodies be made in an open and public forum. Even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. This recent opinion substantially weakened the state’s open meetings laws.”

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem wrote a rebuttal to Brudvik’s claims in the Grand Forks Herald.

While that sounds nice and good, he is referring to the fact that Hoeven met with board members individually. Generally, open meeting laws apply to “official business” meetings where minutes are taken and decisions are made. Claiming that one-on-one, or two-on-one meetings between the Governor and members of the Board of Higher Education is a stretch, and clearly politically rather than legally based.

Now we get into the crux of the matter, the Democrats are pulling the old reliable “it’s not the act that was bad, it was the cover-up.” While that may be true in some cases, one must keep in perspective that if the act was not wrong, maybe the reason that there was a so-called “cover-up” is because it is human nature to become confused and defensive when you are accused of doing something wrong. Our politicians here in North Dakota don’t get much experience in damage control because frankly, they don’t do much damage in the first place.

Essentially, Hoeven is being accused of lying when he said he “never met with the board.” Funny thing is, no one is accusing him of meeting with the board - only the members of the board. Personally, I would have a problem with a Governor if he DID NOT interact with such members in a time of transition - but hey, that’s just me.

Next comes the issue of the “bad cell phone” during the call to the News and Views program.

During the interview the Democrats refer to on their own blog HERE

Shaw: This is a yes or no question. Have you talked to members of the State Board of Higher Education about Dr. Potts and his future?

Hoeven: You know, personnel issues are really the purview of the board, and I think I’ve always been very clear that when it comes to dealing with the chancellor, the chancellor’s office and the university presidents, that’s their (the board’s) responsibility to make those decisions.

Shaw: So, is that a no then? You have not had discussions with the state board, any members of the state board about Dr. Potts?

Hoeven: That’s it. You know, that’s a personnel decision. That’s something, the board needs to make those decisions, whether it’s the chancellor, the university system office or the university presidents, and I think I’ve always been very clear on that.

Mr. Gion in another post points out a quote by the Governor in another Associated Press article by Dale Wetzel: “”I am on a cell phone, I am trying to pick up his questions as well as I can,” Hoeven said Friday in describing the conversation. Early in the interview itself, Hoeven remarked about how he was traveling on a bus and how it “was a little loud here.”

Mr. Gion later quips

If your cell phone reception was not good or was muffled by noise, would you answer critical questions about something very important on the record to a reporter? I wouldn’t. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.

Let us Flashback to when the Democratic Party was under fire for taking illegal corporate donations to fund it’s convention events shall we?

As Rob here at SayAnything reported on May 15th of this year, and the Grand Forks Herald dug up “North Dakota’s Democratic Party will return $44,000 in corporate donations from five companies that were used to finance the party’s state convention, its director said.

The money is being refunded to “remove any possible question in the mind of the public about our party’s commitment to observe the highest ethical standards in the conduct of its finances,” Jim Fuglie said in a statement Friday. He could not be reached to elaborate.”

Ironicly, on the Scott Hennen program at the time, Democratic Chairman Jim Fuglie also had cell phone issues when answering to the charges:

Scott Hennen:I had hoped to clear up a few of these questions in a scheduled interview with Mr. Fuglie this past Tuesday on Hot Talk. We were most appreciative that he was willing to participate (since we seem to be among only a handful of media types willing to ask tough questions of anyone with a (D) attached to their name.) As it turns out, even the agreed to interview was a charade. I’m guessing he regretted agreeing to the interview and quickly found a way out. He begins the interview with a disclaimer that he is on a cell phone and he “hopes the signal is ok.” It was just fine.

Hennen in the same post published an email that Fuglie sent to Hennen’s producer (typically a no-no in the radio world, but it’s Hennen’s call and his blog:

—– Original Message —–
From: Jim Fuglie
To: ‘Chris Walters’
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: Hot talk

Chris,
Well, sh*t [edited]. Stupid me. Cell phone battery went dead. Sorry. I’m just arrived at the office. I’m in today, then gone the rest of the week. I think the story is a dead horse now anyway, so I don’t see any more reason to kick it around. Jim

For a more complete commentary on Fuglie’s lame phone excuses read Brenalo’s post at Taking Back ND.

By now you have probably realized why I have titled this entry “Much Ado About Nothing” - because I really think this is a non-story that the Democrats are placing in the public record to use against Hoeven and/or Stenehjem in 2008 and beyond. It’s a smart political play that shows that their side is learning how to play hardball politics, but is that ability really what’s important for the leaders of this state?

The Reason Bush used to be popular

Cause he says it like it is.

A microphone picked up an unaware President Bush saying on Monday
Syria should press Hezbollah to “stop doing this shit” and that his secretary of state may go to the Middle East soon.

It’s true!

How much will we take?

I’ve always been an advocate of the free market, but at some point the speculative nature of this current oil boom will burn itself out, and we will all be holding the bag.

Since the Israeli-Lebanon War began, oil has climbed from around $71 to $78 in about a week. At the same time the Dow dropped nearly 400 points. Why is this?

There is no oil in Israel. Nor in Lebanon. There is oil in Iran, but with our troops and more importantly air power in Iraq, there is no way that Iran can officially get involved in the conflict.

Sure, Iran could shut down the Straits of Hormuz, but the last time Iran did that we sunk a good chunk of the Iranian fleet in a One Day battle.

This time it may take a few days.

So what can account for this push to $80?

I don’t mean to sound like a raving Leftist, but either the oil traders are ignorant of where the oil actually is in the world - or they are simply greedy.

From the Inside

Came across an interesting blog today: Lebanese Political Journal

This fellow sounds like he is there, but as always we can never know for sure. What he writes is certain to become the mantra for talking points somewhere.

Israel just dropped fliers on the American University of Beirut campus and in the surrounding neighborhood.

The fliers are in English and say something to the extent of:

“The Lebanese people protect Hezbollah and will face consequences. Please, get out of Beirut.”

Not exactly the type of news a person would hope to fall from the sky.

The site is worth a read.

Rerun: What is leadership?

Is it taking credit when things go well,
or laying blame when things go sour?

A True Leader is more concerned in getting the job done as to who gets the credit,
Or in hearing his or her name on TV.

This country is sorely lacking good leadership – at all levels.

We see this within out own party with the lobbyist scandals and the corruption that is inherent with being in power too long.

Denying that we have a problem will not make it go away.

Of course, the loyal opposition is not free of these same problems.
Indeed, it can be argued that their problems run much deeper than our own.

But we can not do anything about them, other than to defeat them at the polls.
Pointing out our opponents flaws does not make us strong leaders.
It only humanizes our opponents.

If we are to continue to succeed as a nation, we must learn to deal with the differences not only between Democrats and Republicans in civilized manner…
But within out own party as well.

If we can not reach above the level of partisan bickering that is preventing us from moving forward right now –
Then we as a party are doomed to reap the same results of elections past.

We must rise above those who would seek to hold us down.

We must take the high road not only because it is morally the right thing to do –

But because it offers the best view of the path ahead.

Ned Lamont - He has good ads