Shock jock calls himself 'religious paranoid,' afraid to say God doesn't exist
Though he's hardly a fan of President Bush, shock jock Howard Stern has some words of praise for recent Republican presidents including Richard Nixon who resigned from office under the specter of looming impeachment by Congress in 1974.
"I like Gerald Ford, I like Ronald Reagan," Stern told Sean Hannity of Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" program tonight in a prerecorded interview. "I think Richard Nixon was one of the best presidents that we ever had. I think he got caught up with a bunch of thugs who worked around him who really did him in."
Stern, who made the move this year to satellite radio from broadcast airwaves, drew similarities between the current commander in chief and the way the Nixon administration handled matters.
"I think in a way, Bush, too, sort of gets led around by [Vice President] Cheney and that whole gang of his ... and I think he really got sort of led into even the war in Iraq. I think if Bush had to do it all over again, I don't think he'd do the war in Iraq. I think he'd concentrate more still today on Afghanistan. We would have nailed Osama bin Laden by now because let's not forget, he is the guy who led the 9-11 attacks. We still haven't captured him. I think that Afghanistan would be more secured."
The subject of belief in God was also discussed, with Stern stating he was a "spiritual person."
"I'm afraid to say I don't [believe in God]. Because what the hell happens if I die and I meet my Maker? I'm a religious paranoid. I'm really just afraid. But I don't believe in any religion. I just can't get behind the whole organized-religion thing."
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Return of 'Contract with America'?
GOP lawmakers offer alternative budget to restore 'dream'
Seeking to revive the once-heralded Republican "Contract with America," a group of GOP lawmakers is offering an alternative budget that allows American families "to keep more of their own money and spend it on their own priorities rather than Washington's."
Yesterday, in front of the Canon House Office Building, 25 members of the Republican Study Committee, or RSC, presented a package they call "Contract with America: Renewed."
"We believe it is time to protect the family budget from the federal budget," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.
The lawmaker anticipates critics will deride it as uncompassionate.
"We believe the tough and heartless budget is the status quo budget" that ignores mounting debt that future generations will be forced to bear, he countered.
Hensarling, chairman of the RSC's Budget & Spending Taskforce, co-signed an introduction to 74-page 2007 budget proposal with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the RSC.
The budget alternative, the lawmakers said, "is about freedom and opportunity," which "can only be accomplished through less government, lower taxes, less federal spending, and economic prosperity."
The 1994 "Contract With America," introduced six weeks before the congressional election, was touted as a "detailed agenda for national renewal" designed to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives."
At that time, Pence and Hensarling recalled, Republicans nationwide "embraced a legislative platform of freedom and opportunity, of getting spending under control, reducing the tax burden, and shrinking the size of the federal government."
Coalition Troops turning tables on Al-Qa'ida in Iraq
THE commander of Australian forces in the Middle East claims coalition troops are turning the tables on al-Qa'ida in Iraq, with the ability of insurgents to mount effective attacks steadily diminishing.
Brigadier Paul Symon said that while Iraq was going through an "awkward period" during the transition to a new government, the US-led coalition remained confident that the country would not descend into civil war.
Despite daily images from Iraq of carnage from suicide and roadside bombs, Brigadier Symon said military operations against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates were proving to be "very effective".
He told The Australian in Baghdad that the organisation led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sustaining significant losses. It was now less agile and relying on much less seasoned fighters.
"We are seeing an insurgency that is diminishing in effectiveness in its tactics and techniques. It's trending that way. I think they have lost some of their better people," he said.
The figures on insurgents are tightly held, but military officials said Zarqawi forces had lost hundreds of fighters this year.
On a lightning tour of Baghdad, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said the anecdotal evidence from Australian forces stationed in the capital was that the security situation had improved despite the surge in violence following the bombing of the Golden Mosque at Samarra last month. The bombing of the Shia mosque has been interpreted as an attempt by the largely Sunni insurgents to trigger civil war.
"The security detachment in Baghdad - the soldiers to whom I spoke - certainly feel that in the six months they had been there that things had improved a great deal," Dr Nelson said.
Dr Nelson said Australian troops "had made a difference" to Iraq and it was important to stand up and assist people in other parts of the world who were "being pushed around".
"When the history of this country (Iraq) is written there's going to be a special place for what Australia has done. In the end we have made a difference in Iraq."
Brigadier Paul Symon said that while Iraq was going through an "awkward period" during the transition to a new government, the US-led coalition remained confident that the country would not descend into civil war.
Despite daily images from Iraq of carnage from suicide and roadside bombs, Brigadier Symon said military operations against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates were proving to be "very effective".
He told The Australian in Baghdad that the organisation led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sustaining significant losses. It was now less agile and relying on much less seasoned fighters.
"We are seeing an insurgency that is diminishing in effectiveness in its tactics and techniques. It's trending that way. I think they have lost some of their better people," he said.
The figures on insurgents are tightly held, but military officials said Zarqawi forces had lost hundreds of fighters this year.
On a lightning tour of Baghdad, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said the anecdotal evidence from Australian forces stationed in the capital was that the security situation had improved despite the surge in violence following the bombing of the Golden Mosque at Samarra last month. The bombing of the Shia mosque has been interpreted as an attempt by the largely Sunni insurgents to trigger civil war.
"The security detachment in Baghdad - the soldiers to whom I spoke - certainly feel that in the six months they had been there that things had improved a great deal," Dr Nelson said.
Dr Nelson said Australian troops "had made a difference" to Iraq and it was important to stand up and assist people in other parts of the world who were "being pushed around".
"When the history of this country (Iraq) is written there's going to be a special place for what Australia has done. In the end we have made a difference in Iraq."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and nations which oppose its enrichment plans sticking to their positions, reflecting the deadlock that prompted the IAEA board to seek Security Council intervention.
"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."
But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and nations which oppose its enrichment plans sticking to their positions, reflecting the deadlock that prompted the IAEA board to seek Security Council intervention.
"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."
GOP Hurting, Democrats Worse
Plunging poll numbers for President Bush, lobbying scandals, the furor over the U.S. ports deal and even Dick Cheney�s hunting accident could all hurt Republicans in the 2006 elections.
But the GOP has one thing in its favor, according to political pundit Michael Barone: The sorry state of the Democrats.
"The standing of the Republican Party is not in great shape,� the Fox News Channel contributor told an audience in Charlotte, N.C. "Perhaps the only thing going for it is [that] the standing of the Democratic Party is not in great shape either.�
Republicans have tended to win a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote in recent elections, said Barone, who believes the key to GOP victory this year will be voter turnout.
And Republicans have been better at using informal volunteer networks to get the vote out, the Charlotte Observer reports.
For example, John Kerry�s popular vote in 2004 was 16 percent higher than Al Gore�s in 2000, but George Bush registered a 23 percent increase over his 2000 vote.
"This huge increase in turnout,� said Barone, "is sort of a silent advantage Republicans have.�
But the GOP has one thing in its favor, according to political pundit Michael Barone: The sorry state of the Democrats.
"The standing of the Republican Party is not in great shape,� the Fox News Channel contributor told an audience in Charlotte, N.C. "Perhaps the only thing going for it is [that] the standing of the Democratic Party is not in great shape either.�
Republicans have tended to win a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote in recent elections, said Barone, who believes the key to GOP victory this year will be voter turnout.
And Republicans have been better at using informal volunteer networks to get the vote out, the Charlotte Observer reports.
For example, John Kerry�s popular vote in 2004 was 16 percent higher than Al Gore�s in 2000, but George Bush registered a 23 percent increase over his 2000 vote.
"This huge increase in turnout,� said Barone, "is sort of a silent advantage Republicans have.�
Fewer Troops Desert Since 9/11
At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.
Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.
Desertion records are kept by fiscal year, so there are no figures from the beginning of the war in March 2003 until that fall.
Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service and that the Pentagon is cracking down on deserters to discourage anti-war sentiment.
"The last thing (Pentagon officials) want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam," says Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an anti-war group that offers legal aid to deserters.
Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marines showed 1,603 deserters in 2001. That declined by 148 in 2005.
The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 -- 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.
Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.
Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.
Most deserters return without coercion. Commander Randy Lescault, spokesman for the Naval Personnel Command, says that between 2001 and 2005, 58% of Navy deserters walked back in. Of the rest, most are apprehended during traffic stops.
Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.
Desertion records are kept by fiscal year, so there are no figures from the beginning of the war in March 2003 until that fall.
Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service and that the Pentagon is cracking down on deserters to discourage anti-war sentiment.
"The last thing (Pentagon officials) want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam," says Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an anti-war group that offers legal aid to deserters.
Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marines showed 1,603 deserters in 2001. That declined by 148 in 2005.
The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 -- 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.
Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.
Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.
Most deserters return without coercion. Commander Randy Lescault, spokesman for the Naval Personnel Command, says that between 2001 and 2005, 58% of Navy deserters walked back in. Of the rest, most are apprehended during traffic stops.
Iran Readies Missiles for Nuke Warheads
Iranian scientists appear to be stepping up the development of missiles capable of carrying atomic warheads, diplomats have told the British news agency Reuters.
An intelligence report obtained by Reuters Tuesday claims that a covert Iranian program run by people closely linked to Iran's military includes plans to ready the Shahab-3 missiles for a nuclear strike.
Code-named "Project 111," the report said the program's goal was "arming Shahab-3 missiles with nuclear warheads."
Citing an unnamed Iranian exile "who has reported accurately on Tehran's nuclear program in the past" Reuters said Iran had significantly increased production of Shahab-3 missiles.
Last week the Jerusalem Post reported that Israel had developed countermeasures that could neutralize an Iranian nuclear attack using Shahab-3 missiles.
"The Arrow knows how to intercept the Shahab missile," an unnamed Israeli Defense official told the paper, referring to Israel's Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system.
As recently as last year, the Arrow system was said to be incapable of intercepting the Shahab.
But the officer said that the Arrow has been improved, and it was now able to detect even a missile carrying a split warhead and armed with decoys meant to fool the anti-missile system.
An intelligence report obtained by Reuters Tuesday claims that a covert Iranian program run by people closely linked to Iran's military includes plans to ready the Shahab-3 missiles for a nuclear strike.
Code-named "Project 111," the report said the program's goal was "arming Shahab-3 missiles with nuclear warheads."
Citing an unnamed Iranian exile "who has reported accurately on Tehran's nuclear program in the past" Reuters said Iran had significantly increased production of Shahab-3 missiles.
Last week the Jerusalem Post reported that Israel had developed countermeasures that could neutralize an Iranian nuclear attack using Shahab-3 missiles.
"The Arrow knows how to intercept the Shahab missile," an unnamed Israeli Defense official told the paper, referring to Israel's Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system.
As recently as last year, the Arrow system was said to be incapable of intercepting the Shahab.
But the officer said that the Arrow has been improved, and it was now able to detect even a missile carrying a split warhead and armed with decoys meant to fool the anti-missile system.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
An Iraqi Mayor salutes the US 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
Saluting the 3rd ACR
Via email from a 3rd ACR family member, a letter from the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq to the men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and their families.
In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful
To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall� Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.
To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.
To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.
Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city.
Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi�s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.
I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.
The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.
God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones.
Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.
Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven�t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.
NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall �Afar, Ninewa, Iraq
Via email from a 3rd ACR family member, a letter from the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq to the men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and their families.
In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful
To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall� Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.
To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.
To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.
Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city.
Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi�s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.
I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.
The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.
God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones.
Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.
Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven�t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.
NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall �Afar, Ninewa, Iraq
Monday, March 06, 2006
Abortion ban by South Dakota touches off fierce legal battle
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds today signed into law a highly restrictive anti-abortion bill aimed ultimately at overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
The legislation, passed last month by state lawmakers, bans abortion in nearly every case and punishes doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison.
The bill allows abortion only in the event a mother's life is in danger, making no exception for rape or incest.
South Dakota Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's sole abortion clinic, has said it will challenge the law.
Rounds said in a written statement he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not be enacted unless upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," Rounds said. "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."
Prior to the signing, an anonymous donor pledged $1 million to help the state defend the new statute.
Last week, Rounds was in Washington for a National Governors Association meeting where he found more pledges of donations and the support of some of his colleagues across the nation.
"There is a lot of interest in it here," Rounds said, according to the Associated Press. "And there are a number of states that have similar legislation. A lot of governors expressing support and wishing us good luck and suggesting that they will have similar types of proposals that may very well be favorably looked upon across the United States."
State lawmakers in Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana also are considering legislation that would heavily restrict abortions.
The legislation, passed last month by state lawmakers, bans abortion in nearly every case and punishes doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison.
The bill allows abortion only in the event a mother's life is in danger, making no exception for rape or incest.
South Dakota Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's sole abortion clinic, has said it will challenge the law.
Rounds said in a written statement he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not be enacted unless upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," Rounds said. "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."
Prior to the signing, an anonymous donor pledged $1 million to help the state defend the new statute.
Last week, Rounds was in Washington for a National Governors Association meeting where he found more pledges of donations and the support of some of his colleagues across the nation.
"There is a lot of interest in it here," Rounds said, according to the Associated Press. "And there are a number of states that have similar legislation. A lot of governors expressing support and wishing us good luck and suggesting that they will have similar types of proposals that may very well be favorably looked upon across the United States."
State lawmakers in Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana also are considering legislation that would heavily restrict abortions.
Iran negotiator announces: We duped West on nukes
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, in a speech to the nation's leading Islamic clerics and academics, has admitted what many in U.S. intelligence have been saying all along � namely, Tehran duped the West on its nuclear program by continuing its development while using diplomatic talks to lull the Europeans into inaction.
Hassan Rowhani led talks with the EU3 � Germany, France and the UK � until last year and part of his job, reports the London Telegraph, was to play for time after Iran's nuclear program was exposed by dissidents in 2002.
At the closed meeting of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Rowhani boasted that during talks to forestall Iran's nuclear program, which intelligence sources in the U.S. saw as part of an effort to build nuclear weapons, Tehran completed the installation of equipment needed to convert yellowcake at its Isfahan plant. The Europeans, he said, were convinced nothing was occurring at the plant.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Rowhani's frankness, it appears, was motivated by internal criticisms from hardliners that he had negotiated away too much in recent talks with the Europeans. His comments, published in a journal available to the regime's elite, seem designed to defend his performance.
"When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site," he said. "There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
Rowhani's diplomatic skills were severely tested in September 2003 when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demanded a "complete picture" of Iran's program.
"The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the U.N. Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
He also revealed two occasions where the IAEA learned of secret experiments from academic papers published by Iranian scientists.
Libya's decision to negotiate with the U.S. and Britain to end its own nuclear program brought to light the proliferation network run by Pakistan atomic scientist A.Q. Khan. Khan's role in supplying nuclear-related equipment to Libya, revealed in surrendered documents, also exposed the fact he had supplied advanced centrifuges to Iran.
Revelations of Rowhani's candor come on the eve of tomorrow's IAEA meeting to reassess Iran's banned nuclear operations. According to U.N. protocol, the IAEA review is the final step before Tehran's case is forwarded to the Security Council, where, if the facts dictate, sanctions may be imposed.
Hassan Rowhani led talks with the EU3 � Germany, France and the UK � until last year and part of his job, reports the London Telegraph, was to play for time after Iran's nuclear program was exposed by dissidents in 2002.
At the closed meeting of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Rowhani boasted that during talks to forestall Iran's nuclear program, which intelligence sources in the U.S. saw as part of an effort to build nuclear weapons, Tehran completed the installation of equipment needed to convert yellowcake at its Isfahan plant. The Europeans, he said, were convinced nothing was occurring at the plant.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Rowhani's frankness, it appears, was motivated by internal criticisms from hardliners that he had negotiated away too much in recent talks with the Europeans. His comments, published in a journal available to the regime's elite, seem designed to defend his performance.
"When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site," he said. "There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
Rowhani's diplomatic skills were severely tested in September 2003 when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demanded a "complete picture" of Iran's program.
"The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the U.N. Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
He also revealed two occasions where the IAEA learned of secret experiments from academic papers published by Iranian scientists.
Libya's decision to negotiate with the U.S. and Britain to end its own nuclear program brought to light the proliferation network run by Pakistan atomic scientist A.Q. Khan. Khan's role in supplying nuclear-related equipment to Libya, revealed in surrendered documents, also exposed the fact he had supplied advanced centrifuges to Iran.
Revelations of Rowhani's candor come on the eve of tomorrow's IAEA meeting to reassess Iran's banned nuclear operations. According to U.N. protocol, the IAEA review is the final step before Tehran's case is forwarded to the Security Council, where, if the facts dictate, sanctions may be imposed.
Supreme Court upholds military recruiter law
The nation's top law schools lost a significant legal argument on Monday when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could withhold funding from schools that bar military recruiters in protest of the anti-gay "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
All eight sitting justices who heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) last December rejected the schools' argument that being forced to allow the recruiters on campus violated their First Amendment rights.
"Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students � not to become members of the school's expressive association."
Daniel Polsby, dean of George Mason University School of Law, said he believed the law schools were merely cloaking their "antipathy" toward the military behind the First Amendment claims.
"I thought the protest angle was pretty much of a pretext," said Polsby, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government. "Why should they protest the military? The military didn't make this policy � Congress made this policy."
Many law schools across the country began banning recruiters from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps after the Pentagon's policy barring openly gay servicemen and servicewomen was passed by Congress during the Clinton administration. While most law schools' anti-discriminatory policies are in line with federal equal-opportunity law, the military's ban on gays was legal.
But nearly all law schools require recruiters to sign a form stating the employers they represent do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin or sexual orientation. Because of "don't ask, don't tell," military recruiters were unable to sign that form, and on those grounds were kept from recruiting on campus.
In response, conservative members of Congress in 1994 passed the Solomon Amendment, which is at the heart of the dispute settled by the high court. The law allowed the Department of Defense, along with other departments, to withdraw federal grant money to universities that barred or prevented military recruitment on campus.
A later version of the law allowed the entire university to be penalized, even if only the law school barred military recruiters. Faced with losing millions of dollars in research and grant funding, law schools began inviting military recruiters back, though many granted them only bare-minimum access. Monday's ruling makes those tactics, which included denying recruiters on-campus offices or use of office equipment, unacceptable.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the schools last November, having found that that "the Solomon Amendment violates the First Amendment by impeding the law schools' rights of expressive association and by compelling them to assist in the expressive act of recruiting."
But the Supreme Court's justices did not uphold that finding. During oral arguments, Roberts seemed especially troubled by the First Amendment claims, since the schools are free to decline the federal funding.
Moreover, he noted, no reasonable person would believe the presence of military recruiters on a law school's campus signaled the law school's support for "don't ask, don't tell."
"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," Roberts wrote in Monday's opinion. "The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything."
The law schools had also argued that much of the assistance they gave to recruiters, such as sending out e-mails and flyers notifying students of a recruiting event, involved speech, and that assisting the military would be a kind of compelled speech. But that claim "trivializes" instances of actual compelled speech, Roberts scoffed, such as when students are forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I think Chief Justice Roberts accurately concluded at the end of the opinion that the plaintiffs and the 3rd Circuit court were pushing the envelope on First Amendment doctrine," said Stewart Schwab, dean of Cornell Law School. Cornell University filed an amicus brief supporting the law schools.
Schwab said he was not surprised at the court's opinion, but defended the law schools' efforts to keep military recruiters off campus.
"[Law schools] feel we have taken the lead on non-discriminatory policy for legal employers across the board," Schwab said. "Our students and faculty think this is an important principle ... that how good a lawyer one is has nothing to do with sexual orientation
All eight sitting justices who heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) last December rejected the schools' argument that being forced to allow the recruiters on campus violated their First Amendment rights.
"Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students � not to become members of the school's expressive association."
Daniel Polsby, dean of George Mason University School of Law, said he believed the law schools were merely cloaking their "antipathy" toward the military behind the First Amendment claims.
"I thought the protest angle was pretty much of a pretext," said Polsby, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government. "Why should they protest the military? The military didn't make this policy � Congress made this policy."
Many law schools across the country began banning recruiters from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps after the Pentagon's policy barring openly gay servicemen and servicewomen was passed by Congress during the Clinton administration. While most law schools' anti-discriminatory policies are in line with federal equal-opportunity law, the military's ban on gays was legal.
But nearly all law schools require recruiters to sign a form stating the employers they represent do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin or sexual orientation. Because of "don't ask, don't tell," military recruiters were unable to sign that form, and on those grounds were kept from recruiting on campus.
In response, conservative members of Congress in 1994 passed the Solomon Amendment, which is at the heart of the dispute settled by the high court. The law allowed the Department of Defense, along with other departments, to withdraw federal grant money to universities that barred or prevented military recruitment on campus.
A later version of the law allowed the entire university to be penalized, even if only the law school barred military recruiters. Faced with losing millions of dollars in research and grant funding, law schools began inviting military recruiters back, though many granted them only bare-minimum access. Monday's ruling makes those tactics, which included denying recruiters on-campus offices or use of office equipment, unacceptable.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the schools last November, having found that that "the Solomon Amendment violates the First Amendment by impeding the law schools' rights of expressive association and by compelling them to assist in the expressive act of recruiting."
But the Supreme Court's justices did not uphold that finding. During oral arguments, Roberts seemed especially troubled by the First Amendment claims, since the schools are free to decline the federal funding.
Moreover, he noted, no reasonable person would believe the presence of military recruiters on a law school's campus signaled the law school's support for "don't ask, don't tell."
"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," Roberts wrote in Monday's opinion. "The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything."
The law schools had also argued that much of the assistance they gave to recruiters, such as sending out e-mails and flyers notifying students of a recruiting event, involved speech, and that assisting the military would be a kind of compelled speech. But that claim "trivializes" instances of actual compelled speech, Roberts scoffed, such as when students are forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I think Chief Justice Roberts accurately concluded at the end of the opinion that the plaintiffs and the 3rd Circuit court were pushing the envelope on First Amendment doctrine," said Stewart Schwab, dean of Cornell Law School. Cornell University filed an amicus brief supporting the law schools.
Schwab said he was not surprised at the court's opinion, but defended the law schools' efforts to keep military recruiters off campus.
"[Law schools] feel we have taken the lead on non-discriminatory policy for legal employers across the board," Schwab said. "Our students and faculty think this is an important principle ... that how good a lawyer one is has nothing to do with sexual orientation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)