. . . does not recognize "U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries," according to the Wall Street Journal. Since WSJ is a subscription site, I will quote the article at length, which I found at Michelle Malkin's blog.

Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program, according to U.S. court cases and interviews with experts in the field. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nongovernment advocacy group, last year published a list of 38 weapons-related smuggling cases since 1982 in which the goods moved through Dubai and the other islands that constitute the United Arab Emirates. Most of the illicit goods crossing Dubai go through its ports.

More generally, according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The UAE doesn't recognize those sanctions.

Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show. In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.

'You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations. It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting,' said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea. Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, 'Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problem.'

Similarly, in 2003, UAE officials refused a U.S. request to intercept a shipment of nuclear technology bound for South Africa by a smuggler named Asher Karni, according to University of Georgia sanctions expert Scott Jones, who works with U.S. agencies on proliferation issues. Mr. Karni was convicted of violating sanctions against weapons of mass destruction last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The UAE also was believed to be a nexus for Pakistan's nuclear program and hosted at least two front companies that forwarded material to Islamabad. [emphasis added]

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Surprisingly or not, Rush Limbaugh has come out in support of the administration's decision to back the UAE port deal. His sophistry on the issue is just the type of thing that makes it impossible for me to like the guy consistently.

Rush asks "why would they spend billions of dollars to do something they can do cheaply?" He means that the terrorists could always put a bomb inside a container and ship it. They don't need to buy a port operations company to achieve the same thing.

You see the sophistry? Opponents of this deal aren't saying that Al Qaeda is buying the British concern. Or that the UAE is run by terrorists. That's just silly. And it shows how little Rush thinks of his audience, that he thinks he can slip such an argument past us.

I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh more often than not. But it's only due to the inherent strength of the conservative point of view, not because Rush is especially trustworthy or even likeable. And on this point he's dead wrong.

Rush also says that keeping port operations out of the hands of the UAE won't stop terrorists from infiltrating security. "They can do that now," he says. Well, Rush likes football, so how about this analogy. It's like saying no one should rush Donovan McNabb, because he can always get rid of the ball. In football, and in the War On Terror, you know your opponent is trying to score on you. It's not your job to make it easier for him. Quite the opposite. In war and in football you gotta play the percentages.

Posted by: annika at 11:37 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

On September 20, 2001, George W. Bush gave one of the great presidential addresses in modern history. In it he made this vow:

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue.

This is a big mistake.

Update: Ken sees a parallel with the border situation.

Like the border with Mexico, the President seems to be tone deaf when it comes to guarding our borders. He seems to think it is more important to play nice with Mexico than it is to keep millions of illegal aliens from entering the country. I believe the same mind set the President uses towards Mexico is the same he is employing to rationalize the UAE takeover of our ports. Both situations are wrong and risk our national security.

Posted by: annika at 03:40 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Burrrrn them!

A Muslim pop singer has been forced to hire bodyguards to protect her during a visit to Britain next month after she received a string of death threats from religious extremists.

US-based Deeyah is due in London next month to promote a new single and video, released tomorrow. But the track 'What Will It Be?' has already outraged hardline Islamists here as it promotes women's rights.

Her performances with a clutch of male dancers and revealing outfits have also deeply offended many Muslims. In one scene in her latest video, the singer drops a burqa covering her body to reveal a bikini.

The 28-year-old singer claims that in the past she has been spat upon in the street and told that her family would be in danger if she did not tone down her work. The situation is now so bad that Deeyah feels she cannot visit Britain without protection. 'I can no longer walk around without specially assigned bodyguards' . . . I would be lying if I said abuse from religious fanatics didn't upset or scare me.

. . .

'I have been on the verge of a breakdown. Middle-aged men have spat at me in the street and I have had people phone me and tell me they were going to cut me up into pieces. I became this figure of hate simply because of what I do and wear.'

I can't tell you whether I like her music, because I can't find any samples on the web and she's not on iTunes. Then again, it doesn't really matter. Now that Muslim extremists have been granted an absolute veto power over anything "offensive," I don't really expect to be seeing Deeyah at the top of the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Here's some lyrics i was able to find, from the offending song, "What Will It Be."

From the land of the free to the jewel of the empire
Does the truth only come from the top of a holy man's spire?
From three paces back, covered head to toe
Are the rules just for the masses and written just for show?

. . .

(chorus)
Do you stand up, lay down or follow?
What will it be?
Will it all be the same again tomorrow?
What will it be?
You can claim it but the words are hollow
Do you stand up, lay down or swallow?
What will it be?

. . .

We don't take it lightly when you threatinin women,
How you have so much hate and faith in religion.
Fake in the system, need to take a break wit the dissin,
Before you end up in the lake where they fishin.
Hearin bout the muslim madona, asian J Lo,
Lookin for drama (OK) if you say so.
If you that religious and not with trendy clothes,
Then what you doin' even watchin' videos.

Update: Listen to Deeyah here.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 02:26 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

I just don't get all the hub-bub about whether Dick Cheney shot Whittington at 30 yards or at 30 feet or whatever. What's the point of that argument? If he fired at some closer range does that mean he was extra-super careless instead of just careless? Where are the Cheney critics going with this argument?

Oh I know. The theory goes something like this:

If Cheney lied about the distance it means he lied about WMD. We can't have a Vice President who goes around shooting people. He's reckless. He's evil evil evil. Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton. AAAAAAAgh!!!

[head explodes]

You can only clutch at straws for so long until you run out of straws.

Like that? I just made that one up.

I love how people are saying Cheney was drunk. Like that disqualifies you from being a world leader. I think Churchill put that one to rest sixty years ago.

Look everybody. This was an unfortunate accident, but it's not going to get anybody impeached. Bush and Cheney are going to finish out their term. Get used to it.

Posted by: annika at 06:46 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

The BBC, no surprise, was one of the many media outlets that refused to show the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Their excuse was as lame and hypocritical as any other you've seen:

We recognised that among our users there is a wide range of different cultural sensitivities and that the images would cause genuine offence to some.

Of course, they forgot to mention anything about that fear of gettin' blowed up thing. There's that too.

Interestingly, the Beeb has no problem with potentially offending Muslims when there is no chance that their offices will become targets for retaliation.

Exhibit A: the BBC didn't hesitate to plaster their website with the newest Abu Ghraib photos. Are they really taking the position that those photographs would not "cause genuine offence to some?" Or is the reason for their newfound boldness the fact that any retaliation would be directed at American troops, not journalists whose lives are, as everyone knows, worth more than the rest of ours.

I also love the disclaimer they added to the link in the main story.

Warning: You may find some pictures disturbing

Oh, yeah. It's that darn "gettin blowed up" problem.

Posted by: annika at 09:31 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: annika at 10:19 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

I looked all over my favorite humorous blogger sites and I couldn't find anyone who took a shot at the obvious joke. I guess everybody's too busy blogging about the cartoon rioting I blogged about ages ago, although I didn't get any awards for having done so. Do I have to do everything? Well here goes.

Despite stiff opposition, House Republicans selected Ohio Representative John Boehner as Majority Leader on Friday.

"This appointment might be hard-on his family, but Boehner's a real stand-up guy," said one observer. "He always seems to rise to the occasion."

Others were more skeptical. "Woody make a good leader? It's hard to say," said one deflated opponent.

Boehner was visibly excited about his new job. "I'm so pumped up right now, i can barely contain myself," he said. "I look forward to coming to work and plugging away until I'm exhausted."

Posted by: annika at 09:00 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

I just got done watching a tape of Hillary's sit-down interview with Jane Pauley at the Masonic Auditorium in San Francisco. The event was held on January 28th and sponsored by the San Francisco Bar Association. I've never forced myself to listen to Hillary for as long as I did tonight. It was difficult.

The substance of what she said was unremarkable, except for one outrageous statement. She would have us believe that President Bush is deliberately trying to prevent the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in order to stop democratic voters from returning to the area. Naturally, the fellow travelers in the audience ate that craziness up. Pauley was only there to suggest topics for Hillary to pontificate on, not to challenge any logical inconsistencies in what her guest of honor might say.

Otherwise, Hillary's chat was a real snooze-fest. Her great handicap is the opposite of Bill's great strength. She is simply not a very charismatic person in public. She can do the subtle-cynical dig well enough for a sophisticated an admiring audience of San Francisco lawyers. She can do the criticism thing. She can do sarcasm and condescention. She can be a pompous know-it-all too. But can she do the "positive" thing?

I hate the positive thing myself. But that's because I ― like you, and like the people in the audience at the Masonic ― am a very sophisticated political junkie. We all have a well developed sense of irony and cynicism, which we either supress or put to use as needed, in service of our chosen party.

Of course, presidential elections are not won or lost by the votes of sophisticates like us. In this country, it's the wobbly middle 20% of voters who decide elections. Those folks who can't be bothered to decide until the last minute respond best to a focused, positive message, often repeated.

The simple positive message worked for Kennedy in '60, Carter in '76, Reagan in '80 and '84, and Bush in 2000 and 2004. Guys who couldn't deliver the simple positive message include Stevenson, McCarthy, Ford, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. In 1980, Carter lost the ability to present that kind of message after he had fucked up the country so badly.

I think Hillary will have a hard time with the "positive" thing. She'll raise money alright, and she'll have large cheering crowds wherever she goes. Actually, the cheering crowds and the money are part of the problem for any Democrat today. It's easy to get the money and applause by negativity and vitriol, but then they forget the positive and upbeat mesages that win elections.

Keep in mind that wobbly 20% when you hear the press and the polls telling you how great Hillary's doing two years from now. Hillary can re-work her image only so much. I don't think you can learn charisma, and she's constitutionally incapable of being pleasant or upbeat, let alone positive. But then, she's a Democrat, and her party has completely abandoned positive ideas in favor of unfocused negativity.

Posted by: annika at 06:51 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.