By Dawn's Early Light

Schroeder's Sellout is Merkel's Advantage

Coming Anarchy has a similar take to Dawn's Early Light on the sellout nature of Gerhard Schroeder's decision to go to work for Russian-owned Gazprom.  However, Coming Anarchy also points to the recent anti-Israel and anti-rational statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust and inviting Europe to carve out some land to relocate Israel. 

"What do these two events mean for German foreign policy? Both weaken Germany’s previous policies and continue to chisel away wiggling room. With Schröder’s so-called legacy already severely damaged by the man himself, the SPD is being forced to distance itself from not only Schröder but his pro-Russian policies. This leaves them with an easy cover should they begin to shift their foreign policy not to mention giving the CDU a golden opportunity to force them to do so....

Thus, these two events, completely outside the control of the current government, have served to undermine Germany’s previous policy with regard to Russia, Iran and have tarnished the SPD’s past few years of policy (how much remains to be seen). All of this significantly strengthens Chancellor Merkel’s position domestically giving her more leeway in her upcoming meeting with President Bush and his advisors from January 12th to 14th."

While Ms. Merkel may have misstepped diplomatically with her meeting with Secretary Rice [See DEL post here], she has a golden opportunity to move German diplomacy as her opposition party in her coalition government must move right to distance itself from the remnants of Schroeder's perceived sellout and failed Iranian policies.

Schroeder's "Sellout"

The Washington Post has a hard-hitting editorial today on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's new job working for the Russian Government.  The editorial is titled "Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout".  "What?" you say.  "Yes", Gerhard Schroeder, champion of Russia, ignorer of Russian democratic suppression, France's tool in its Atlantic spat with America, is going to work for Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil firm.

"To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.

But the announcement should also raise questions in German voters' minds about the real reasons Mr. Schroeder was so keen to see this pipeline project launched. The pipeline has cost Germany diplomatically by infuriating its Central European and Baltic neighbors. They point out that the Russian government chose to use the sea route rather than run a new pipeline alongside one that already exists on land, despite the far greater expense. The only possible reason for doing so was political: The Baltic Sea pipeline could allow Russia, a country that has made political use of its energy resources, to cut off gas to Central Europe and the Baltic states while still delivering gas to Germany. Many have wondered why Germany chose to go along with this project. Could it have been because the former chancellor realized that he was, in effect, creating his own future place of employment?"

Is it possible that Schroeder's anti-US Iraq position was personally motivated to curry favor with Vladimir Putin?  We may never know.  But the whole story raises a great deal of "what if" questions on a global scale. 

The Economist has many good articles on Gazprom and questions whether it is a company or an extension of the state.  This October 6th, 2005 article, "Russia's Energetic Enigma" explains Gazprom's influence.

"According to the scuttle-butt, Vladimir Putin has a plan for when his second and—as Russia's constitution requires—last presidential term expires in 2008. Rather than changing the constitutional rules or becoming prime minister, Mr Putin may become boss of Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly.

The rumour is as telling as it may turn out to be fanciful. Gazprom is a leviathan. Last week, it agreed to buy most of Sibneft, the country's fifth-biggest oil firm, in what will be the biggest takeover in Russian history. But Gazprom's gas resources are already so big that its new subsidiary barely disturbs the company's profile. Gas will still constitute 90% of its production next year. One Moscow investment bank calculates that for oil to account for half of its output, Gazprom would have to buy the entire Russian oil industry. Last year, Gazprom produced 20% of the world's gas. It has 60% of Russia's gas reserves and 16% of the world's. If it were a country, its oil and gas reserves combined would rank only behind Saudi Arabia's and Iran's."

If I were a German I would be extremely angry and would demand answers.  The Russo-German alliance never made sense from a historical paradigm of Germany's self-interest in Europe.  Gerhard Schroeder's sellout doesn't in itself provide the answer, but it does lead to plenty of questions and adds one more scandal to Germany's post-Cold War history of chancellors.  And Mr. Schroeder's decision could prove far more damaging to the world order than former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's financial scandal.

Political Will - Transforming Iraq (Part II)

Part I of this post can be found here.

The majority of Democrats in the nation's capitol speak of Iraq in terms of a loss.  One does not speak of withdrawing forces from a conflict when victory is in grasp unless there is a fundamental lack of commitment to achieving the objective: a democratic, region-changing Iraq.  Dawn's Early Light will take each of the charges listed in Part I that are argued by the Democrats along with a Beatroot's suggestion (in the comment section) that "we are less safe at home".

Charge 1: The War is Unjust

It is true that the claims of weapons of mass destruction did not bear out.  However, the record of atrocities of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein, including gassing its own people, invading both Iran and Kuwait, paying Palestinian suicide bombers' families for murdering Israelis, and flouting international law and resolutions of the United Nations over weapons inspections carry more weight than was mustered during the surgical European-US war in Serbia.

The Senate, then led by Democrats in October 2002, voted 77-23 (77%) in favor of the use of force.  The Congress voted 296-133 (69%).  Over two-thirds of Congress voted for the authorization of force.  Considering that Democrats made up 50% of the Congress at the time, the "Unjust War" theory seems hollow at best.  The passage of time, weakening of political will, and, frankly, political opportunism is tied up in the majority of Democratic statements about Iraq.

Charge 2: The War is Unwinnable

This has become the more common and long-lasting charge against the Bush administration.  However, the evidence does not support it, and one doesn't even have to take the American view to come to this conclusion.

The letter found by the United States from senior Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and leader of the terrorist/insurgency Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is revealing.  Retrieved in July 2005, the Director of National Intelligence sums up its points as follows:

• The centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad.
• From al Qa'ida's point of view, the war does not end with an American departure.
• An acknowledgment of the appeal of democracy to the Iraqis.
• The strategic vision of inevitable conflict, with a tacit recognition of current political dynamics in Iraq; with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
• The need to maintain popular support at least until jihadist rule has been established.
• Admission that more than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."

It clearly is not a letter written from the perspective of being on the eve of victory.  Al-Qaeda is losing in Iraq from their own perspective.  The last point is very telling with respect to the Democrat claims of losing the war.  It is difficult to argue that the Democratic position is not one that aids and emboldens the enemy to win "in the battlefield of the media" as lawmakers make statements in politically motivated press conferences.

The facts on the ground do not support a winning insurgency.  Bill Roggio, who has been following in detail the various US campaigns in Iraq and who is now reporting live from Iraq, tells a different story that what is parroted on the Sunday talk shows.  US operations such as Steel Curtain and the Anbar Campaign paint a wholly different story.  In "A Shift in Operations: The Wild West of Anbar isn't so wild anymore; the insurgency shifts back to the core," Mr. Roggio addresses where the military operations are ultimately heading:

"If you have a discussion with military officers in Western Anbar Province about the current and future status of military operations in the region, invariably the conversation will lead you to the reconstruction efforts of the Coalition. The phrases 'switching from kinetic to non-kinetic operations' or 'moving from kinetic operations to reconstruction' are often voiced."

This type of dedication to seeing the mission through to the end is what contributes to the major successes in Iraq.  The voter turnout in the 2005 January election in Iraq is estimated at 58%, and this amidst an insurgency that did its best to kill innocent Iraqis with massive bombings to dissuade and cower the population.  This signal, along with continued Coalition efforts to defeat the insurgency, led to an October 2005 vote on the Iraq Constitution that registered a 61% voter turnout. As voting begins for a new permanent Iraqi Parliament this week, Iraqis will again demonstrate their determination to build upon their electoral successes. 

For a nation and region with no history of fair voting, these rates are impressive, and would be impressive even for an industrialized country.  They clearly indicate to the world, even if not to the Democrats in Congress, that there is a strong desire by the Iraqis to organize a democratically elected government based on the rule of law.  Over 2,000 US soldiers have paid the ultimate price to ensure these successes.

From a micro level to a macro level, order and progress is being won in Iraq. A democracy is being born. 

Charge 3: Victory is not Worth the Cost

The death of 2,986 innocents on September 11, 2001 at the hands of Al-Qaeda was the awakening blow in the Global War on Terror.  The left will argue that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism, but clearly the battle fought today against the insurgency is the battlefield between the US and terrorists (Al-Qaeda and others).  A loss in Iraq would embolden all those who seek the destruction of the US and Western values, much as the US withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 after the tactical win in the Battle of Mogadishu encouraged Osama bin Laden.

The US is the world's global power and historically has been a strong champion of democratic principles around the globe.  Abandoning Iraq would have consequences to US power and prestige, not to mention integrity, for generations to come.  While the loss of American lives in Iraq are individual and personal tragedies, their lives are not given in vain.  United States security depends increasingly on building a world order of democratic nations and removing the threat from rogue, repressive regimes.

Charge 4: The Bush Administration is Untrustworthy and Incapable of Victory

There will always be the zealots on the far right and far left of the political spectrum.  For those who believe that the White House is run by Vice President Dick Cheney or from the Pentagon by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or by the hated "neo-cons," there is little room for debate.  However, civility between lawmakers from both sides of the aisle is a must.  Politics should end at the water's edge in America.  The evidence supports that the war is winnable and that a democracy is being built in a region with no history of it that does have a history of breeding a hatred of the West.  This charge appears incredible when judged against the US success of thwarting attacks at home.  After the events of September 11, 2001, it was difficult to imagine the US would not have another major attack on its soil for over 4 years and counting as the battlefields shift around the world.

The current statements by the majority of Democrats betray the ideals of John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The Bush Administration is focused on timetables for success in building a democracy while promising that US forces will remain until the job is accomplished.  This is political will and will be the defining memory of the Bush presidency. 

Maybe the Democrats believe their crticism is a winning campaign strategy, but it surely is not a winning strategy for securing freedom for Iraqis and America's allies and ultimately our own republic. 

For reference, the White House case for War was laid out on the White House website October 2, 2002.

Political Will - Transforming Iraq (Part I)

Iraq.  Just the word in any conversation brings up a good deal of emotions and strong debate.  Here in America the war in Iraq has become a non-stop argument from the Main Stream Media to the halls of Congress to the conversations among family members, co-workers and friends. 

However, the Democratic Party leadership has decided that it is time to declare Iraq a loss and discuss timetables of withdrawal.  Here is a sampling of their comments and proposals:

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA and former Democratic Presidential 2004 nominee) along with Sen. Jack Reid (D-RI) held a news conference according to the Washington Post. "'No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins," Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush's speech. 'No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.'"
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-SF and Democratic Minority Leader) introduced legislation to set a timetable to bring US service-members home according to this SF Gate article. "'From the start, I've thought this war was a grotesque mistake,'' said Pelosi, who voted against the autumn 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to launch military operations against Saddam Hussein's regime. 'The question now is about the execution of the war. It's hard for anyone to argue that the war meets the standard of a strategy for success.''" Ms. Pelosi, according to the WaPo link above also stated, "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."
• Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) a former decorated Vietnam veteran and original supporter of the war said in a press conference: "When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us. They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into American forces and the people run into the crowd and they -- nobody tells them where they are.  I am convinced, and everything that I've read, the conclusion I've reached is there will be less terrorism, there will be less danger to the United States and it'll be less insurgency once we're out."
• DNC Chair and former 2004 Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard Dean said "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

This is tantamount to leaders of the Republican Party in 1944 asking President Roosevelt for a timetable to bring the troops home from Europe and the Pacific Theater, which of course never happened.  It is impossible to argue that the war must be won while arguing for a timetable to retreat.   The Democrats listed above are far from the ideal of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address who promised "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." [see DEL post regarding here]

While a good portion of the Democratic Party has united behind a message of defeat on Iraq, there is one glaring exception: Senator Joe Lieberman.  Sen. Lieberman "In public statements and a newspaper column... argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a 'colossal mistake' for the Democratic leadership to 'lose its will' at this critical point in the war."

The Democratic argument is made up of elements of the following:

The war is unjust

The War is unwinnable

Victory is not worth the cost

The Bush Administration is incapable of winning the war and is untrustworthy

These are major claims and need to be addressed along with the Bush administration's responses, the facts on the ground in Iraq, and the record to date. 

Part I lays out the Democratic charge of failure and call to withdrawal from Iraq.  Part II will address where we stand in the battle to secure a democratic Iraq and the political resolve of the Bush administration to win at what cost.

Ms. Merkel's First Diplomatic Misstep

Dawn's Early Light must confess that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's first diplomatic outing with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not reminiscent of Bismarck [See DEL post "Germany's Angela Merkel the Next Bismarck?"].  I am not ready yet to concede the field on the future ability of the German Chancellor, but I feel I must point to this Financial Times article (which is one of many similar stories).

"Angela Merkel and Condoleezza Rice were doing a good job of healing the rift between Germany and the US last Tuesday, until Germany’s new chancellor made a serious diplomatic gaffe.

The US secretary of state had admitted the kidnap of a German citizen by the American security services was a mistake, Ms Merkel said. As soon as the press conference was over US officials denied Ms Rice has said any such thing."

The European press jumped on this story and played it up, giving it plenty of attention.  However, it was a major meeting between the US and Germany and an opportunity to repair the relationship in a post-Schroeder environment.  Ms. Merkel flubbed this chance.  The FT continues:

"Did the chancellor intend to embarrass her guest by betraying her private confession? Was she lying? Had she unwittingly disclosed confidential information? Or was it just a slip of the tongue?

To Berlin veterans, the incident had a familiar feel. Ms Merkel has forged an unenviable reputation as an inept speaker in her 15-year political career. She is prone to lapsus linguae and not everything she says always makes sense.

Her electoral campaign last summer was peppered with blunders."

It is true that Ms. Merkel handed back to her SDP opponents much of the initial support she had going into the final voting.  It is clearly a black eye for Ms. Merkel, but I am guardedly optimistic that positive change is still in the air.

Remembering Pearl Harbor Day

December 7th cannot and should not go unremarked upon.  To my step-father Jim, who served in the US Navy in the Pacific theater in World War II, I write a personal thanks to you and your generation who served our nation in the wake of Pearl Harbor.  My thanks go to your friends Don, Grant and Bob, Dick and Charlie who all took part on both sides of the war in the cause of freedom. It is because of your sacrifice and the millions of others who did their duty that on a day such as today, I can celebrate my freedom. 

Marvin Hutchens of ThreatsWatch has written a touching tribute to those men and women of one of the "Greatest Generations" that America has produced and is a fitting read to honor those who served and those who serve today. 

In reflecting back on such a fateful day for America, it is with hindsight that we now know that Japan is a great American friend and ally; that through the horror of war, both peoples, and many more in Europe and Asia, have experienced a new birth of freedom.  Sometimes evil can work for the greater good. 

Blessings to those of the Greatest Generation, and thank you for your service in preserving mine and others'.

Sec Rice endures European Grandstanding

The Washington Post began the reporting on the United States using European prisons to ferry terrorist suspects to for interrogation.  Today's WaPo story sums up their original reporting and the European response:

"The Washington Post reported on Nov. 2 that the CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe as part of a covert prison system that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe. The Post did not identify the Eastern European countries at the request of senior U.S. officials, who said the disclosure could disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and make them targets of retaliation."

The article begins with putting Secretary of State Rice on the hot seat with this opening:

"Rice's tour of Europe has been dogged by questions concerning the treatment of prisoners at secret CIA prisons. She issued a detailed statement on U.S. policy before she left for Europe on Monday, intending to dampen the furor, but there has been confusion in the United States and Europe over its precise meaning."

Poland is one of these countries and the story has been covered well by Beatroot.  The United Kingdom is another, which makes Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's request for US "clarifaction" silly.

Can one honestly think for a moment that the US intelligence agencies are not working in concert with their European counterparts in a fight against terrorism?  Only the most die-hard liberal would think the US is running its own clandestine prisons on European soil without the host government's knowledge.

Fortunately this WSJ Opinion piece puts it all into perspective while declaring the Europeans opportunistic and political cowards:

"One of Europe's moral conceits is to fret constantly about the looming outbreak of fascism in America, even though it is on the Continent itself where the dictators seem to pop up every couple of decades. Then Europe dials 9-11, and Washington dutifully rides to the rescue. The last time was just a few years ago, as U.S. firepower stopped Slobodan Milosevic, who had bedeviled Europe for years.

In return, it would be nice if once in a while Europe decided to help America with its security problem, especially since Islamic terrorism is also Europe's security problem. But instead the U.S. Secretary of State has to put up with lectures about the phony issue of 'secret' prisons housing terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.

We put 'secret' in quotes because the CIA could hardly carry on operations in Europe without the knowledge of the countries involved. Rather, as Ms. Rice dryly put it, the U.S. often engages "the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts." So the so-called "rendition" programs at issue -- involving the transportation, detention and questioning of terror suspects -- are precisely the kind of anti-terror efforts that multilateral Europeans ought to love."

Europe is a relativist, post-Christian (post believing in good-evil), society.  Along with this moral relativism coincides a collection of governments who have abdicated their ability to project military power and defend their interests abroad.  However, their ability to hold press conferences and badger the US on human rights and torture, aside from being laughably disengenious, is about all that Europe can muster. 

On trade, security, immigration, terrorism and economic growth, the Europeans have proven, over the past decade, an impotent lot.  Carping on a Ms. Rice matches the dignity of the position of strength Europeans now find themselves in.  Dawn's Early Light has advocated often why Europe matters.  It is stories like this that give me second thoughts.

EU in the Headlights: Blair's Challenge

Fighting in the Family

United Kingdom and EU rotating President Tony Blair has a tough road ahead of him as he seeks to get the 25 nations of the European Union to agree on a seven-year budget.  The Common Agriculture Policy or CAP is loathed by the British, loved by the French, and attractive to the 10 new members of the union.  Margaret Thatcher, in 1984, was faced with a Britain that was much poorer and with little farming compared to the other EU members.  She negotiated the British rebate on UK membership dues, loathed by the French, loved by the British, and a growing drain on EU coffers. 

What complicates the entire framework of discussion is the current Doha round of trade talks that is stalled after Jacque Chirac killed even the lackluster EU offer to reform agriculture trade policies [see DEL: "Note to Brazil and India:Blame France!"].  According to The Economist, Tony Blair:

"proposes to increase Britain’s net contribution by a total of €8 billion ($9.4 billion) over the six-year budget period, either through a lump-sum payment or a reduction of the rebate. In exchange, he wants to see the overall budget cut. His plan trims about €24 billion off the €871 billion figure proposed by Mr Juncker, largely through cuts in rural-development aid and assistance to the EU’s new members in central and eastern Europe.

But though the proposal avoids direct confrontation on the CAP, the issue still looms large. Britain wants to keep the bulk of its rebate as compensation for the EU keeping the CAP. And Mr Blair’s plan calls for a review of all EU revenue and spending in 2008, when Britain will presumably once again go after the CAP with a carving knife."

To put the CAP in perspective, only 2% of the European workforce farm, the CAP sucks up 40% of Europe's budget (did you think it was going towards technology?), while 80% of the subsidy goes to 20% of the richest farmers. 

Why do people not in the EU care about how the Europeans want to misguidedly spend their citizens' taxes?  Because the subsidy significantly impedes development in the third world and is blocking an agreement on free trade.

What EU Stagnation Means to the Developing World

In 2003 the Europeans attempted a compromise that demonstrates how far the divide still is.  The Economist writes:

"In 2003, the EU agreed to replace a blizzard of farm-support payments with a single payment scheme, which subsidises farmers' incomes directly, rather than by paying higher prices for their crops and livestock. This should remove the worst trade-distorting aspects of the CAP. Farmers now get paid an average of only one-third above world market prices, compared with 80% in the mid-1980s. Overall subsidies are down: from over two-fifths of farm receipts in the 1980s to one-third and falling in 2004.

The trouble is that the 2003 changes were a classic case of only partial reform, as everyone knew at the time. They were too little both for Europeans and for Europe's trading partners. They did not affect tariff levels, which are now the main subject of dispute between the EU and the rest of the world. Nor did the 2003 reforms do enough to resolve looming budget problems. Even so, they went too far for many farmers, who now see themselves as an endangered species."

Given the recent French rejection of the EU Constitution and their desire to not create more political turmoil to compete against the Paris riots, there is little likelihood of any political willingness to promote change.

However, farm subsidies in the developed world are not constrained to just Europeans.  Another Economist article illustrates how beholden the OECD is to farm subsidies.

"There is, though, wide variation between OECD members. Producer support is worth less than 5% of farm receipts in New Zealand and Australia, but amounts to roughly 20% throughout North America, 34% in the European Union, and a whopping 60% in Japan. And while the overall value of support has fallen from 2.3% of GDP in 1986-88 to 1.2% now, the reductions have been uneven. Canada and Mexico have made deep cuts in their farm supports, for instance, while Turkey has actually increased its supports."

The developed world is worried about the spread of AIDS, radical Islam, avian bird flu, and a host of other troubles in the developing world.  However without radical farm subsidy reform, starting in Europe (as proposed by the United States) and followed by Japan, the Doha round will accomplish little.  If the developing world continues without the opportunity for sustainable development and the ability to trade for hard currency with the industrialized world, it will find other exports that may be far more costly to the world.

Terrorism, drugs, diseased and impoverished immigrants are the likely exports the third world will trade with the industrialized nations if a fair trade round is not concluded.  This will be far costlier than sustaining 2% of the European workforce.

Survey Around the Globe

I had been travelling over the last week on business that kept me occupied for a good deal of the waking day.  To add to the frustration of being busy, I had very little internet access and, upon returning home on December 2nd, felt the effects of an energy-sapping cold, my second within a month.

So as I wade back into real news and commentary from around the globe, let me share with you my findings.  Regular blogging will resume shortly.  Thanks for your patience.

Publius Pundit Reports on Empty Venzuelan Polling Stations

"What if they gave an election and nobody came? - Live Report from Venezuela".  A.M. Mora y Leon reports:

"They returned to the boring ministers attempting to explain away the false election, saying it was rainy - and make feeble efforts to rally the Chavez faithful. Because the way things look now in Caracas, not even the Chavistas can stand Chavez.

This is a disaster for his fake revolution and the renewed beginnings of Venezuela´s real revolution. Through their brave silence, Hugo Chavez can no longer perpetrate the fiction that he is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. He is a fraud and a dictator and has got to go."

The Historically Shifting Armenia

Curzon of The Coming Anarchy has a well-done post on the historical boundaries of Armenia, using NASA satellite imagery.  An excellent example of culture vs. geography.

The People of Hong Kong Protest for Democracy

Simon brings this interesting and important post direct from Hong Kong "Hong Kong Democracy March".  He writes:

"Crowd inflation is already creeping in. The cops have upped the number to 63,000, the organisers are pushing 250,000. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and here's the reality: it doesn't matter. Crowd numbers are a distraction. Whatever the true number, a significant number of people spent their Sunday afternoon saying "we're mad as hell and want to vote." So far the best Donald Tsang can say is "I've got the message" and he will "perfect" his package, but will his deeds match his words? Now The Don has to do something."

Did you know? - Leprosy Alive and Killing in the World

Willisms brings the story about Leprosy which is still killing in Africa.  Read some interesting facts about this biblical desease.

The Great Game 2

"The New 'Great Game': The Plans for the 'Stans" is another fine link from Steve Schippert at ThreatsWatch. For those interested in the Central Asia and Oil, follow the link.

Enjoy.

Note to Readers - Will Return Dec 2-3

I have been traveling for work-related reasons this week, which has affected my ability to blog.

However, regarding Bush's Plan for Victory in Iraq, I recommend the WSJ Opinion editorial 'Complete Victory'.

Additionally, ThreatsWatch links directly to the National Security Council's Plan with this post.

See you soon...