8/30/06 -- ("From News Services"/ Riverside Press-Riverside)  "Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged President Bush to a televised debate ...."

What does "hard-line" mean, anyway?  This, of course, is what passes for "unbiased news reporting" in the corporate press.  Some other reporters might have just said, "President Ahmadinejad ... challenged President Bush to a televised debate ... "  Or, if "hard-line" is an important descriptive phrase to explain to the public something about President Ahmadinejad, then perhaps these unbiased journalists should have opted for, "Hard-line President Ahmadinejad ... challenged idiot President Bush to a televised debate."

Oh, wait, since the entire news-reading public throughout terra-firma knows that Bush is an idiot, I suppose it's completely appropriate to omit the explanatory adjective in his case.  Bush will, of course, say "No" (or some group of unintelligible words intended to mean "no"), since Ahmadinejad is an articulate educator and would figuratively mop up the floor with the U.S. President.  OCC believes it is diplomatically unfair to challenge an unarmed man to an intellectual debate.  Shame on you, Amhadinejad, you hard-liner, you.

BTW, isn't "stay the course" a "hard-line" position?  How about, "Iran must give up its nuclear research by August 31, 2006?"  So, perhaps in the interests of journalistic accuracy, the Press-Enterprise should have written, "Hard-line President Ahmadinejad challenged hard-line President Bush to a televised debate."

(Maybe OCC is misunderestimating something about Bush-speak and the Bush administration is engaged in flexible diplomacy ...)

Now, about that "leftist" presidential candidate in Mexico, Obrador, (who is somewhat more conservative than four term "leftist" President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of depression and WWII era US) ...

8/24/06 -- (Associated Press/Everywhere/But in this case, Oklahoma, the Norman Transcript)  "With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons."

Excuse me? Israel can "strike back" if attacked by Iran's nuclear weapons?  Iran hasn't got any nuclear weapons, but Israel has a whole bunch.  So, the Dolphins are for "striking back" or for "striking in the first place?"  (Here, the Jerusalem Post reports "Israel May 'Go It Alone' Against Iran." )

Naturally, in the crazy mixed up world of "STooPID NooZ", what you do is impose sanctions on the country that doesn't have nuclear weapons and help the loonies that do have them (and probably intend to use them, remember Lebanon?) stock up on more.

8/22/06 (Progressive Review) -- You know, when you have resentment and anger, that breeds hatred. That breeds recruiting grounds for people to become a suicider. Imagine the mentality of somebody willing to kill for an ideology that just doesn't -- is not hopeful, and yet I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that parts of the world breed resentment. -- George Bush apparently criticizing his own foreign policy

6-29-06 (whitehouse.gov) -- Speaking to Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi, President Bush noted, "it was not always a given that the United States and America [sic] would have a close relationship."  Bush, of course, is famous for mental lapses when he is trying to say something, and presumably by "[sic]" we are intended to conclude he meant to refer to the relationship between the United States and Japan.  (Look for the Whitehouse to correct its transcript real soon.)

Sometimes people can say something accurate totally by accident.  Many commentators point out that a person can actually be an "American," without being a citizen of the United States, due to there being many countries in the Americas other than the US.  So, one might correctly note that it was not "always a given" that the terms "United States" and "America" would be used interchangeably.  But then again, "United Statesian" is an unwieldy term.  Smart as the founding fathers were, perhaps they should have given some thought to what a US citizen would be called after formation of the union.


6-28-06 (Democracy Now) -- Condoleeza Rice, speaking of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai:  "I don't know anyone who is more admired and respected in the international community."

Huh?  Karzai may be a perfectly nice guy, but we at OCC don't think he is going to top anyone's list of "most admired and respected" persons.  Well, with the possible exception of actual Karzai family members.

Rice also said the, "... democratic institutions and democratic future of Afghanistan are getting stronger and stronger every day." As Democracy Now points out, her comments come during one of the bloodiest months in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001.

A different assessment comes from Pakistani author/journalist Ahmed Rashid:  "It's very, very bleak, on all sides. There has been a failure by the international community to deliver enough funding for reconstruction, enough troops for security, and this is something the Afghans have been warning about for a long time, two or three years. There's been a failure on the side of the Afghan government and President Karzai, himself, to show really effective leadership and to get rid of a lot of corrupt and drug-induced warlords, who he's been ruling with. There has been also a failure of the neighboring states, who continue to interfere, particularly the accusations that Pakistan has been harboring Taliban, which Karzai and most Afghans completely believe."

And in Canada, the Ottawa Citizen runs this assessment:  " Canadian troops are facing a "suicide mission" in Afghanis-tan because they're following American policies too closely, according to a European think- tank that specializes in research on that region."  Senlis Council's executive director, Emmanuel Reinert offered this:  The Americans' Operation Enduring Freedom "has failed to bring security into the region. It is now blatant after almost five years of presence over there (that) it is absolutely necessary for Canadian troops to break away from this legacy."

Afghanistan history

6-27-06 (AP)  Gitmo prisoners waging "jihad".  Right.  When all else fails, you can wage a "jihad" on the US by committing suicide, thereby "... undermining American policy in the war on terror..."  This from Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris.  

OCC wonders if it is also "jihad" for civilian Iraqis to stand in the path of US missiles and bombs, thereby becoming civilian casualties, just to make "American policy" look bad.  Wow, those incarcerated and weaponless muslims are really crafty; whereas the best the US can offer is a horse's Rear for an Admiral.

(How dare a Gitmo prisoner kill himself before Harry is finished torturing him...)