Bloomberg has it:
The United Nations Security Council voted to impose new sanctions on Iran that restrict financial transactions, tighten an arms embargo and authorize the seizure of cargo linked to its nuclear or missile programs.The 15-nation Security Council voted 12 to 2, with one abstention, to adopt a resolution that freezes the assets of 40 companies, banks and government agencies, and bars the foreign travel of Javad Rahiqi, head of a branch of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Turkey and Brazil voted against the measure, and Lebanon abstained from the vote….
…The new round of penalties, the fourth set of sanctions imposed on Iran by the Security Council, is aimed at blocking Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and pressuring the country to join international talks….
Uh oh-’Britain wakes up to hung parliament’, Gordon Brown is trying to cut a deal with Clegg and keep his seat PM job, unreal, and Stirling is dropping on the news.
Hillary demonstrates her command of the most important issues facing us on national security. FF to 35 mins in for Q/A from the audience.
HRC answers how we will maintain our nuclear arms in START, how we are dealing with Iran, NOKO, how they kept the Dubyah NoKo method of dealing with them b/c it makes sense, Iran, China working with them on sanctions now that Russia is on board, how other diplomats abroad were not even considering sanctions as diplomacy and we pushed them on that.
She says she is a realist and we will always have nuclear weapons and we must maintain and upgrade the existing weapons to ensure their use as a deterrent is effective.
She discusses normalization of relations with Cuba and the Castro Brothers resistance to this as well. She says it is her personal belief the Castro brothers do not want to normalize relations b/c it would end their excuses for the hold they have over their people. She says democracy will come to Cuba, it is coming. She discussed how an American was arrested in Cuba recently and a Cuban prisoner who died of a hunger strike recently. She says for the first time a lot of countries realize it is not the USA preventing Cuba from normalizing and expanding its economy and international relations.
Love this woman.
Politico: Obama urged to cite moral obligation to Afghani people, especially women, in West Point speech on war in Afghanistan…
FINALLY. Someone begged, borrowed or stole a clue and these people are understanding WHY we are there. We are not there only for AQ, we are there to stop the Taliban from murdering, maiming, raping and brutalizing the women and children of Afghanistan. We made a committment, these girls have braved death to attend school under our watch. We must not abandon them now.
Our previous posts on our missions in Afghanistan and the need for more troops and a FIRM commitment to the people, and the urgent need to protect these women and children, a message someone FINALLY seems to have gotten through the Obama bubble, here.
As President Barack Obama prepares to make the case for sending more troops to Afghanistan, some allies are urging him to return to a line of argument little heard since the Bush years: the United States has a moral obligation to protect the Afghan people, particularly women, from the Taliban.
Obama ran on a promise to restore cold-eyed calculations of national interest to American foreign policy, a reaction against President George W. Bush’s tendency to cast a confrontational foreign policy in terms of the freedoms it would achieve for nations that did not have them. And he has governed without the public appeals to human rights that marked American foreign policy ventures from Kosovo to Iraq.
But realism has proved, at times, a hard political sell. Bloodless talk about “engagement” has left the Obama administration without a compelling story to tell or argument to make. And its emphasis on process has only increased the pressure for more tangible results.
In Afghanistan, the White House was reluctant to play up the Taliban’s excesses and the plight of Afghan women while it considered withdrawing from an active role in the country’s governance. But as Obama moves toward sending additional troops – reportedly more than 30,000 more – to the country, supporters of the policy are urging him to stress human rights in an effort to revive support for an increasingly unpopular war….
Yeah, wouldn’t want to stress the brutal conditions women under the Taliban face when we withdraw when he was ready to back out of our committment, but now he feels a bit better about using the moral argument about women’s rights, which are BTW human rights, as HRC said in Beijing over a decade ago.
I have no idea how neoprogs square their ACLU concern for the human rights of Gitmo prisoners with abandoning the women of Afghanistan to the Taliban, but they do, they call it realism and pragmatism. I call it utterly disgusting and amoral, an abandonment of our duty to humanity.
That is the needle they are threading, if he raises the moral obligation we have, he will be hard-pressed to cut and run later when he takes political heat (his handmaidens in the lamestream media would be eager to assist but we loud mouthed bloggers would take note andTeam O hates that). And his own political survival is IMO of paramount importance to him, thus the presence of Emanuel and Axelrasputin at war cabinet meetings.
How about we end the Big Dawg/GWB let OBL get away BS blamefest and focus on now? Can we do that? Can we get a Reaganesque coalition together and take the House in 10 and the WH in 12?
Cuz if everyone keeps blasting Big Dawg for an attack on the Cole that happened as he was ending his POTUS-ship,( in the Chris Wallace interview he is as clear as can be he wanted OBL hit, but the CIA, headed by someone BTW who WJC kept on who was appointed by GHWB, would NOT sign off), if we keep this merry go round blamefest going we are not going to move forward together. Did WJC make mistakes?? Hell yeah, we didnt understand we were at war. Did GWB make mistakes? Hell yeah, he should have gone after OBL FIRST before turning to Iraq. But we are here NOW.
As far as this report in the WSJ today, it appears that yes OBL was pinned down and Rumsfeld and GWB made the decision NOT to go in there after him.
Now we can keep bashing the Clintons (looking at the present occupants of the WH should inform your opinions of the Clintons, who did NOT challenge the Consitution, or free market capitalism, he ENDED Big Govt during his terms!!!) or GW (after all if WJC was responsible for the recession that GWB felt (it was the FED!!) then you must say GWB is responsible for THIS recession? same thing on attacks same thing on OBL, be consistent!)or we can focus on NOW.
I choose NOW. Right NOW we have troops in harms way, right NOW our economy is in a ditch, right NOW the loony left is driving us off a cliff and the radical right is about to go AWOL on us with Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck, splitting the coalition vote….let’s be in the NOW and work together to get MODERATION back in D.C.!
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture Mr. bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Mr. bin Laden’s escape laid the foundation for today’s reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
…”Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat,” the report says. “But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism.”
The report states categorically that Mr. bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants “removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.”
9/11 Firefighter Tim Brown just appeared on Fox and Friends with over 100,000 signatures on theBravest.com petition to stop the NYC 9/11 conspirator trials. Tim and 9/11 families and supporters will be protesting outside the event where AG Eric Holder is testifying today and are delivering the petition in person. Please go to theBravest.com to read the petition and sign if you agree with it’s sentiments.
The NY Post has a summary of the post announcement polling and the decision is dividing the country:
…A Marist poll of Big Apple residents found that 45 percent believed that trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four co-conspirators in the city was a good idea, while 41 percent thought it was a bad idea.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll of US residents showed an even narrower gap — 47 percent of the respondents said the 9/11 defendants should be tried in the federal court system, while 48 percent preferred military tribunals.
But a third poll released yesterday by Rasmussen showed that 51 percent of Americans are opposed to trying the terror plotters in the United States. Only 29 percent favor the Obama administration’s decision to try them in the US, that poll found.
Courtesy of therightscoop