Bush Says Iraq at `Moment of Choosing,' After Bombing

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Iraqis face ``a moment of choosing'' amid escalating sectarian violence, and appealed for ``restraint and unity.''
``The days ahead in Iraq are going to be difficult and exhausting,'' Bush said today in a speech in Washington to the American Legion, the largest U.S. veterans organization. He appealed for patience, saying Iraq's leaders are ``committed to stopping civil strife.''
Iraq imposed a curfew in Baghdad and three nearby provinces in a bid to end violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims sparked by a bombing at the Golden Mosque in Samarra two days ago. At least 114 Iraqis have since been killed in related violence, and 184 Sunni mosques damaged or destroyed in retaliation, according to a tally of incidents on the Web site of the main Sunni political faction, the Iraqi Islamic Party.
Bush condemned the Golden Mosque bombing, calling it ``an affront to people of faith throughout the world.'' He pledged to help Iraq bring those responsible to justice.
Daytime curfews were put in place in the capital and in Diyala, Babil and Salaheddin until 4 p.m. local time today to help quell violence, an Interior Ministry official, who declined to be identified, said in a telephone interview. Iraqi government television is reporting that the daytime curfew will continue tomorrow, according to the Associated Press.
Fomenting Civil War
Insurgents are trying to foment civil war, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in an interview yesterday.
``Every time there is an incident like this, the place tips a bit nearer to being ungovernable,'' Jeremy Greenstock, the U.K. special representative in Iraq from September 2003 to March 2004, said on British Broadcasting Corp. radio today.
A major eruption of violence would create problems for the Bush administration's plan to reduce U.S. troop strength to less than 138,000 as more Iraqi troops take over security tasks.
``We're not necessarily on the verge of a civil war, but it's not beyond the pale of possibility,'' former Defense Secretary William Cohen said in an interview today. ``This could very well spin out into a major civil war with our troops very much on the front lines over there and caught in between.''
U.S. troops should ``stay on the sidelines'' so that Iraqi military forces can try and establish order, Cohen said. ``To the extent the United States is seen as aiding one side or another at this point would only aggravate the circumstances,'' he said.
About 55 percent of Americans said it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, up 4 percentage points from last month and 10 points from last year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,000 adults Feb. 9-12. The margin of error was 3 points.
`Toughest Test'
Bush said he's optimistic Iraqis will achieve democracy because they held elections in December. ``The way ahead is going to require some patience as the process unfolds,'' he said.
``What the extremists are trying to do is foment civil war but we don't see it succeeding,'' Pentagon Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs Peter Rodman told reporters during a briefing on the military's progress report to Congress.
``This is probably the toughest test so far'' for the political process, Rodman said. ``I am struck that over a three- year period the leaders of the communities have been quite resistant to this. The test is whether the political process continues.''
Among the signs Rodman is monitoring are whether leaders are ``calling for calm'' and whether the political process resumes soon. The military is reviewing whether regular Iraqi army units are leaving their posts, Lieutenant Gene Renaurt, Joint Chiefs of Staff strategic plans director, told reporters.
``They continue to remain,'' he said. ``You don't see any coalition troops around. Why? Because the Iraqi Army and police force have found a way to cooperate.'' The Iraq Army is enforcing the curfew ``and that is holding,'' he said.
Congressional Report
The Pentagon report said Iraqis are building a security force of 232,000 people, an increase of 40,000 from October. Army battalions capable of leading operations increased to 53 from 36, the report said.
Renaurt cautioned against concluding that Iraq is moving toward civil war. ``You can't base that assessment on a `crisis' because the more desperate the terrorists become, the more they'll try to make the crisis bigger,'' Renaurt said. ``The key is what do you see after the crisis militarily, and militarily we continue to see a focused Iraqi Army working closely with the police force.''
Israel and Iran
Bush in his speech today also warned Palestinian and Iranian leaders that ``elected leaders must deliver real change in people's lives or the voters will boot them out at the next election time.''
He repeated his calls for Hamas leaders to recognize Israel, disarm and reject terrorism if they expect to win global support for building ``a prosperous, independent, Palestinian state.''
Bush also said the world also is ``speaking with one voice'' to demand that Iran stop ``defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons.'' He said he's seeking $75 million in U.S. funding to help Iranians ``win their own freedom'' through expanded radio and television broadcasts and support for reformers and human rights activists.
Iran, the Middle East's second-largest oil producer, says its nuclear program is intended to produce energy for civil purposes.

Bush strikes stormy waters as voters lash sale of ports to Arabs

THE torrent of criticism has been extraordinary. For most of the week, on virtually every radio station, Americans have heaped scorn on the Bush Administration.
Conservative radio shock-jocks have talked about organising demonstrations outside the White House. And on the ubiquitous cable television networks, even Fox News, the outpouring of alarm has not let up - indeed, it only increased after a shaken George Bush told Americans they had nothing to worry about.
Picture a potent mix of latent anti-Arab sentiment in America, growing concern the Bush Administration is dysfunctional and politically inept, and a sense that Mr Bush can no longer be trusted with national security. That is behind the furore over the approval of the takeover by an Arab company of terminals at six US ports.
The takeover of the British-owned P&O company by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, was thoroughly vetted by the Homeland Security officials and the Pentagon. But in this politically hysterical environment, it does not matter.
Mr Bush and his spokesmen can repeat forever that the United Arab Emirates is an ally in the "war on terror" and that to block the takeover would send a terrible signal to the Arab world.
No one is listening, not most Americans and certainly not Democrats who have played on anti-Arab sentiment to attack Mr Bush on their party's greatest vulnerability and until now Mr Bush's greatest strength: keeping America safe from terrorists.
But most telling for the Administration is that congressional Republicans have been even more scathing in their criticism than the Democrats. When a Bush supporter such as the congresswoman Sue Myrick can send Mr Bush a one-sentence letter saying, "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just no, but HELL NO!", the Administration is in terrible political trouble.
Hillary Clinton led the charge for the Democrats, saying the approval was "a failure of judgement". Senator Clinton said the decision was taken without "alerting the President that several of our critical ports would be turned over to a foreign country" - a point that in the end might hurt Mr Bush the most.
The suggestion that Mr Bush does not know what is going on, that he is shielded by his minders and that key decisions on security, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq have been left to the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is probably untrue.
But perceptions matter. In the past week a report by a Republican congressional committee concluded that Mr Bush, who was on holiday at his Texas ranch, was not told for more than 24 hours that New Orleans had been flooded after Hurricane Katrina. He was not told Mr Cheney had shot a hunting partner for hours after the shooting. And on the takeover of US ports, Mr Bush had to admit he read about it in the press after leading Republicans expressed outrage about the deal and said they would legislate to stop it. As Lindsay Graham, a close Bush supporter in the Senate put it, the Administration has become "incredibly tone deaf".

read more here http://smh.com.au/news/world/bush-strikes-stormy-waters-as-voters-lash-sale-of-ports-to-arabs/2006/02/24/1140670261951.html

Port Deal Strains Bush Ties to Conservatives

The controversy over the Bush administration's decision to allow a company from the United Arab Emirates to manage shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports has strained ties between the president and some of his strongest supporters, conservative Republicans.
The political firestorm over the ports controversy has been a bipartisan affair, with Republicans like New York Congressman Peter King breaking with the president over the issue.
"It has to do with a country that has had unusually close ties to terrorism and it is a risk we just cannot take," King said.
Opposition Democrats see a rare chance to criticize the Bush administration on national security, which in recent years has been the president's political strong point.
"If 9/11 was a failure of imagination, and Hurricane Katrina was a failure of initiative, this process is a failure of judgment," said Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.
Administration officials hope that the decision by the company to delay the ports takeover will give the president time to convince members of Congress that the changeover does not pose a threat to national security.

"This deal would not go forward, if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America," said Mr. Bush.
Political analysts say the president will have to make a special appeal to congressional Republicans to win their support on the ports deal. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, but are worried about losing seats in the November midterm elections.
Washington-based analyst Stuart Rothenberg says conservatives are quick to recall their successful effort last year to block Mr. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The president withdrew her nomination after a barrage of criticism from many of his supporters, who argued that she was not sufficiently conservative.
"For some conservatives, it was like a cold dish towel across their face, reminding them that, 'wait a second, we thought we were totally supportive of this president, now we know, maybe we have to keep an eye on him.' And, conservative groups have become much more animated and activist and second guessing of the president," Rothenberg said.
The strains between the president and his Republican supporters in Congress could intensify in the months ahead, as lawmakers wrestle with a growing federal budget deficit, a major concern for many conservatives.

Joran's Sneakers

Lets say we buy all of what Joran said in his interview as true. Lets not Cherry pick what we believe he said as factual and say others were lies.

We are then left with the SNEAKERS

if there was nothing amiss with Natalee on the beach then

1 why were the sneakers off his feet to begin with? ( what was he doing that he would lose his sneakers)
Remember sex was consensual so there shouldnt be any wrestling or tussling?

2 when noticed off why not put back on?
3 why leave the sneakers?
4 why can't the sneakers be picked up by hand if not put on?
5 when picked up why couldn't he go back and get them?
6 the next day why can't the sneakers be found?
7Did Natalee tell Joran, you left your sneakers?
8Why can't the sneakers of "innocent" Joran be found even to this day?

Folks when posting about Joran always include the SNEAKERS, nag that fact into place

No innocent person leaves his sneakers or not go back to retreive them.

Joran was Baited With Money

so who is working against the Vandersloots/that person told that Jroan would be in New York to do this interviewso John's lawsuit took the wind out of the sails of Joran interviewand gave more impetus and sweat factor for Paulus.Do you think ABC paid Joran for the interview?seems rather dumb for Joran to do an unterview inless he though he was toosmart to be caughtI can believe his father would say no body no case and allow Joran to dothis interview with advice.Unless they are desperate for money.Aruba being sued by Paulis when Aruba allowed him and his son to get awaywith murder.Then notice Joran said there is no girl to say he drugged or raped them...he didnt say he didnt do it just that there was no girl to say itwas this a subliminal message to would be witnesses? or the girls?Any American who goes on Royal Carribean or Aruba...and something badhappens to them after these cases...well I wont say what I am thinking....oki willthey deserve it....damn this is a wakeup call.busineeses would rather protect their name and money than to seek the truthand justice.


Here's my take and I'm thinking out loud here. lol
Someone in Aruba grew tired of the Natalee Holloway case being ignored. They've been watching JVDS and knew that he was coming to the US. They knew that J Q Kelly represented Beth...that person contacted Kelly and told him about the VDS's travel plans...that set this entire thing in motion. And the civil suit? What a brilliant move by Kelly.
Was JVDS paid for the interview? I say yes...plus his air fair was paid by ABC and Nancy Grace said his hotel room was paid for by ABC.

So the little smuck came to America to clear his name. bahaaaaaaaa what a buffoon.

Scubajap Back[edd;ing

Scubajap posted that according to Satish's official statement, he told the police that he picked up Joran> at the beach. Someone is either mistaken or lying. As to who, your guess is as good as mine. Posted by: TJR Friday, February 24, 2006 at 12:58 AM


I want to settle this for the moment, If David Kock and Satish deny it was in his official statement, then I MUST be mistaken, as I will not contradict them, they have the statements.

BTW-I never said that EVERYONE knew about it from the beginning, only that I had the information for some time, and I was informed it was in his declaration. So the source that gave me that info MUST be mistaken also. That is as far as I will go with that, except to say I had very good reason to believe what I was told, because of where it came from. It is a muddle, and I am just as confused by this turn> of events as the rest of you. I am in wait-and-see> mode. Over and out

Posted by: scubajap Friday, February 24, 2006 at> 01:25 AM


Scubajab was sent to RiehlWorld to muddy the waters as if Americans would believe her spiel about Joran. Now she sees Joran isn't following the script that Aruba provided, she wants to backpeddle.

NOW WHAT ABOUT THE SNEAKERS? INNOCENT PEOPLE DONOT LEAVE THEIR SNEAKERS WITH A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO STAY ON THE BEACH UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENED. Why did Joran leave in such a hurrry he couldn't get his sneakers or come back to get them?

Dan Riehl's Take on His Buddy Joran's Primetime Interview

What D'ya Think?
My quick take - I thought he was being very honest at the start, including when Natalee said certain things about her Mother. However, I didn't feel quite the same as the story went on. Perhaps it was his almost constantly looking off to his left. Anyone know if he is right handed, or left?
I can't say I concluded he was out and out lying, but I still had a sense there was something more. But I can't make a final judgment based on what I saw. I would like to see all three boys hooked up to a lie detector, but can't imagine any of them would comply. If Satish did drive Joran home, face it, he would be pretty much off the hook.



As for the sneakers ... that's a very difficult part of his story to get past.

Beth Holloway Twitty On Larry King

Beth said that Deepak panicked when the gardener gave his testimony. Deepak called an Aruba girlfor her to establish him an alibi but she in turned panicked and called 1-800 fbi and told them she didn't want to be involved.

Joran On Primetime: From an email

in a way, i'm glad ABC didn't ask all these questions--#2 by the way is aGREAT one---if they had asked then Joran would have had the chance to "fool"more people with his lying answers. now that these questions go unansweredit hopefully will leave many people asking the same thing....why weren't themost important things asked? why didn't he go back for his shoes? it's notlike he had to go back very far. I'M SURE after viewing this interview,many of those who thought him innocent will be giving it a secondthought------how could they not? he was a HORRIBLE or should i say a greatliar. Any kindergarten teacher should have been able to see through thatbody language!!!! i think you should send these questions to ABC and seewhat kind of response you get. C.

Dubai Port Deal Fiasco.

Eighty perccent of our ports are controlled by foreign countries. We use these countrries ships for our needs as we no longer have a shipping industry.
Bush doesn't know the difference between "illegal and lega" immigrants who cross over the borders in his Texas, so how is he to know the difference between a British company and a Dubai goverment owned company?

Bush said he learn of the deal when the story broke in the newspaper, so why would he throw the weight of his office behind a deal he knows nothing about as in a VETO?

One has to wonder who is running the White House because it most certainly isn't Bush?