The detention of the men was made public yesterday by Britain’s Foreign Office, though the officials said that they had contacted the Iranian authorities on November 25. The sailors have been identified as – Oliver Smith, Oliver Young, Sam Usher, Luke Porter and radio DJ David Bloomer. They were heading to Dubai to join the Dubai-Muscat Offshore Sailing Race.

The current detention is expected to fuel tension between Iran and the West. Iran and Britain have not been at good terms given the Iranian accusations in past weeks on Britain of specifically trying to derail their elections. Britain has been vocal about its stand against the proposed work on 10-nuclear reactors being planned by Tehran.

This is not the first incident in recent times when Britons have been captured by the Iranian authorities while at sea. Iran took 15 British service personnel including the Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines, from the frigate HMS Cornwall, hostage on March 23, 2007 and held them for 13 days. The service personnel were taken hostage at gunpoint and accused of straying into their waters.

Update 1:

Iran seems to have a tough stance on the current issue:

Iran will take serious measures against five British yachtsmen detained in the Gulf if it proves they had “evil intentions,” a close aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday.

Source: reuters.com

Oil prices rose by over $1 on fears of a diplomatic crisis shortly after news of the detainment was made public on Monday.

“The judiciary will decide about the five…naturally our measures will be hard and serious if we find out they had evil intentions,” Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaie, the president’s chief of staff, told the semi-official Fars news agency.

Source: reuters.com

Update 2:

Iran has finally decided to release the five sailors. The British Foreign Office confirmed the release of the men, who went off the international waters on Novemeber 25, while traveling from Bahrain to Dubai.

“After carrying out an investigation and interrogation of the five British sailors, it became clear that their illegal entry was a mistake,” the Revolutionary Guard said in a statement carried by the official IRNA news agency. “After obtaining necessary guarantees, it was decided to release them.“

Source: AFP/Google

The men would be released in the international waters in presence of the team’s officials.

NowPublic

Faced with increasing pressure over its nuclear program, Iran recently upped the ante by detaining five British sailors.

Iran detains 5 British sailors, saying the racing yacht strayed into its waters

Iranian authorities seized five British sailors after their racing yacht may have strayed into Iranian territorial waters, British authorities said Monday.

The group was sailing a 60-foot Volvo racing yacht from Bahrain to Dubai last Wednesday when they were “stopped by Iranian naval vessels,” the British Foreign Office said in a statement. “The yacht was on its way from Bahrain to Dubai and may have strayed inadvertently into Iranian waters. The five crew members are still in Iran.”

Last month, Iran accused three American hikers who were taken into custody in July while trekking on the Iran-Iraq border of espionage. Their families have denied the allegations.

The seizure of the sailors comes against a backdrop of difficult diplomatic relations between U.S. and European leaders and the Iranians, intensified by a long-standing dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. On Sunday, Iran announced plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. The Iranians say their program is for energy and medical use, but the United States and the European nations are concerned that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said in a statement that the British government contacted Iranian authorities on Wednesday night to “both to seek clarification and to try and resolve the matter swiftly” and “remain in close touch.” While the United States no longer maintains a mission in Iran, Britain has an embassy in Tehran.

See also:
British sailors detained by Iran en route to Gulf yacht race
Iran Detains Five British Sailors in Gulf, U.K. Says (Update1)
Analysis: British yacht crew detained by Iran
Iran Holds U.K. Crew and Yacht in the Gulf
5 Britons held in Iran after yacht seized in Gulf
British sailors in Iranian custody
Five British Sailors Detained In Iran
British Racing Yacht Crew Held By Iran
Five Britons held in Iran after yacht seized in Gulf

Let’s recap, Iran is the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism, they kidnap American and British citizens with impunity, they’re directly responsible for the deaths of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, they thumb their noses at international censure and continue moving full speed ahead to develop nuclear weapons, and they threaten to wipe Israel off the map at least once a week, etc., etc.

/how much longer is the civilized world going to put up with this [expletive deleted] before they actually do something meaningful to bring the Iranian Mullahs, who are hell bent on creating global chaos, to heel?

Nowo-wybrany przewodniczący Rady Europejskiej Herman Van Rompuy uczestniczył (tuż przed wyborem) w spotkaniu grupy Bilderberg

Jak pisze dziennik De Tijd, 14 listopada Herman Van Rompuy uczestniczył w nadzwyczajnym spotkaniu grupy najbardziej wpływowych finansistów świata kierowanej przez Etienne’a Davignon, które odbyło się zamku Hertoginnedal w Brukseli. Przestawił tam „swoje” pomysły dotyczące m.in. wprowadzenia nowych podatków dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Mają to być nowe źródła dochodu dla znów powiększającej się brukselskiej klasy rządzącej i jej biurokracji. Najwyraźniej przypadły one do gustu członkom grupy Bilderberg, bo już 5 dni później Van Rompuy został przewodniczącym Rady Europejskiej (prawdopodobnie pierwszym prezydentem UE). Został wybrany oczywiście w “demokratyczny” sposób, tak “demokratyczny”, że nikt nie ogłosił oficjalnie nawet kandydatów na to stanowisko.

Ogłoszono tylko wybranego Van Rompuya, który już w inauguracyjnej mowie jasno wyznaczył kierunek do którego zmierzamy: the global management of our planet oraz nową szefową unijnej dyplomacji Catherine Ashton, która była działaczką lewackiej organizacji CND. Organizacja, której wielu członków należało do Partii Komunistycznej Wielkiej Brytanii, była obiektem żywego zainteresowania MI5, gdyż jej kontakty (z ZSRR) i działania wzbudzały podejrzenia (współpracowała z periodykiem „Marxism Today”).

Czyli wszystko przebiegło zgodnie z planem. No może prawie wszystko, bo jednak znów otoczone tajemnicą spotkania grupy zostały opisane w (nielicznych) mediach. Oczywiście nie w naszych rodzimych, bo jak przecież powinniśmy wiedzieć grupa Bilderberg „nie istnieje i jest wymysłem miłośników teorii spiskowych”. Teraz jednak jeszcze trudniej będzie podtrzymywać tą “oficjalna wersję”, gdyż włoski Europoseł Mario Borghezio poruszył ten temat 11 listopada na sesji Parlamentu Europejskiego poprzedzającej wybór przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej. Zapytał wprost:

„Czy jest to możliwe, że nikt nie zauważył iż cała 3 kandydatów na to stanowisko była częstymi uczestnikami spotkań grupy Bilderberg i Komisjii Trójstronnej(Trilateral Commision)? Wierzę że musimy kierować się zasadami transparentności, tak często wspominanej tu w naszych instytucjach. Musimy ustalić czy ci kandydaci są kandydatami sił politycznych swoich krajów czy kandydatami grup spotykających się za zamkniętymi drzwiami by decydować ponad głowami ludzi”.

Kandydaci o których mówił Borghezio to Jan Peter Balkenende (premier Holandii), David Miliband (szef brytyjskiego MSZ, którego dziadek walczył w wojnie polsko-bolszewickiej 1920 bynajmniej nie po stronie Polaków) i wybrany Herman Van Rompuy (premier Belgii). Jak wiadomo, najlepszą metodą na wygranie w wyścigach jest obstawianie wszystkich koni.

„Czy jest to możliwe, że nikt nie zauważył iż cała 3 kandydatów na to stanowisko była częstymi uczestnikami spotkań grupy Bilderberg i Komisjii Trójstronnej? – pyta europoseł Borghezio. A czy jest możliwe iż przez lata żaden dziennikarz z dużej gazety, stacji radiowej lub telewizyjnej w Polsce nie podjął tego tematu? Prawdopodobnie to dlatego że tuzy polskiego dziennikarstwa nie mogą się przecież zajmować jakimiś wymysłami oszołomów. Mogą to jednak czynić ich “niedouczeni” koledzy po fachu z tak “niewiarygodnych i niszowych” mediów jak BBC. Poniżej reportaż BBC Radio 4 sprzed ponad 6 lat:

In a lecture last week our guest speaker did an on the spot poll – who is worried about climate change? Out of 100 would be journalists, all intelligent and well read, a meagre dozen or so put up their hands. The lecturer Mark Brayne said people should be as scared about climate change as if there was a meteor on direct collision course with earth, splashed all over the front pages, everyday.

But it just doesn’t invoke that sense of urgency. Everyone plods along none the wiser. Only last month David Miliband trod on his brothers toes in exclamation we should all be afraid, very afraid.

So why is it that the general populace seem unbothered by this approaching catastrophe? Is it because you can’t see CO2? We of course need a massive reevaluation in lifestyle and our perception of economic growth and consumption. I reckon people just seem powerless to do anything, the scale of it being far too massive to comprehend. And I think in part thats also cause by the scare tactic campaigns which we are ever the more bombarded with. People disengage with doom and gloom and just think, well sod it, it’s too big for me alone to sort out so why should I give up my 4X4 and european city breaks via Easyjet. Someone else will sort it out.

Unfortunately, as I needn’t really have to tell you, this kind of bunker mentality is so unbelievably short-sighted and if it continues we’re on the road to ruin.

Fortunately todays Guardian environment blog has saved me masses of effort and has already been mulling over this chilling effect (perhaps a perverse way to put it) of climate ‘propaganda’, so I’m linking to it rather than replicating it entirely. Its loads better than this so I’d recommend giving it a read instead!

Plane stupid’s latest campaign with Polar bears meeting a grizzly end falling from the sky is graphic, the message hits home, but in my opinion the extent of the propaganda really insults people’s intelligence. I’m not denying flying is disastrous on the environment, but the plight of the poor polar bear has been bastardised so much it doesn’t really mean much anymore. It’s pretty much a visual cliché – like that of the Panda in the 80’s. Yes it’s synonymous with environmental destruction, we get the message, but you don’t walk out of your front door everday and see a dead polar bear splattered on the pavement. Climate change needs contextualising into everyday life.

And then there’s bedtime story, part of the governments Act On CO2 awareness drive. First aired on a friday night sandwiched in between parts 1 and 2 of Coronation Street, it’s obvious who they are targeting here.

But does it work? Does Mum now sort her rubbish, cycle to work and grow her own veg so her little sprog will survive to live in future comfort. I suspect not – bet they’re both now in Tesco’s buying unethically and unsustainably sourced treats and turkey twizzlers with the gas guzzling monster waiting outside.

And this is the problem, I think until it really starts to hit people where it hurts most – their bank accounts / pockets, then the majority of us will continue to be the materialistic gluttons raping the earth of all that it has.

Or maybe I am now just scaremongering myself.

Home Under Siege

Political science will never produce a “law.” One thing I’ve proposed, though, is that the world tends toward entropy. This may be the closest the we ever get. A few rungs down the ladder, however, might be the assertion that interventionism ultimately fails.

In an era when our “knowledge” and “wisdom” about the world falls short of translating into meaningful outcomes for international state-building and development efforts, the seeming prescription would be to embark upon as few ambitious projects as possible,  if any, given their history of backfiring whereby the results are the complete opposite of the intended effect.

A new, though unoriginal article from the U.K.’s Guardian notes that Karzai ‘would fall in weeks’ if NATO pulls out. WEEKS! We could easily dismiss this claim as David Miliband’s posturing for public support of his American ally. Prone to skepticism, though, we are still more inclined to believe this than we are inclined to dismiss it.

Indeed, this regime already fell when they not only failed to be swept out of office by Afghan voters, but were implicated in widespread, though unsurprising election fraud. In the same way that Americans would have been dismayed at the prospect of a third presidential term of George Bush, the failure of Afghans to sweep away the staleness and incompetence of the Karzai club for iota or semblance of hope is more powerfully disappointing and game-changing than anyone in a high post would be willing to admit. Even given this, it works in our favor insofar as we’ve already determined that we should be leaving. After having allowed the fruit of our earlier 2002/2003 success there to completely decay under the Bush administration’s mismanagement – and finally coming to the realization that it would probably would never be ripe for picking again short of growing an entirely new tree, the lack of a viable partner will aide us in justifying lowered benchmarks and the ultimate withdrawal.

Behind Karzai’s veneer of ‘presidency’ (and the power we associate with state leadership) is a weakness so perverse that any gains would be fleeting at best. Demands of this fight, by all estimates, require several times their GDP in funding.  Behind America’s veneer of potential control over the situation there is a social dynamic we don’t understand even remotely well enough to manipulate. The untapped power is that of the Afghan people, miserable and living in too much squalor to be overly ideological about who fixes the situation so long as it improves provides the only real long-term hope. Behind Taliban power rests dynamics which automatically play into their favor ranging from aerial bombardment to the existing cultural skepticism of centralized government and Talibanization which increases at an increasing rate with the passage of time in this conflict.

Putting myself at risk of sounding simplistic, I’ll invoke Vietnam here. Our efforts were largely in vain insofar as our last helicopters departed the embassy under threat of being shot down as we withdrew – losing to the communist scourge. If we indulge in gross over-simplification, it was only through grassroots efforts that Vietnam later democratized.

With our recent success (even withstanding the very recent failure at Fort Hood) at exposing large numbers of domestic terrorists, we seem better served in focusing our resources toward commanding  endogenous security factors than attempting to improve domestic security through dangerously ambitious exogenous ventures. Indeed, as we’ve seen, there are significant improvements which can be made to our internal security structures at small fractions of the cost of international war.

Jack Snyder’s prophesy detailing the dangers of over-expansive foreign policy include 3 critical elements that explain some of the most hazardous, though incessantly recurrent elements of intervention. His three most important claims are that

• states either mistakenly or purposefully (though falsely) apply the domino theory logic of cumulative gains and losses when attempting to justify war. Losing is such that negative effects, of terrorism or communism for example, will spread to other parts of the region. Likewise, domino theory asserts that gains are regionally contagious and that hard-power operations pay off in multiples because the positive effects spread, too.  This is more a device to condone our foreign policy actions than they are recurrent side-effects of foreign policy expansion. Further, non-state actors command a degree of fluidity that makes any gains difficult.
• states paint their foes as both “paper tigers” and existential threats. We somehow always tend to convince ourselves that we are able to “nip problems in the bud” in decisive manners though, often in the same breath, we paint these threats as potentially so existentially ominous as to disallow inaction. We are supposedly, dually able to defeat these threats through “shock and awe” campaigns as they are able to obliterate us from the face of earth if we aren’t smart enough to get them first.
• states over-expand foreign policy based on the concept of offensive or preventive advantage. Insofar as groups like al-Qaeda generate their ranks based on expansive foreign policy in the Middle East, it goes without saying that the conduct of war, short of the obliteration of their stock recruitment populations is nearly impossible.

In the post-Afghanistan world, though, I’ll be patiently waiting to see how soon it is before we embark upon another ambitious exogenous hard-power venture.

What lessons of history?

Nowo-wybrany przewodniczący Rady Europejskiej Herman Van Rompuy uczestniczył (tuż przed wyborem) w spotkaniu grupy Bilderberg

Jak pisze dziennik De Tijd, 14 listopada Herman Van Rompuy uczestniczył w nadzwyczajnym spotkaniu grupy najbardziej wpływowych finansistów świata kierowanej przez Etienne’a Davignon, które odbyło się zamku Hertoginnedal w Brukseli. Przestawił tam „swoje” pomysły dotyczące m.in. wprowadzenia nowych podatków dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Mają to być nowe źródła dochodu dla znów powiększającej się brukselskiej klasy rządzącej i jej biurokracji. Najwyraźniej przypadły one do gustu członkom grupy Bilderberg, bo już 5 dni później Van Rompuy został przewodniczącym Rady Europejskiej (prawdopodobnie pierwszym prezydentem UE).

Czyli wszystko przebiegło zgodnie z planem. No może prawie wszystko, bo jednak znów otoczone tajemnicą spotkania grupy zostały opisane w (nielicznych) mediach. Oczywiście nie w naszych rodzimych, bo jak przecież powinniśmy wiedzieć grupa Bilderberg „nie istnieje i jest wymysłem teoretyków spiskowych”. Teraz jednak jeszcze trudniej będzie podtrzymywać tą “oficjalna wersję”, gdyż włoski Europoseł Mario Borghezio poruszył ten temat 11 listopada na sesji Parlamentu Europejskiego poprzedzającej wybór przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej. Zapytał wprost:

„Czy jest to możliwe, że nikt nie zauważył iż cała 3 kandydatów na to stanowisko była częstymi uczestnikami spotkań grupy Bilderberg i Komisjii Trójstronnej(Trilateral Commision)? Wierzę że musimy kierować się zasadami transparentności, tak często wspominanej tu w naszych instytucjach. Musimy ustalić czy ci kandydaci są kandydatami sił politycznych swoich krajów czy kandydatami grup spotykających się za zamkniętymi drzwiami by decydować ponad głowami ludzi”.

Kandydaci o których mówił Borghezio to Jan Peter Balkenende (premier Holandii), David Miliband (szef brytyjskiego MSZ, którego dziadek walczył w wojnie polsko-bolszewickiej 1920 bynajmniej nie po stronie Polaków) i wybrany Herman Van Rompuy (premier Belgii). Jak wiadomo, najlepszą metodą na wygranie w wyścigach jest obstawianie wszystkich koni.

Los 27 de la Unión Europea han elegido a dos perfectos desconocidos para liderar la nueva UE: el belga conservador Van Rompuy para la presidencia y  la británica laborista Catherine Ashton en Exteriores.

Cuenta el Financial Times que “David Miliband, el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Gran Bretaña, dijo el mes pasado que Europa necesitaba un presidente que ‘parara el tráfico’ en Pekín y Washington. Anoche los líderes de la Unión Europea nombraron un nuevo presidente y alto representante de política exterior que tendría problemas para parar el tráfico en sus propias ciudades.

Nikolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel y Gordon Brown no querían figuras de peso y relieve internacional que les pudieran hacer sombra o imponer sus criterios,  como Tony Blair o Felipe González.

Esta vez Europa ha carecido de ambición y todos se han plegado a la complejidad  de elegir candidatos por consenso de los 27 estados miembros de la UE. Entre muchos expertos, la decisión ha sido acogida con conmoción, decepción, asombro. Un ejemplo, el ex presidente de la Comisión Europea y ex primer ministro italiano  Romano Prodi se ha preguntado: “La Ashton, pero quién es esa señora?”

 En definitiva, un fracaso porque, con esos nombramientos de muy bajo perfil, Europa no puede mostrar su peso real en la escena internacional.

This was the European Union’s big moment. Finally after years of diplomatic wrangling, backroom deals and “No” votes from its citizens, the EU behemoth achieved what it always does. It pushed through a treaty that nobody really wanted but the leaders and the Eurocrats decided we all needed.

I write this as someone who spent an unhealthy amount of time at European summits, including the longest in history – at Nice. I would love to see the EU come up with treaties where they actually had the confidence to consult its 300 million citizens and listen to their decisions.

Leaving that aside for a moment, the idea of a “president” of Europe and a “foreign minister” was one of the most sensible parts of the Lisbon Treaty.  If the European Union wants to have a voice on the world stage as it always says it deserves then it needs to be taken seriously.

As US secretary of state Henry Kissinger famously said: “Whom do I call when I want to call Europe?

This was supposed to provide the answer.

In an age of personality driven politics and a 24-hour global media that requires a face to represent the organisation at international level and to be there when CNN or the BBC or Al Jazeera wants to hear from Europe there is someone to go to.

Yet tonight the EU failed to live up to this opportunity to choose the best “president” and best “foreign minister” for its people.

The combined egos of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have blocked the right choices.

Europe has plenty of talented politicians who have either proved they could do the job or have the potential to live up to the role. Tony Blair may be too much of an international statesman and brilliant communicator for Sarko/Merk and former Latvia president Vaira Vike-Freiberga would have been a formidable force who would have proved that eastern Europe is firmly part of the EU and a force to be reckoned with.

For the foreign policy job, Europe could have picked Chris Patten, former Swedish PM Carl Bildt and former Italian premier Massimo D’Alema.
So who did the Franco-German stitch up appoint to the two top jobs in the EU?

Well they have plenty in common. Neither has ever been elected at a national level. Neither has the experience to do the job. Neither has the charisma or credibility to be taken seriously on the world stage. Neither has any name recognition, barely within their home countries.
Herman van Rompuy, the new EU president was appointed as prime minister of Belgium less than a year ago. He has zero charisma, international experience or credibility.

Baroness Cathy Ashton, who I have dealt with in the past when she was a junior minister, has only been an EU commissioner for about a year, and was even suggested as too inexperienced to replace Peter Mandelson in the EU trade post when she was appointed by the Gordon Brown. In an interview this evening Cathy Ashton claimed her experience of other walks of life, and not foreign affairs, made her qualified for the biggest diplomatic job in the continent of Europe.
When there’s a crisis who is Hu Jintao, Barack Obama or Vladmir Putin going to call? Herman van Rompuy? No. Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown.
Just what they wanted. The status quo.

When there’s a crisis who is Secretary Hillary Clinton or UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon going to call? Cathy Ashton. No. Miliband, Guido Westerwelle and Bernard Kouchner.

Just what they wanted. The status quo.

This time last year America elected an outstanding president promising change.

This year Europe has appointed a low key bureaucrat who will guarantee that nothing changes.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is our third female Secretary of State, the first ever to have been a First Lady, a U.S.Senator, and a strong Presidential candidate prior to taking command at Foggy Bottom.  She swept in with a new arsenal of diplomatic tools she dubbed “smart power” and included Special Envoys to critical regions, purposeful outreach to populations in countries she visits, including TV and radio interviews, “Townterviews,” visits to venues like markets, schools, factories, and, in dealing with her ministerial hosts and visitors, flirting.  Now Maddie Albright was something of a flirt as SOS (Condi was not), but no one has used this particular diplomatic instrument quite as effectively (or entertainingly) as our current top diplomat.

Her clumsy primary campaign managers thought, it seemed, that de-sexing her was a necessity in order make her seem presidential.  They did not exactly succeed, but now that she is out of that arena, she is clearly all re-sexed up.  She flirts openly and unabashedly, is extremely good at it, and uses it to great diplomatic advantage.  It was bound to gain notice, and it has with the advance internet posting of Jonathan Van Meter’s very nice article about her in the December issue of Vogue magazine.  Here is the passage that has caused a volcanic eruption of gossipy feeds  across the interwebs.

I was also happy to see her taking delight in a favorite new colleague, David Miliband, the tall and dashing 44-year-old British foreign secretary. When I mentioned to her over lunch that I had spoken with him, she lit up. “Oh, my God!” I joked that I got a crush over the phone in about five seconds partly because of his accent, and she said, “Well, if you saw him it would be a big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young!”

For his part, Miliband seems smitten, too. “She applies intellect but also psychology to the dossiers that she’s studying. She uses her experience in a very impressive way. She brings it to bear in a way that enriches a conversation but doesn’t swamp it. She learns from history without being trapped by it. I think it’s also important to say that she’s delightful to deal with one on one. She’s someone who laughs and can tease, and she’s got perspective as well.”

You have noted, of course, that it was Jonathan and not Hillary who claimed to have a crush. Hillary, for her part, encourages his crush, fans the flames with additional information, but she does not say she has a crush.  I am not saying she does not, but she did not say she did, so let’s get that straight right.  What I like about this little conversation is that Jonathan felt so comfortable saying that to Hillary.   It validates what I said back on June 3 (Sit! Stay! Under the Porch!) when Hillary not only preempted the POTUS with her Gay Pride Month message, but put her money where her mouth was (having charmed  extra bucks from Congress for her 2010 budget)  and came back to the issue raised in February regarding benefits for domestic partners of State Department employees with an affirmative response.  Essentially she said that they had looked into it, and yes, they could and would do it.  That was Hillary, following through.

At the time, I began seeing passionate love tweets about Hillary on Twitter and the tweeters were all young, handsome guys.  Until I followed a link,  I did not really catch it.  They were young gay guys loving Hillary for according recognition of their right to be equal.  On one site, I saw some expressions of regret for not having supported her since her actions were speaking volumes that words never could.

Well, back to Jonathan and his “crush,”  and I am only guessing here,  he called David Miliband to get some background for the article,  and that made sense.   David and Hillary obviously have a great rapport,  and David speaks English.  I have the impression that Hillary’s reaction was about the idea that Jonathan would go so far as to contact the U.K. Foreign Minister for a story about her.   It took the romantic turn because of Jonathan’s remark.

Now all that having been said, has Hillary flirted with David?  Of course!  I don’t think there is a male head of state or foreign minister with whom she has not flirted.  It’s one of her big guns.  It is why he said she’s a tease.  Quite frankly, after fighting off such dark shadowy Tales from the Darkside as I have for months on this blog, I find this little flurry of light gossip a relief.   Hillary in the news for being sexy?  Yeah, I can deal with that.  When was the last time a Secretary if State kept you this entertained?

Oh the world problems are still there,  and they are serious,  and she has to deal with them, but sometimes you just need to flip to the Lifetime Channel for an afternoon.  It gives everything perspective.

Does Hillary have a crush?  I don’t really think so.  Does she flirt? Whoa!  Does she!

Here are a few versions of the “crush” story.  No, I am not perpetrating it.  You have seen more of these than I.

Hillary Clinton’s Lighter Side

‘Tease’ Hillary Clinton gushes over ‘crush’ on British Foreign Minister

Gordon Brown may face yet more discussion about his leadership in the next few weeks...

The political thinktank Compass may be about to deal Gordon Brown a knock out blow to try and unseat him as Labour Leader.

Generally the rule would appear to be that if there is an ‘r’ in the month then there is talk of a coup against the Prime Minister, but this time The Guardian would have us believe that this is a prospect not to be ignored.

David Miliband’s decision not to decamp to Europe might also be a factor in the thought process that perhaps things are not as bad as they might be and perhaps, with a quick game of musical chairs in Downing Street, Labour might be able to stand a chance at the election.

The Guardian argues that; ‘A dialogue has begun within Compass and some central figures argue that other candidates such as home secretary Alan Johnson and foreign secretary David Miliband may support centre-left policies that the group wants Labour to back.’

A spokesman for Compass confirmed that a majority of the management committee of the thinktank thought Gordon Brown should go before the election, to give the party a better chance of success when the election comes.

The timetable, being discussed, is that a leadership contest would follow the pre-budget report with a new leader being in place by early January.

Like all the other putative leadership contests it seems clear that it will probably fizzle out, but the fact that the moderately loyal Compass is moving against the Prime Minister, when it resisted moves in the summer, may be significant.

Great Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband has insisted that Taliban fighters should be persuaded to lay down their IED’s and join the Afghan Parliament in order to build a lasting peace in the country. In a speech to NATO in Edinburgh, Mr.Miliband made a few capitulatory remarks: “This is not a war without end.”

This is really how it ends, isn’t it? Yet another western government, moved to action by the growing restlessness of the natives who fear a protracted campaign in some far away land that means nothing to their daily lives. Or worse yet, by the people who believe that NATO is worse for the country than the Taliban.

Indeed, this is a rebranding effort for the Taliban, as perpetuated by that most lasting of urban myths: that there exists a moderate Taliban. The leadership for this terrorist organization has already made it clear that anything short of a complete western withdrawal from Afghanistan will not cause the Taliban to stop blowing up children in crowded markets. And they have threatened that any Taliban who do lay down their IED’s and work with the government will come to an untimely end.

Britain continues to operate under the belief that the Taliban grunts who fight against the ISAF are not ideological supporters, but merely want a way to feed their family. Which is all well and good, but the Taliban operate not unlike a gang. You can enter the gang easily, but leaving is the hard part. This idea of rehabilitating the Taliban had better come with the combined efforts to decapitate the Taliban leadership simultaneously.

As Mr.Miliband observes:

“I, as much as anyone else, want to bring our troops back home to safety. But we cannot leave a vacuum which the Taliban will quickly fill, and under their umbrella, al-Qa’ida quickly follow.

“Counter-terrorism may deal with symptoms, it brings short-term success. But only a comprehensive strategy can deal with the causes and ensure that when we leave, we do so knowing that we will not have to return.”

And speaking of a vacuum filled by the Taliban, Steve Coll of the New Yorker provides a good analysis of how that would work out for both us and the country we’re helping to provide security for.

Do you know what is more hard to bear than the reverses of fortune? It is baseness, the hideous ingratitude, of man.
– Napoleon

It is interesting to watch the progeny of the might British Empire make chuckling sounds like a chicken while defining their defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan as “Exit Strategy”. This is how the Charge of the Light Brigade into Afghanistan is ending. Afghanistan defeat: British Failures of “the White Man’s burden”

UK Defeat in Afghanistan Rudyard Kiplings What Man's burden

Our question to the bright son of England is, if you are going to include Mullah Omar and the top Taliban in the new government of Afghanistan, why are you guys bombing the poor, the innocent, the children and the women in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. If you were going to find the moderate Taliaban and form a government with them, then why didn’t you listen to Pakistans advice a decade ago when Islamabad asked you to do this very thing. US attacks on Pakistan have fueled the Afghan insurgency

Senior Taliban will play role in Afghan govt, says Miliband

International Council of Security and Development (ISOC): Taliban control “virtually all” of Afghanistan

EDINBURGH: Ending the war in Afghanistan will include senior Taliban commanders sitting in government in Kabul, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said on Tuesday.

Miliband also told a meeting of NATO’s parliamentary assembly that military action must be accompanied by a political surge to restore Afghans’ faith in their corruption-scarred government.

Miliband said the vast majority of Taliban fighters are not committed to a global jihad and can be persuaded to stop fighting. He said a settlement must also include those top Taliban commanders prepared to renounce violence.

Perpetual Mimitic War: Strategy for continued Failure in Afghanistan Obama’s Afghan ‘Strategy’ without an “Exit Plan” is a ‘Straightjacket’ named quagmire & defeat

“Once reintegration gains momentum, and the insurgency is starting to fray or crumble, we will need to support President (Hamid) Karzai in reaching out to those high-level commanders that can be persuaded to renounce Al Qaeda and pursue their goals peacefully within the constitutional framework,” Miliband said.

“This will be far from straightforward. But the historical lessons are clear. Blood enemies from the Soviet period and the civil war now work together in government. Former Talibs already sit in the parliament. It is essential that, when the time is right, members of the current insurgency are encouraged to follow suit.” Miliband said Afghanistan was not “a war without end”, and that success depended on political as well as military strategy.

Bluster before exit: US capitulates to Afghan Taliban: Negotiating retreat schedule ap

He said that military strategy “must be allied to civilian effort to improve governance, especially at the local level”.

Miliband said “the Afghan people also need to see, from the appointments of Cabinet ministers and provincial governors, that there is a fresh attempt to govern in their interests”.

Miliband said good governance for Afghanistan did not mean imposing Western-style democracy, but building on “the ancient but continually evolving traditions on which the Afghan polity has existed as a stable but loose confederation for some two and a half centuries”. He also called on more support for Pakistan to help “squeeze the life out of the terrorist threat from both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border”.

Tick Tock Tick Tock-2011: Obama’s shrinking Afghan timeline

You wasted three trillion Dollars, bankrupted your economy, spread war and disaster to Afghanistan and murder and mayhem to Pakistan—for what?

When you guys left South Asia we thought you had left for good, but you keep coming back—after hundreds of body bags that you will admit to, it is time that you left sooner than later.

Afghanistan fiasco: Cleaning up the Am-Brit failures in Kabul again

Can Obama pull US out of the Afghan quicksand? Choosing China & Pakistan over Bharat (aka India)

Rand report: End GWOT. Defeat Al-Qaeda with police & Dollars Hindu Kush Curtain Call: The End Game in Afghanistan

The Pakistani perspective: Peace deals only way to precipitate face saving for US & Obama’s smooth Exit strategy from Afghanistan

Graveyard of Empires: AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan

If people used up their yearly ration early, they would have to buy extra from those who had not used their full allowance

Early evening return from Brussels, where I have spent a couple of days visiting various European institutions, including the Parliament, the Commission, UKRep (the UK permanent representation to the EU) and the Welsh Assembly Government EU Office.

Brussels is a tremendously gossipy place at the best of times (even more so than Westminster), but at the moment is full of fevered speculation as to the outcome of the heads of government summit on Thursday, when the president of the European Council and the EU High Representative will be selected.

The generally accepted view is that Tony Blair is out of the running for president and that the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, is the hot favourite. 

Surprisingly enough, however, and more interestingly, there is a considerable body of opinion that David Miliband is still very much in the running for the possibly more powerful position of High Representative, notwithstanding the protestations of both the Foreign Secretary and his brother that he has ruled himself out.  Given that Van Rompuy is a centre right politician from a small country, the theory is that the High Rep position must go to a centre left candidate from a big country and that Miliband is the most obvious candidate. 

If that happens, it will be fascinating to see the response from within the Labour party.

The Eurostar, by the way, was spectacularly good.  It pulled out of Brussels Midi station at 4.00 pm and just over two hours later arrived at St Pancras.  Beats air travel any time.

Tratatul de la Lisabona , care va intra in vigoare incepand cu data de 01 Decembrie 2009, infiinteaza trei noi posturi cheie in cadrul UE. De acee, Fredrik Reinfeldt, prim-ministrul Suediei, va prezida o intalnire informala, in data de 19 noiembrie 2009, pentru a aduce la masa de negociere conducatorii tuturor statelor membre, in vederea stabilirii candidatilor pentru cele trei posturi cheie noi infiintate:

1. Presedinte permanent al Consiliului European
2. Inalt reprezentant al Politicilor Externe si de Securitate
3. Secretar general al Consiliului

In ultima luna, presa a vehiculat diverse nume pentru cele trei posturi. Cel mai amintit si totodata controversat nume este cel al lui Tony Blair, propus in functia de presedinte al Consiliului. Cat despre functia de Inalt reprezentant al Politicilor Externe si de Securitate, se pare ca cei doi candidati principali ar fi David Miliband (ministru de externe al Marii Britanii) si Adrian Severin (europarlamentar roman).

   Mario Borghezio este parlamentar european din partea Lega Nord, iar candidatii la care face referire sunt Jan Peter Balkenende, David Miliband si Herman Van Rompuy.

   Daca va fi ales evreul David Miliband, ar fi culmea tupeului. Pe numele sau intreg David Wright Miliband (1965 -), politician britanic, actualmente Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Fiul teoreticianului marxist Ralph Miliband (1924 – 1994).

   Este foarte activ in miscarea de reforme impotriva schimbarii climei. In 2006 a venit cu ideea impunerii unor “credit cards” pentru taxarea tuturor celor ce beneficiaza de  utilitatile industriilor producatoare de carbon.

   Cititi va rog si:

Masurile impotriva schimbarii climei sunt gandite pentru a crea rapid GUVENUL MONDIAL al NOII ORDINI MONDIALE

   Este fratele lui Edward Samuel Miliband (1969 -), economist si politician britanic, chairman al  Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers, care directioneaza planificarea economica pe termen lung din UK. Membru in parlament, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster si Minister for the Cabinet Office, numit inclusiv in Privy Council unde se ocupa cu documente regale si de stat importante.

   Cateva cuvinte despre BILDERBERG si COMISIA TRILATERALA:

   Sub impulsul lui David Rockefeller, Grupul Bilderberg se intruneste pentru prima data la Hotel de Bilderberg, de unde si denumirea, langa Arnhem, intre 29 si 31 mai 1954. Cititi va rog amanunte despre istoricul sau in articolul:

NOUTATI de la intrunirea din Grecia a grupului BILDERBERG

  Comisia Trilaterala a fost creata in 1973 la initiativa aceluiasi David Rockefeller. Alti membri fondatori au fost Alan Greenspan si Paul Volcker, ambii fosti capi ai Federal Reserve. De asemenea Zbigniew Brzezinski, care a fost si director.

Autor: Kurt Nimmo – Infowars.com – 14. November 2009

Mario Borghezio, ein italienischer Abgeordneter des Europäisches Parlamentes, ließ diese Woche in der EU eine Bombe platzen. Im folgenden Video stellte Borghezio während einer Sitzung des Parlaments die Nominierungen diverser Bilderberger und Trilateralen für die Posten des EU-Präsidenten und des EU-Außenministers in Frage.

Borghezio fragte:

“Ist es möglich, dass niemandem auffiel, dass alle drei regelmäßig an Treffen der Bilderberg-Gruppe und der Trilateralen Kommission teilnehmen? Ich glaube, wir müssen die Prinzipien der Transparenz anwenden, über die hier in unseren Institutionen so oft gesprochen wird. Wir müssen klar stellen ob diese Kandidaten zu den politischen Kräften ihrer eigenen Länder gehören oder ob sie einfach nur Kandidaten dieser okkulten Gruppen sind, die sich hinter verschlossenen Türen treffen um über die Köpfe der Leute hinweg zu bestimmen.”

Die drei Kandidaten, um die es geht, sind Jan Peter Balkenende, David Miliband und Herman Van Rompuy. [...]

Den ganzen Artikel auf Englisch lesen:

http://www.infowars.com/italian-mp-denounces-bilderberg-influence-during-european-parliament-meeting/

—–

Kommentar:

Es ist zu begrüßen, dass Borghezio hier Klartext spricht und so etwas war schon lange überfällig. Dass das Bewusstsein über die Existenz und die Machenschaften dieser klandestinen und antidemokratischen politischen Organisationen wächst verdanken wir vor allem der mutigen Berichterstattung von investigativen Journalisten wie Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker und Alex Jones, die für ihre Arbeit regelmäßig Todesdrohungen erhalten und, wie im Falle Estulins, sogar Mordanschläge in Kauf nehmen mussten. Die Massenmedien hüllen sich in Sachen Bilderberg und Trilaterale Kommission dagegen bewusst und gezielt in Schweigen und kommen ihrer Informationspflicht gegenüber den Bürgern nicht nach.

—–

Siehe auch:

Sonderseite: Bilderberg-Konferenz

Rezension von Daniel Estulins Buch “Die wahre Geschichte der Bilderberger”

—–

UPDATE:

Future EU President Attends Bilderberg Dinner

—–

UPDATE II:

! Bilderberg Appointee Van Rompuy Is First EU President

Comment at end

12th November, 2009

In the Spotlight: Tony Blair

An informational piece about Tony Blair: His rise in politics, career as Prime Minister, and recent position as Middle East envoy.

Want to know more about Blair? Check this Index with hundreds of posts and pages or see some of the posts below.

Tony Blair Biography

Also watch this video from Newsy: Tony Blair – Right man for EU President job?

• EU President? Meet the Candidates … Jan Balkenende
• EU President? Meet the Candidates … Van Rompuy
• EU President? Meet the Candidates … Jean-Claude Juncker

OTHER POSTS ON THE EU RACE & EU MATTERS – Blair, Cameron etc

• “We don’t want to lose him (Blair) here (Middle-East), but we need him there,” (EU)
• How are the EU presidency votes shaping up? Shhhhh….

• Spain criticises Germany for wanting a ‘grey mouse’ EU president
• BREAKING: Brown Blocks Rompuy for EU post (Austrian Radio)
• Mili or Mandy for EU job? Over Blair’s dead body
  

• Mandelson: “Europe needs strong leadership”
• Rumours: Miliband HAS EU High Rep job – believe it or not

• Has Miliband’s EXIT left the door open for Blair?
• The European folly of deciding ‘TO NOT BE’ a superpower

• Proud to be Tony Blair Supporters … & WHY
• Campbell on Brown/Obama/Afghanistan & leadership (?)
• Juncker’s objection to Blair’s candidacy – You’re TOO Big!

• How “autistic” Tories may have handed EU Presidency to their nemesis
• Dave: On Lisbon referendum? We haven’t let matters rest! We’ve reneged.

• Blair: “I was more popular at the start, but a better leader at the end”
• Labour’s ‘Progressive’ site: Ban Blair-Baiting petition

• The “secret’s” out – Tony Blair wants the EU presidency
• Pay attention, EU leaders: it ain’t over till it’s over
• Tweets & Twits in Brussels: What/Who are they discussing?

• Blair? Reports of my death have been exaggerated
• ‘I’m yEUr man’, friends of Blair say HE says … more or less

• EU President Blair can ‘Stop The Traffic’! Decision possible THIS week.
• Panicking William Hague raises the spectre of EU President Blair. But who’s REALLY frightened?
• Alastair Campbell: “Tory contortions on Europe and Blair”

• Blair for President – Denis MacShane’s Newsweek article
• Tories: “Two weeks to avoid civil war!” (or … er … defeat in the general election)

• Cameron’s Lisbon options? Leaving the EU – as Lisbon permits
• WHY Europe may…should… choose Blair as EU Council President
• Tories have gone FAR RIGHT in Europe. But who’s noticed?
• Boris fights ‘em on the beaches … and so on and so on …

• 43% of Brits say YES to ‘President’ Tony Blair
• Tory splits over Lisbon Treaty – Official …ly denied!
• Czech President: “Too late for the Tories” over Lisbon Treaty

• The Return of The Blair – the “Clunking Fist”?
• Is Obama waiting for Blair to take the BIG decisions (and the flak)?

• Ireland’s Lisbon poll result – 67.1% YES
• Ireland Lisbon Exit Poll – 60% YES! Is it President Blair? Maybe.

• Is EU ‘President Blair’ a shoo-in? Yes & No
• Tony Blair, the EU Presidency and The Hague
• Tony Blair – the numbers game & the EU presidency
• Irwin Stelzer: Blair would do it HIS way as EU President
• ‘President Blair’ gets them all in an EU kerfuffle

I have just come from a meeting of the European Parliament Socialists and Democrats (S & D) Group – the one which used to be called the Party of European Socialists – and I am incandescent with rage.  The rage is again on behalf of Tony Blair and Britain, one of the minority of countries in the European Union to have a government from the same political family as the S & D Group.

 It is, inevitably at present, about the soon to be established post of President of the European Council of Ministers.  The S & D Group as a whole have, it must be said, shown no support for the Blair bid, and more of that later.  My ire is more against the two S & D MEPs who tabled an anti-Blair Written Declaration (similar to an Early Day Motion) in the Parliament.

They know who they are, but for the record I am talking about Robert Goebbels from Luxembourg and German Jo Leinen.  (A Written Declaration needs five signatures – the other three were from other political groups).

 The Written Declaration is particularly damning, asking that the new President be a figure with whom all the people of Europe can identify and whether he/she has displayed the ability to move the EU forward.  It also states the “figure” must come from a country in the Euro and the Schengen Agreement and be from a country which does not refuse to apply the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It doesn’t take much to work out that the “figure” is our very own TB.  The attack on Tony continued in the S & D Group meeting when one of the proposers of the Written Declaration made it clear he didn’t think Socialists could support Blair due to Tony’s lack of solidarity with other socialists over the Iraq war as well as his attending the French UMP conference just before the Presidential election in France and Blair’s closeness to Berlusconi.

 Tony Blair was the most successful Labour Prime Minister Britain has ever had, winning three election victories, bringing peace to Northern Ireland and improving health and education beyond all expectations.  It is high time European socialist “colleagues” buried their petty jealousies and did what is best for the S & D Group and best for Europe by not continually carping about one of Europe’s most influential leaders, who also happens to be one of us.

Back to the Blair bid itself as opposed to personal animosity.  The S & D Group together with the heads of government in those countries with socialist governments, wrongly in my view, decided to go for the Socialists holding the new position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a post which straddles both Council and Commission with the post holder also being Vice-President of the Commission.  The thinking was that the EPP centre-right, who already have the President of the Commission in the form of Jose-Manuel Barroso, will probably get the Council President as well. Given this, the Socialists should have the next bite of the cherry, namely the High Representative.

 This is how David Miliband came to be approached to be High Representative, rather late in the day. Sadly he declined, all but ending British hopes.  EU horse trading has won the day again, showing the worst side of what happens here.  I am tempted to ask, when will they ever learn?  Deals done behind closed doors do not inspire confidence and cause a lot of harm.  Europe will never get closer to its people as long as EU leaders behave like some out of touch clique considering only their own narrow interests.

Political Betting, largely but not exclusively Mike Smithson, are still pretending to themselves that Brown will not fight the next election. He will. There are currently two different articles on the front page suggesting that Brown might not, should not or will not continue in his role for 6 months or less.

The poll about David Miliband, someone who impresses me greatly is ludicrous. Firstly the poll was not continuous, so if I thought that (as I do) Miliband becoming PM might save us 2 or 3 seats, that even if we won the Tories could still have a majority I cannot express this. So the only box I can tick without pretending that it will have no effect whatsoever is 25 seats, a sizeable difference.

Also non-statistically minded people may look at the results and think, ‘some people think he will save a few seats, so it is wise for Labour to change leader’ and this is false. To compare its effectiveness we must look at the value lost from changing now. That value is not only Gordon Brown, but it is also the loss of ability to make Miliband (or indeed anyone else) leader at some point after the election. My argument is that making Miliband leader after the next election; say a year and a half into the Tory government would have a greater positive impact on the next election than it would have now for this.

What I think Labour should do is this. Stop bickering; everyone must now accept that they will be fighting for Brown on his record at the next election. Some MP’s in marginal constituencies might not like it but they should have organised more effectively a year and a half ago if they feel so strongly. We will lose the election, but if we fight a united campaign on our values of equality and fairness the loss will not be on 1997 proportions.

Gordon Brown should take the Cameron bounce that will occur over 3-6 months after the election, he will be best placed to say I told you so when the economic recovery is proven to have already happened, and not just to be a blip (that is unless any drastic cuts they impose throw us back anywhere). Either at the next party conference, or a few months afterwards, I favour a couple of months afterwards, announcing it a week or so before conference. We should then elect an appropriate candidate I cannot say who, but I can describe them.

They should be seen as on the right of the Party, but the rhetoric should stress our values of equality (not just equality of opportunity) and provide some real social policies that we can then campaign on. If we are good enough, and if the Tories have managed to screw it up yet we will win straight away, Labour have not angered the public in such a long lasting way the Tories had by the mid 1990’s.

I think perhaps now political betting is so big Mr Smithson, but also the people who write for him and help him have so much riding on this; in terms of reputation more than money that they are trying to make a self fulfilling prophesy. They are thinking if they blow enough smoke people will think there is a fire. Fortunately for Gordon Brown I think it is just dry ice.