From the Jerusalem Post:

The BBC’s own Newsnight current affairs programme reported on Tuesday night’s broadcast that the BBC’s Children in Need charity had donated around £20,000 to the Leeds Community School, Yorkshire, between 1999 and 2002 which went towards funding the activities of the terrorists behind the July 2005 attacks.

Read the whole article here. 

 … and they’re trying to cover it up.

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

This was a big test for him, his chance to cut his teeth on bringing hope and change to the mostly minority inner city school children trapped in Chicago schools. And he flopped big time, squandering lots of money and the time of many public employees in the process.

 From an article in Front Page Magazine:

It’s no coincidence that Muslims constitute a substantial portion of the Labour Party’s electoral support in London and in much of its heartland in northern England.  In the expected close election for Parliament that will be held by mid-2010, an increasing Muslim population may be the difference between victory and defeat for the Labourites.

But Labour’s bien pensant hardly needs convincing.  Like most on the left today, they fancy themselves champions of the underdog and the oppressed, and sympathy for Islam, and Arab and Muslim causes fits neatly into their intellectual program.  Along with America and Israel-bashing, it goes to the very heart of how liberals view themselves and, more important, how they wish to be viewed by others.  It supplies them with the appearance of a self-abnegation that is supposed to relieve their Western, middle-class guilt with a cleansing humility but is nothing but moral exhibitionism; and, as always, involves other people’s money, other people’s freedom, and other people’s comfort – never or very rarely their own.

A classic of political correctness run amok, wonderful as a burlesque if it weren’t slowly undermining Britain’s way of life and its will to oppose extreme Islamism. 

Worse is that acceding to this nonsense gives Islamofascists confidence that they are on the winning side of history. That if they just shout a little louder and push a little harder, they may expect more of the same that becomes increasingly normative until it convinces the longer-settled among the UK’s population that they have no power to stop, let alone reverse, the process.

Read the whole article here.   

 More wisdom from Thomas Sowell:

Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway? Would we have done any more than we are doing now?

Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into question?

If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if they don’t intend to back up their words.

Read the whole article here. 

 Who’s afraid of Russia? NATO is, and the EU, and Bush and Rice.

On August 15 President Saakashvili of Georgia made an impassioned plea for effective help against the invasion of his small democracy by Russia.  He stated bluntly that NATO’s rejection of Georgia’s application for membership of NATO  on the grounds that there were territorial conflicts within Georgia [created and stirred up by Russia] had been ‘asking for trouble’ from the Russians. Putin, he explained,  was testing the  waters – how far could Russia go? At what point would there be an angry enough growl from the Western alliance to indicate ‘so far and no further’? No growl came. At the same time – a stretch of some years –  Russia was preparing to invade Georgia, extending (for instance) railway lines through North Ossetia, which is in Russia, to faciliate the transport of men and material to the borders of Georgia. Then they built tank bases inside the two disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then they put military specialist in them, and then paratroopers. Step by step they prepared their invasion. Georgia, Saakashvili said, ‘screamed to the world’ for help. The West remained unmoved. The Russians took note, and continued to build up an infrastructure for invasion, and to send troops. Finally, Russia brutally invaded sovereign Georgian territory. 

In reply to this, Condoleezza Rice had this to say: 

That President Bush  had sent her to Georgia ‘to show the solidarity of the United States with Georgia and its people [sic]  in this moment of crisis’.  Big comfort for the country ‘and its people’? 

That [verbally, theoretically, gesturally] the US supported Georgia’s independence, territorial integrity, and democracy’, as did ‘the Europeans as well’.   So reassuring to the country ‘and its people’!

That the most urgent task was to get the Russian forces out of Georgia.  Great! How?

By having President Saakashvili sign a six-part ceasefire accord brokered by France.  Has he signed it? Yes. And that will do the trick? Well, no, because the Russians haven’t signed it yet. 

Still, Rice declared:  ‘This is the understanding I had with President Sarkozy [of France] yesterday, which is that when President Saakashvili signed this ceasefire accord, there would be an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgian territory. Sheer magic! And did that happen? Well, no. Why not? Because the Russians haven’t signed the agreement. 

So next effective step? ‘We need international observers on the scene fast,’ Rice said. That will make the Russians tremble! But wait, that is not all. ‘Eventually,’ Rice went on, ‘we need a more robust and impartial peacekeeping force that would follow these [hypothetical] monitors.’  And will they be able to keep the peace, although the record of such peace-keeping forces – for example in the Middle East – has been one of utter failure?   Hmm … well…  And who will provide them?  Hmm… Well ….

But wait – that still is not all. The United States, Rice assured the Georgians, is ‘already providing humanitarian assistance’ to them.  [A planeload or two of some useful things]  Thanks. And? This humanitrain mission will be vigorous and ongoing. What is more it will be ‘headed by the United States military’.  By the military? That sound strong. You mean, some US soldiers will dole out the useful things? Good.  And? 

Well, ‘when the security situation is stabilized’ [that is to say, when the Russians have withdrawn which will be if and when they decide to do so]  ‘we will turn immediately to reconstruction’. Ah, you mean you will give money? Yes. The G-7, the IMF  ‘and other international financial institutions’ will ‘rapidly develop an economic support package’.  They will? When the security situation is stabilized? You are sure? Fairly sure. But how is the stabilization to be brought about?

Well, one step at a time, Rice said. First things first. The ceasefire agreement has been signed (by one party to the conflict, anyway).  ‘It is a ceasefire agreement,’ she repeated four times. It didn’t ‘prejudice future arrangements’.

So what is the sum-total of the achievement of NATO, Europe and the United States so far in helping Georgia against the Russian invaders? They have got the president of Georgia to sign a ceasefire agreement. One side of the arranged marriage has agreed to it.  First things first. And maybe nothing coming after. Or perhaps some money. Eventually. Maybe. 

And will these steps deter Russia from trying the same thing on again with other states in the old Soviet sphere ? Poland say? The Ukraine? The Baltic states?

That question, Rice said, would be addressed next Tuesday by NATO. She was sure that there would then be ‘confirmation of NATO’s transatlantic vision for Georgia [whatever it may be] as well as for Ukraine, and of NATO’s insistence that it will remain open to European democracies that meet its standards’.  NATO’s insistence, eh? That should be worth something, shouldn’t it? 

 And what was even more, the North Atlantic Council will ‘also have to begin a discussion of the consequences of what Russia has done.’ Really? There will be consequences for Russia for invading a small neighbouring country? Well …  discussion of consequences anyway.

Finally, Rice assured everybody that there was no need to be afraid of NATO. Especially, she went on to stress, Russia had no need to be afraid. It should not fear the US missile defense system which Poland has agreed to have on its territory. It is not designed to deter Russia, only ‘small missile threats of the kind one could anticipate from Iran, for instance’.  NATO, she said, ‘has never been aimed at anybody’ [except the Serbs, of course], and is certainly not aimed at Russia. 

Now Russia can breathe easy. (Though not Georgia, Poland, the Ukraine, or the Baltic states.) Thank goodness for that! 

 John Bolton writes:

Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity. As long as that perception exists in Moscow, the risk to other former Soviet territories – and in precarious regions such as the Middle East – will remain…

The United States needs some straight talk with our friends in Europe, which ideally should have taken place long before the assault on Georgia. To be sure, American inaction gave French President Sarkozy and the EU the chance to seize the diplomatic initiative. However, Russia did not invade Georgia with diplomats or roubles, but with tanks. This is a security threat, and the proper forum for discussing security threats on the border of a Nato member – yes, Europe, this means Turkey – is Nato.

 Saying this may cause angst in Europe’s capitals, but now is the time to find out if Nato can withstand a potential renewed confrontation with Moscow, or whether Europe will cause Nato to wilt. Far better to discover this sooner rather than later, when the stakes may be considerably higher. If there were ever a moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall when Europe should be worried, this is it. If Europeans are not willing to engage through Nato, that tells us everything we need to know about the true state of health of what is, after all, supposedly a “North Atlantic” alliance.

Read the whole article here. 

 Now Russia threatens Poland, the Telegraph reports:

As Condoleezza Rice arrived in Georgia to finalise a peace deal and secure the withdrawal of Russian troops from the former Soviet state, Moscow raised the stakes with an explicit threat against another US ally.

"Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 percent" certain, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Gen Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.

He added that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them," Interfax said.

Russia reacted furiously last night when Washington agreed to sell a Patriot defence battery to Warsaw. "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defence system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s envoy to Nato.

 Investor’s Business daily carries an editorial today about the radical Communist  ideologist who taught Obama all he knows.

Barack Obama’s "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House. 

Read it all here.

 Power Line pertinently questions Barack Obama’s defense ‘credo’:

With events in Georgia over the past week, it is time to revisit Barack Obama’s stated views on America’s defense needs … 

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…

 …I will not weaponize space…

…I will slow development of future combat systems…

…and I will institute a "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…

…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…

…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…

…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…

…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…

…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…

Isn’t it time for someone who covers politics for a living to ask Obama about this credo?

 

 Fred Thompson has an interesting article in Townhall today, the main point of which is that McCain has the necessary experience, understanding and strength of will to be the leader of the Free World over the next few dangerous years, and Obama has not.  MacCain’s first-hand knowledge of Georgia and quick grasp of what Russia intends by invading the small Western-allied democracy is a vivid illustration of his contention.  The whole thing is worth reading. But one part of the information it contains strikes us as puzzling and shocking.  He says:

Former Soviet provinces have faced all forms of intimidation, from thuggish trade shakedowns to cyber attacks that shut down communications with the outside world. And whether a former satellite like Poland or a longtime western ally like Germany, Russia has made overt threats over plans to bring eastern European countries into NATO or to deploy a U.S.-provided missile defense system.

Russia is not above using anything at its disposal to make its point. It is a wealthy nation, built on a petro-economy that provides oil and gas to dependent European nations, which are petrified of having their energy supplies disrupted and are now in their own economic doldrums.

Given all this, Russia’s incursion into Georgia is a logical extension of Putin’s autocratic words and deeds and Russia’s regional ambitions, which must be leaving those nations closest to Russia’s borders – the Baltic states and Ukraine – nervous about a bitter and uneasy winter.

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians. So do we threaten Russia with denial of the membership in the World Trade Organization that it so covets? Do we expedite Georgia and the Ukraine’s entry into NATO? Do we cut off the tens of millions that we send into Russia to – hopefully – provide for security of nuclear materials? Everything should be on the table.

‘Russia is a wealthy nation’ – okay. Then why is the US sending ‘tens of millions’  to Russia? How does this ‘provide  for security of nuclear materials’?  Is this a form of extortion? Who in the US was responsible for the descision to do this? When? Answers are urgently required.