So Mark Sanford (pictured), Governor of South Carolina and a Republican Presidential hopeful for 2012, has fallen, if not by the wayside, for the wiles of a shady lady from Argentina.
It seems like no time at all since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, another Republican presidential contender, got stung, this time trading cash for lady’s favours in the time-honoured way of "the oldest profession". Even though Tony Blair’s Ministers, even “Lord Cashpoint” (Lord Levy) of cash-for-honours infamy, was never accused of this, the Sanford case leads me to question our fascination, both in America and Britain, with the ability of our political leaders to remain faithful to their wives and partners.
On this side of the pond, the corridors of Parliament could be lined with names of famous and infamous men caught with “something in the cookie jar”: Profumo, Lambton, Parkinson, Mellor, Amos, Yeo, and Brown, to name only a few Tories, lead a long cast. And in case you think I’m anti-Conservative, let us not forget Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown and Labour's Welshman, Ron Davies.
The Profumo scandal was treated very seriously by the press and the establishment. Questions in the House and the Denning Enquiry followed, but what people remember more than anything was the remark by call girl Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?” By the time we reached the 1990s antics of Conservative minister David Mellor, pithy sayings had been replaced by Chelsea football shirts and ridicule.
Sadly, adultery can result in tragedy. During Prime Minister John Major’s time, the Earl of Caithness’s affair resulted in the suicide of his wife. However, most of the time, my fellow-citizens can’t wait to read The News of the World on Sunday mornings to see what the politicians have been up to. When the news of Major’s extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie broke, it was met with, “How could he do it with her?” Having met the lady in question, who remains both attractive and vivacious, I am tempted to ask, “How could she do it with him?” But then I met “him” a few months ago and now fully understand the attraction. He is tall, fit and retains huge magnetism. He is not a grey man at all.
I remember well the morning that Margaret Thatcher's key advisor and Minister, Cecil Parkinson, was outed by Sarah Keays. That day, I had to attend a meeting with the Minister of Tourism of a small African country. During lunch, Parkinson’s name was mentioned. The minister asked what had happened. When given the facts, his attitude was most refreshing: “This man sires a child and he is expected to resign? In my country, everyone would congratulate him!”
Over here, the English Channel separates us from the likes of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who conducted an affair with his present wife during an election campaign. As for the antics of the current Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi, with numerous ladies of the night, it brings a whole new meaning to “when in Rome”. Clearly continentals view the actions of their politicians differently to us in Britain. Their private lives are irrelevant...well, unless they are women.
As for our American friends, the most infamous infidelity of recent years is Bill Clinton’s. Even at this distance of time, I am still flabbergasted that a little bit of unwise and improper behaviour became the subject of an impeachment trial. However, the infidelity that I admired, yes, admired, for its sheer brazenness was that of Gary Hart. Remember him, the Colorado Senator better known as “Where’s the Beef?” He allowed himself to be photographed in flagrante with his lady friend on board a yacht whose name was clearly visible: “Monkey Business.” End of political career.
At the risk of being flattened by my wife’s frying pan or by any of the fairer sex when next I walk through the University of Birmingham campus, I regard the sex lives of politicians as private and no business of the voter. Yes, I’m sure it is preferable for a politico to be faithful and a good family man (or woman) but, in terms of conduct, it is not on the Richter Scale compared with MPs treatment of expenses or, heaven forefend, the ability to do the job. Surely it is the latter that is important.
I would have forgiven almost anything done by George W. Bush had he been a good leader. It seems that since he became born-again, Mr Bush has behaved impeccably in his private life; pity the same can’t be said for his stewardship of the States. Warren Harding gave the American voter the worst of both worlds. He got a woman pregnant in a cupboard in the White House whilst he failed the country in the Teapot Dome scandal and most other matters of state. For me, Franklin Roosevelt got it the right way round, unless you were part of his family. What a leader he was, even as he was unfaithful to Eleanor for years.
Maybe I’m too old and jaded, maybe I’ve reached the age of pure cynicism but give me a politician any time who can get the investment banks to behave properly and lawfully, who can reduce loutish behaviour so we can walk city centres at night, who can find ways to reduce teenage pregnancies and who, if an American, can get guns off the streets. Find him or her and he or she can have as many affairs as he or she wants.
After the Guardian Council announced its decision to review the vote in the Iranian Presidential election, a confession, an accusation and a warning came from Israel on Tuesday.
A Confession:
Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that Israel would in fact have an easier time explaining the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons to the world when the country is led by a hard-line fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than if Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is seen as a moderate, would win the election. He added: "We mustn't forget Mousavi is the one who started the nuclear program."
Dagan's statement was an inadvertent reminder of how much Osama bin Laden wanted George W. Bush instead of John Kerry to win the 2004 election. In his videotape, bin Laden said: "We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings. . . . They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.”
Just as al-Qaeda tries to recruit men and obtain arms on the grounds of a "legitimate struggle’" supporting local Afghans, Arabs and Pakistanis, Mr. Dagan’s statement tries to maintain the stability of fear --- better your enemy who is in power than a challenger who might not be quite so menacing.
An Accusation:
According to the Jerusalem Post, Hamas members are helping Iranian officials crush supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The assertion is based on the unverified claims of two protestors. Indeed, in almost 2000 words, "Hamas" is only mentioned three times. The real target of the piece is the Iranian Government.
A Warning:
Meir Dagan stated that Iran would have a nuclear bomb ready for use by 2014. There is no evidence to counter the current US intelligence assessment that it has obtained no evidence Iran has resumed its nuclear weapons programme, suspended in 2003, and it takes no account of the current US strategy of "engagement" with Tehran. It does, however, maintain the notion of the "existential threat" of Iran.
On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his US colleague, Hillary Clinton, met in Washington. The main subjects for discussion were the peace process in the Middle East, with particular attention to the American demand for a freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the Iranian elections.
Speaking to the press after the meeting, Clinton began by underlining the special relationship between Israel and the US. This, however, was only a prelude to more substantive differences with both Clinton and Lieberman being "clear" about their positions. The Israeli Foreign Minister said:
We cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. The Prime Minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.
Clinton was more measured, even cautious, in her statement but --- between the words --- calling for a shift in Israeli position:
Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?
And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.
While the US has yet to convince Israel on the settlements issue, Clinton did indicate that Washington had succeeded in another important area: keeping Iran in the background, rather than at the forefront, of US-Israel discussions. Speaking about the current crisis over the Presidential election, she re-emphasized that the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran while maintaining the openness of the Obama Administration to engagement with the next Iranian Government, whoever was in charge.
TRANSCRIPT
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Lieberman to the State Department today for his first official visit to Washington in his new role. Minister Lieberman’s visit gave me the opportunity to reaffirm the United States deep, unshakable friendship and bond with Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and I was pleased to have this chance to express that personally to the foreign minister. The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East and no greater friend than Israel.
Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues. And we are looking forward to continuing that dialogue in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, which has provided a useful forum for discussion of shared concerns and challenges over recent years. We exchanged views on the Middle East, including Iran, and reiterated the need for Iran’s leaders to comply with obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. And we look forward to Iran’s response to our offers of engagement.
And of course, we also focused on efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors in the region. Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security in two states that will entail both parties fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap.
Building on the Arab Peace Initiative, Arab states must do their part to support the Palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. And they must recognize Israel’s legitimacy and, in doing so, choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
The United States will never do anything to undermine Israel’s security, and the United States also supports a viable Palestinian state. We do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. In fact, we believe they are both critical elements of a comprehensive and secure peace.
Minister Lieberman, I hope that you enjoy your first visit to the United States as your country’s foreign minister, and I look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues in the future.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Madame Secretary, at the outset, I would like to say to you how much the people and the Government of Israel appreciate your consistent support of Israel. We value your friendship greatly. We remember the many contributions you have made personally, even before you became a United States senator from New York. We thank you, Your Excellency, for your longstanding commitment to Israel and to strengthening the American-Israeli special relationship and friendship.
I think that we have had a good discussion today covering a broad spectrum of regional and global issues. We also covered a wide range of important bilateral topics. Madame Secretary, I thank you for your very kind hospitality today, and I look forward to our future friendly dialogue, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: Our first question goes to Lachlan Carmichael.
QUESTION: Yes, Minister --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes the microphone, Lachlan.
QUESTION: Minister Lieberman, first, Ambassador Oren, the new ambassador to Washington, is talking about some interesting proposals on settlements. Could you elaborate on what they might be? And then for Secretary Clinton, does that mean there is some wiggle room to your statement that there should be no such settlement activity?
And finally, for both of you, did you discuss previous President George Bush’s letters, private letters to the Israeli Government? Is that issue over with?
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. It’s a long question. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s actually three questions.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Three questions, yeah. First of all, we really don’t have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as – in every place around the world, baby are born (inaudible), people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept – we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. Prime minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.
And also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. And we are, of course, ready for immediately direct talks with the Palestinians.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. We think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state next to a Israeli-Jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. We believe that this process which Senator Mitchell is quarterbacking for us has just begun. There are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact and significance, that will be explored in the coming weeks as Senator Mitchell engages more deeply into the specifics as to where the Israelis and the Palestinians are willing to go together.
I think that the whole issue that you’ve raised is one that we’ve expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.
MR. KELLY: Our next question, Israeli television, Channel 2.
QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, I’m interested to know, how do you envision any progress, any chance for achievement of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are all – all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli – current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?
And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.
QUESTION: Do you hold out that Netanyahu and Lieberman will follow through (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I leave that to them to decide. I’m just reflecting on history and on people who have been in these positions over the last 30, 40 years. And there has been an evolution in thought. And I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu, in recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own in his speech on Sunday night, said something that many people were waiting to hear him say.
MR. KELLY: Next question, Charlie Wolfson from CBS News.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on Iran, and also for the foreign minister. The Iranians have protested U.S. actions through the Swiss ambassador today. Could you bring us up to date on those protests? And there have also been criticisms or reports of criticisms about U.S. interference in Iranian affairs because of the call to Twitter, if you could comment on that.
And for the foreign minister, does the outcome of the Iranian election change Israel’s position in any way, and were your discussions today – did they touch on that, and any actions you asked the Administration to do?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s four questions for the foreign minister. (Laughter.) We have very creative reporters on both sides here. (Laughter.)
The United States believes passionately and strongly in the basic principle of free expression. We believe that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to communicate, to express their opinions, to take positions. And this is a view that goes back to the founding of our country, and we stand firmly behind it.
And therefore, we promote the right of free expression. And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one not only to the Iranian people, but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly young people. I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter – (laughter) – but apparently, it is very important. And I think keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize that we value.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. As somebody said before you, we support evolution, not a revolution, and we never interfered in any internal affairs of the different countries. And what it’s important for us, not the personal creation, but the creation of policy. And what we saw during this elections, it was only one point that every candidates were united: its achieving, quote, nuclear capability; and maybe the other point, the hatred to Israel. What it’s important for us, it’s real – not the domestic problems of Iran, but their policy. And we hope that they will change their policy.
MR. KELLY: Last question for Channel One, Israel Television.
QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, given the latest unrest in Iran and the very brutal way the regime there is moving to quash these protests, does the Administration still believe there is room to engage diplomatically with Iran? And are you concerned that such engagement might embolden actually Ahmadinejad and his regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that the people of Iran deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. The outcome of any election should reflect the will of the people. And it is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election. But it is a fundamental value that the United States holds with respect to free and fair and credible elections.
With regard to engagement, obviously we intend to pursue engagement because we think it’s in the interests of the United States and the world community to discuss with the Iranian Government important matters such as the one Minister Lieberman raised concerning their intentions for their nuclear program, their support of terrorism, their interference with the affairs of their neighbors and other states.
So yes, we think there is much to talk about. And I would think it’s a useful exercise to look back on history and to see where countries, most particularly my own, have engaged in ongoing diplomatic discussions with countries whose regimes we’ve disapproved of, that we rejected. We never stopped negotiating with the former Soviet Union. They invaded countries. They promoted unrest. But we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully, and perhaps to reach better understandings than we might have in the absence of such engagement, so we pursued it.
We are doing this out of what we view as our interest and the interests of friends and allies such as Israel. So now we are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran to discuss these matters.
Near the end of his hour-long speech in Cairo, President Obama declared, "We must choose the right path, not just the easy path." An Enduring America colleague blurted, "How very Obi-Wan Kenobi".
Of course, Obama's address wasn't just Star Wars. It also drew from the Koran on at least five occasions, concluding, "May God's Peace Be Upon You", the Bible ("Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You", "Blessed are the Peacemakers", and the Talmud. It tried to bring Heaven and Earth together from democracy to religious freedom to women's rights to economic development. It rejected the "clash of civilisations" by calling for mutual respect based on an overlap of common principles.
It was, in short, a speech that will draw acclaim from many in the US for its high vision and lofty rhetoric (even though I have no doubt that the Koran references, the self-citation of his name "Barack Hussein Obama", and the President's identification with his audience through his experience from Kenya to Indonesia to Muslims in Chicago will be duly castigated by the Usual Critics). And that general ambition, I think, will ensure the warm applause of the listeners at Cairo University will echo today for many people overseas, including Obama's primary audience in the Middle East.
But what will be heard tomorrow? The "right path" may be laid out with ideals of distant Nirvanas, but Obama has to get there through more immediate, less-exalted territory. And it is in his self-defined three tests that the President's sweeping call to live together will be confronted by people still dying and suffering in different camps.
1. THE HOPEFUL CLIMB: THE IRAN TEST
Obama actually labelled this "rights and responsibilities on nuclear weapons", but that was a clumsy excuse to raise the Tehran issue.
Indeed, it was initially a very misguided sleight-of-speech since it immediately put the case that Iran is close to nuclear weaponry and, more importantly, that it was the only case worthy of notice. (The Twitter boards immediately lit up with, "Nuclear weapons? Israel?")
Obama, however, rescued himself with a shift to an acknowledgement of shared historical blame --- the US acknowledges trying to knock off the Iran Government in 1953 while the Islamic Republic has its own acts of violence since 1979 --- and then the key declaration. Talks will move forward without preconditions. No mention of deadlines, either.
In short --- are you listening, Tel Aviv? --- "engagement" is on.
2) THE DIVERSION: "VIOLENT EXTREMISM" (AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-IRAQ)
This was Obama's lead item on his seven challenges, and it could have come straight from the George W. Bush playbook (although not delivered so eloquently). The US was "not at war with Islam" but it was "relently confronting extremists who threaten our security". Afghanistan was a war of necessity, as "Al Qa'eda killed nearly 3000 people on that day" of 11 September 2001. Al Qa'eda had continued to kill in many countries, and many of those killed were Muslims.
The President's message? Eight years after 9-11, the US would withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan if there were "no violent extremists". Or, turned around, since "violent extremists" are likely to be present in those two countries, the American military --- overtly and covertly, leading operations and pushing for them from Pakistan and Afghanistan allies behind the scenes ---- will be on a long-term mission.
Of course, Obama balanced the military dimension by talking about the economic aid the US is giving to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's the omissions, however, that were striking. No reference to US bombing, missile strikes, or drone attacks; indeed, the President did not even put a number on the troop escalation.
If this speech had been given closer to the affected areas, I think Obama would be facing some very bad press tomorrow. As it was, a more distant audience in Cairo could greet the call for the Long War against Violent Extremism (former known as Terror) with a shrug, apart from applause for the line that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.
As for other battlefronts in that LWVE, the President's discourse on Iraq was also received patiently but fairly quietly --- this, in comparison with other issues, appears to be yesterday's conflict. There was a much heartier response to the brief but pointed declarations of an end to torture and a closure of Guantanamo Bay.
3) THE TOUCHSTONE: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
"Here we go," my colleague and I said. Obama, after 25 minutes, had finally said, "We need to discuss...the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world."
It was an almost breath-taking rhetorical dive. The President immediately made clear, "America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." He buttressed that with an extended emphasis on the Holocaust: "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."
Having linked support of Israel with historical memory and the fight against anti-Semitism, Obama could put the other half of the equation just as boldly: "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
Yes, George W. Bush had also mouthed "Palestinian state", but not with this force. And there was more. While Obama went to great lengths to say, "Violence is a dead end," he offered a political opening. His call was not just on the Palestinian Authority to prove its "capacity to govern". He also held out recognition of Hamas, provided that organisation "put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist".
As one listener wrote, "[It was] refreshing to hear a US President go further than any previous in relation to the [Israeli] occupation." However, that listener also added, "Now we need action."
And it is here that Obama's words and post-speech reality meet. The test case for his policy is now the a defining test:
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
The President added equally important demands: "Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society....Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." For now, however, the line is drawn: Tel Aviv concedes on settlement or Obama's Middle Eastern plan falls at the first hurdle.
Indeed, that line is so stark that the President did not even refer to other significant issues. He referring to the general responsibilities of Arab States, but there was no mention of Syria (and thus an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement), no reference to Lebanon, let alone Hezbollah, no place for Saudi Arabia apart from an allusion to "King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue".
And so the paradox of Cairo: at the end of Obama's hour, his exaltation of values across faiths comes to Earth in those buildings in East Jerusalem and across the West Bank. It is their spread, rather than the spread of goodwill or religious blessings, that will determine the fate of this President's "right path".
In the never-ending fantasy game of Why George Bush Really, Really Got It Right on Iraq, even as the casualty level for US troops reach their highest point since September 2008, former Bush official Peter Feaver takes today's top prize:
I see [Obama] as having slightly more options now for dealing with North Korea than he otherwise might have precisely because Bush reversed the trajectory in Iraq. To be sure, the progress in Iraq is still fragile and reversible -- and there are ominous signs of that reversibility with the uptick in violence in the months since Obama codified a rigid withdrawal timeline. But the success of Bush’s surge strategy (crediting, of course, the courageous efforts of General Petraeus, General Odierno, and Ambassador Crocker, not to mention the brave men and women deployed in Iraq, who actually implemented the strategy) has gone some way to restoring America’s global strategic leverage. At a minimum, it seems to me inarguable that our strategic leverage is greater now than it would have been if we continued on the old trajectory.
I've read Feaver's gung-ho piece a dozen times for a sign of logic, but it appears that there is none, only a glowing path from soldiers in Baghdad to dropping bombs on Pyongyang:
The truth is that the availability of U.S. ground forces is at most a secondary factor in limiting our options in North Korea. The South Korean army provides all of the ground forces needed to defeat North Korea, but only at horrific cost -- a cost that probably no South Korean leader would ever choose unless North Korea launched its own unprovoked invasion. Without an active and willing South Korean ally committed to the fight, there is no viable ground-based option for the United States. In other words, our military options for North Korea are air-based and our air options are not as constrained by the Iraq (and now Afghan) surge.
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 5:05 
So Mark Sanford (pictured), Governor of South Carolina and a Republican Presidential hopeful for 2012, has fallen, if not by the wayside, for the wiles of a shady lady from Argentina.
After the Guardian Council announced its decision to review the vote in the Iranian Presidential election, a confession, an accusation and a warning came from Israel on Tuesday.
Near the end of 
In the never-ending fantasy game of Why George Bush Really, Really Got It Right on Iraq, even as the casualty level for US troops reach their highest point since September 2008,