The Trouble in Iran (Updated)

The clashes in Iran have already started today, after the Ayatollah's speech yesterday warning against any more street protests. The Iranian people have apparently had enough and will not give up. Good for them! Obama has at least released a statement supporting the Iranian protesters, although it could have been stronger. Every little bit helps. Paul Kengor writes about how President Reagan handled this sort of thing here.

In my last blog post I wrote that I would be refraining from links, but that isn't always a practical thing to do. You can find information on the Iranian protests in many news outlets, but I would like to point out some that I think have good up-to-date coverage. One is Gateway Pundit, a blog that includes reports, photos, and videos. Two more are The Guardian and Telegraph in Britain.

I wouldn't say that Mir Hossein Mousavi is the ideal opposition leader. In the past, he has proven not much different from Ahmadinejad. He only got on the ballot because he was approved by the Guardian Council. Still, there is hope that he may go with the persistant rebellion by the people and can and will make needed changes. See here. See "Cracks Begin to Show in the Iranian Regime" by Ryan Mauro.

There is a lot at stake and I wish the Iranian people success in their rebellion against tyranny.

Updated to Add: Michelle Malkin has a blog post up with links to a twitter page and updates elsewhere.

The Torture Issue (Updated)

Torture is a touchy subject. Few people can tolerate even the discussion of such a topic. I know that I don't like to think about it or read about it, not even in fiction. It has come to the forefront lately, particularly since President Obama felt the need to release Bush administration memos about torture. I don't know what his motives were, although I suspect it has a lot to do with appeasing his leftist followers from his continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps it is an effort to distract the public from the economic issues here at home. Be that as it may, there is talk of creating a "truth commission" to look into the torture issue.

I ran across an interesting piece at Weekly Standard titled "Telling the Truth" by Noemie Emery. It is a very thought-provoking article and will give you a new perspective on this issue.

Updated to add: This link is to a video of Norah O'Donnell interviewing Liz Cheney (daughter of the former Vice President), former assistant deputy Secretary of State, regarding torture and the memos. It is worth watching. It runs 8:36. http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/04/25/liz-cheney-breaks-nora-odonnell-on-torture-discussion/

Some Things to Consider

There are so many situations these days that need our attention. We are just 3 days away from the Obama presidency, which will last at least 4 years. What is that going to be like? Here is one take from Pajamas Media. In an article called "Questioning Obama's Patriotism", Bernard Chapin discusses some of what we can look forward to. He writes:

In the president-elect’s vision, we only will become a great nation if we alter ourselves into becoming another nation, one that precisely matches Obama’s desires and expectations.

and

In the hopes of clarification, let me state with absolute certainty that the reason we should question the political left’s patriotism is that they are not patriotic.

On a plethora of policies, from immigration to missile defense, the Democratic stance suggests that they do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to America’s national security. Were they not so embarrassed by our history, along with the unfashionable folks who inhabit our non-urban enclaves, they might well think differently.

and concludes with

Promoting coat-and-tie radicals like Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta to the heights of power no doubt will intensify Obama’s prestige among foreign leaders. There’s nothing that foreign intelligence services appreciate more than the placement of total patsies as the overseers of America’s autonomy.

They probably did not think their prospects for aggressive action could improve any more than they had on November 4, but now will be pleased that Christmas — or what may soon become known as “Western Incineration Day” — is coming a second time this year. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the definition of “traitor” to be exchanged with “patriot” in the politically correct dictionaries found on American university campuses.

In between these quotes, Mr. Chapin discusses some of Obama's choices for cabinet positions and what these might mean for the future of our country and its citizens.

Another situation that should be of grave concern to all is media bias. Most people, if they pay any attention to the news at all, turn to the Mainstream Media (MSM) for their information. This is not a wise choice, as we saw during the campaign for the presidency--the MSM were so strongly "in the tank" for Obama that the public did not get nearly enough information about Obama. The public also did not get good information about John McCain and Sarah Palin. At American Thinker there is an article about the media. It is "The Artifical Reality of the Matrix Media" by Selwyn Duke. Mr. Duke begins by writing:

A common defense of error today is to say, with due indignation, "I have a right to my opinion!" Legally this is true, given that our First Amendment is extant. But as G.K. Chesterton once said, "Having the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it." There is no moral right to an immoral opinion -- nor to one bred of emotionalism unconstrained by reason -- nor to a deceitful one.

Mr. Duke then discusses some examples of misinformation put out by the MSM and concludes with this:

Yet, where does the real blame lie? Some may say that since the media deny us the information necessary to render good decisions, it's not fair to claim that people get the government they deserve. But it must be remembered that people get the media they deserve, too. After all, there is a reason why a celebrity gossip piece might get ten times the readership of incisive social commentary. If people want sweet lies and stories about Paris Hilton, bread and circuses, there will always be "journalists" willing to provide them. It's just as with politicians, only here people vote for demagogues by clicking a mouse, pressing the remote or buying a paper.

So journalism isn't dead -- not any more than the readership, anyway. It's just that those practicing the authentic variety are seldom elected to high office.

Throughout the article, he makes some good points. Do you think we get the media we deserve? Certainly it seems to me that many people are uninformed and don't care that they are uninformed. Worrisome.

One very obvious recent example is the MSM coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict. To watch/read MSM reports, one would get the idea that Israel suddenly attacked an innocent, peaceful group of people for no reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. At National Review Online you can read "Camera-Ready Victims" by Mona Charen for a different viewpoint from that portrayed in the MSM. At American Thinker is an article titled "The Cancer Known as Anti-Semitism" by Lauri B. Regan and, for interesting thoughts as to why anti-semitism exists, take a look at "Hating the Jews" by Kyle-Anne Shiver. These articles will give you something to consider.

It seems to me that what this country needs are more people willing to write and publish the truth and even more people willing to seek out the truth and learn what reality is.

The economy is on everyone's mind, of course. At Human Events you can read an article outlining what would probably do the most good in restoring the economy--reducing taxes. It's titled "What Works" by J. D. Foster and William W. Beach.

There are numerous subjects that require our attention and many articles in the above linked news organizations and others that can help us sort out what is true and what would be the best solutions. I hope we will continue to take an interest in what is going on in our country and in the world and to seriously consider what sources of information we seek out and what biases we ourselves might be harboring that would slow our acknowledgment of the truth.

"Islam: Not Just Another Religion"

There is an article at American Thinker titled "Islam: Not Just Another Religion". It is written by Janet Levy. This is a serious article and definitely not a politically correct article, but it should be required reading for every American if we want to hold on to our freedom and our ability to worship as we see fit.

The first paragraph of the article says this:

This campaign season, presidential candidates seem intent on battling each other with a war of words over universal healthcare, tax reform, immigration, the war in Iraq, the economy and Biblical literalism. Yet, they have spent few words on and have literally ignored the greatest threat to America and Western civilization since the Cold War: the global jihad.

We need to talk about global jihad. It is a threat to everyone everywhere. There may be moderate Muslims out there who do not support global jihad, but they are remaining silent. Many people think that it's not polite, or politically correct, to speak out about wrong being done in the name of religion. Unless, of course, it's to speak out against Christians and Jews. They remain fair game.

Back to the article. Ms. Levy makes many good points about just why Islam and the global jihad they are waging is so dangerous. For example:

While this may appear to be benign, election-year activity, it important to note that CAIR's aims are far from that. In 1998, CAIR's founder, Omar Ahmad, stated that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

And:

Worldwide, Islamic fundamentalists continue to make inroads into Western culture, political structures and in the economic system, while, at the same time, insisting on severe and outrageous punishments for even minor violations of sharia or Islamic law. It is unprecedented that a minority group that freely immigrated to the United States and Europe of its own accord is now endeavoring to overhaul Western civilization to its Koran-dictated, specifications. The West, particularly America, has a tradition of welcoming people from other cultures and practitioners of different religions. However, immigrants have always assimilated and strengthened American society rather than demand that we adopt their ways at the expense of our own.

Many Westerners, who worship at the altar of multiculturalism and erroneously believe that Islam is just another faith, fail to understand the inherent cultural and political dangers of a religion that is a consummate ideology for the faithful. Unwitting Westerners write off barbaric punishments as mere cultural differences, enthusiastically embrace blatant acts of appeasement and readily respond to demands for special privileges and allowances never before conferred on other groups.

Also:

In places like Saudi Arabia, the epicenter and primary global financier and promoter of Wahhabism, an austere form of Islam that interprets the Koran literally, social rules are severe, extensive and often brutal. Gender apartheid is enforced with separate libraries for men and women. Starbucks coffeehouses are divided into "male" and "family-only" sections, and hotels are completely devoid of a female presence, as all personnel, including maids, are male. A rape victim was recently sentenced to 200 lashes, a punishment that was increased when her lawyer complained of its injustice. At the same time that the Saudi government is sponsoring 32,000 students on visas to the United States, the standard Saudi elementary and high school curriculum teaches hatred for Christians and Jews.

And:

Meanwhile, six years after 9/11, most Americans remain ignorant about the history, nature and intent of Islamic jihad. They know little about the worldwide presence of Islamist groups, the hateful rhetoric directed toward non-Muslims spewing from mosques and madrassas, the use of the Internet by Muslim radicals to spread their propaganda and connect with each other, the extent of weapons arsenals and nuclear proliferation, and the geopolitical interconnections between countries in the Middle East, Europe, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South America, North Korea, Southeast Asia and Africa.

Ms. Levy's final paragraph says this:

An ideology that endeavors to supplant our laws, culture and religious beliefs poses a dangerous threat and is not a candidate for coexistence. We had better face the reality of true, Islamic doctrine and forcefully fight its encroachment into our society. It is a peril to our way of life if we wish to preserve the liberal and enlightened democracy that is America.

I think we have allowed political correctness to run amok if we can't even warn our country about a very serious danger that it faces.

As we consider presidential candidates, it would be a good idea to check and see what kind of courage they have.

Latest Information on WMDs in Iraq

At FrontPage Magazine there is an article about WMDs in Iraq. The article is called "Shattering Conventional Wisdom about Saddam's WMDs" by John Loftus. This is an interim report as there are literally many shelf-miles of documents to be gone through and translated, but what has been learned so far shows that while the WMDs aren't all buried in the sand, there definitely were WMDs long after 1991--right up to just before we invaded Iraq, in fact.

The article isn't too long, and is well worth the time to read it. Here is the first paragraph:

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com. This document research has been supplemented with dozens of interviews.

The next two paragraphs provide something of a summary which is documented by the rest of the article and the research paper mentioned above:

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Here is what the last paragraph says:

Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.

There is still much to learn, of course, but the information gathered so far is beginning to answer a lot of questions.

Musings (or Rantings, Depending on Your Point of View)

Global warming, or climate change, is still making headlines. It gets blamed for everything and mankind gets blamed for global warming, even though there is evidence out there that man does not have that big an effect on the environment. There are ways, of course, that people can be better stewards of the earth, but those ways are best implemented on a local, personal level. Scientists can help, if they will actually follow the scientific method and not get into politics and personal agendas. Real information will help real people make real decisions about their personal stewardship responsibilities.

Education is a major concern, too, because it shapes the thinking of the rising generation. It seems that only liberal ideas and propaganda are welcome in schools these days. A true education comes with looking at all sides of an issue and thinking clearly and critically about them all. It also comes from an honest survey of the past in history and other writings to learn lessons that only history and the past can teach us about what works and what doesn't. Rewriting history or editing some of it out doesn't help anyone--it only hurts us all. Then there is this whole self-esteem thing. What good does it do a child to be praised or rewarded for doing things wrong? Does it really prevent hurt feelings? No. A child knows when he doesn't deserve praise or a reward. And as far as trying to prevent hurt feelings--well, that doesn't do much to prepare someone for real life, does it?

Feminism strikes me as being selective for liberal causes. It also strikes me as training women to see oppression everywhere, even when it isn't there in reality. And what about the oppression of women in the Middle East? That is a real, honest-to-goodness problem and yet feminists remain strangely silent on the subject. I can only presume that it is because supporting change in the Middle East doesn't fit the liberal agenda. It is a larger and more important example of what feminists did with Bill Clinton--sexual harassment was bad unless it was perpetrated by Mr. Clinton. I am sure there are consistant feminists out there somewhere, but I haven't been hearing from them. Certainly they aren't making the news.

Immigration is a tough problem. Yes, we all want to be charitable, but in my view, when someone commits a crime (coming the the United States illegally) and benefits from that crime, then things are seriously out of whack. It's frustrating, too, when some play the race card and accuse those of us who want the laws enforced of being racist. It isn't true and surely they know it, but it gets attention and stops any honest debate on the subject. It's the same with accusing people falsely of being homophobic because they believe that marriage is only for one man and one woman, and that school children shouldn't be subjected to all sorts of indoctrination about what constitutes a family and about what sexual behavior is acceptable.

There are so many ways that we allow government to intrude into our lives and go well beyond what they are constitutionally permitted to do and yet so many don't seem to realize that our freedom and liberty is at stake. Taxes leap to mind. So do things like hate-crimes legislation, laws to ban transfats and other things that someone has decided are bad for us (they may be bad for us, but it is not government's place to decide).

Certainly conservatives aren't perfect, either. The thing is, though, that most conservatives look at the big picture and see the problems that will arise when "feel-good" legislation is proposed and when education is one-sided and when those opposing them indulge in name-calling instead of addressing the actual issues and debating ideas honestly.

I understand that there are those opposed to my viewpoint and that is their privilege. What I can't understand is why they won't even consider that they might be thinking about some things in the wrong way--or, worse, not thinking at all, just blindly following the liberal agenda. Well, I suppose that is what they think about me. I just want people to be more objective and to think things through in a more complete way. I want to see real, honest debate in the presidential campaigns instead of candidates who tailor what they say to fit a poll they've seen or an audience they are speaking to.

The Seriousness of Our Situation

At The New Media Journal is an article by Jeffrey Epstein titled "Failure is not an Option". All Americans should read this piece and think seriously about what it says.

One thing Mr. Epstein has to say is this:

America is currently engaged in a deadly war that has the potential to last for decades and cost millions of innocent lives. Most experts agree that a far more deadly attack is imminent – a catastrophic strike involving a combination of tactical nuclear and/or radiological “dirty” weapons. Yet, Washington refuses to take legitimate actions to secure our homeland – that is, to properly identify the enemy, seal our borders and inoculate a number of terrorist-front groups that freely operate on our soil; subversive organizations that seek our destruction, spread seeds of hatred, fundraise for the enemy, support international acts of terrorism, recruit thousands of disgruntled “home-growns” and prepare scores of their followers to perpetrate acts of violence.

Of greater concern is the administration’s failure to come clean with the American people regarding numerous terrorist hits that we have already suffered – attacks both leading up to and following 9/11.

For unknown reasons, Federal law enforcement agencies continue to misrepresent barbaric acts of violence as being anything other than Islamist-inspired – a reckless policy that, in the long run, will only cost more lives. There’s no legitimate reason to hide the truth from our citizenry while blood hemorrhages in various locations across America. An educated, vigilant society will only make our shopping malls, highways, houses of worship, college campuses and federal buildings safer to visit. Additionally, surviving family members deserve to know what really happened to their loves ones.

While in a holding pattern awaiting the unthinkable – news of simultaneous nuclear detonations occurring in major U.S Cities – our State Department is reaching out to those same terrorist-host nations that are conspiring to exterminate us. If that isn’t enough, the Department of Education is in the process of opening twenty Arabic-teaching schools for Muslim students across America, Kansas City International Airport recently installed foot baths to accommodate Muslim travelers and several federal agencies (including the FBI and TSA) have contracted with CAIR (a terror-friendly Islamic advocacy group) to provide sensitivity training to their field agents and employees.

Yet again we are either not hearing necessary news from the MSM, or they are reporting incidents separately, without regard to how they tie in to the big picture. If they at least report some of it, we have a chance to connect the dots ourselves, although the leftist/multicultural/diversity crowd will certainly try to shout down any such sensible efforts. Do they not realize that their freedom to shout down others is at stake?

Mr. Epstein has more. Give this more than a passing thought:

According to our nation’s leading counter-terrorism experts, it’s far later in the game than most folks realize, for the enemy has accomplished much in terms of their infiltration and entrenchment on our soil. These radical Islamist barbarians truly believe that America is their’s for the taking. They’re convinced that their imperialistic drive to conquer our nation is far stronger than our willingness to fight for what’s rightfully ours. Unfortunately, they’re probably right since just a scant few of us are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to resist these cretins at any cost.

Their victory would mean the end of the United States and the end of the free world as we know it. To them, it is not about politics, it is about religion, a radical religion where the law allows for beheadings, stoning and maiming; a radical religion that uses terror as its tool of choice to keep the masses in line.

There isn’t a better time to draw a line in the sand, take a stand and be heard.

Where the battle against the aggressive totalitarianism of Islamofascism is concerned, it is well past the time to act. If we allow politics to infiltrate the process of disseminating fact-based information – the truth – about the lethal foe we face we risk repeating the mistakes made in the waning days of Vietnam only this time the genocide may very well happen to us...on American soil.

Failure is not an option. To quote Winston Churchill:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Our situation in the world is indeed serious and needs to be attended to. For a beginning, American citizens need to give more attention to what is happening here and throughout the rest of the world.

Iran has Five American Hostages

Where is the coverage on the fact that the Iranians are detaining five Americans? I have heard nothing about this on the Mainstream Media (MSM).

At Jewish World Review Michael Ledeen writes a column, titled "The Invisible Crisis: What if Iran took Hostages and No One Noticed?", on the five Americans being held in Iran. Mr. Ledeen begins by writing:

Rarely have so many journalists, politicians and commentators so totally missed a headline. There are now five American hostages in Iran. Each case has been largely treated by itself, almost as if it were an oddity, something requiring a special explanation, instead of another piece in a luminously clear pattern whose meaning should be intuitively obvious to us all.

The five American hostages are:

Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington and the wife of the distinguished historian Shaul Bakash;

Parnaz Azima, a journalist for radio Farda, the Farsi-language component of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;

Ali Shakeri, a founding board member at the University of California, Irvine’s Center for Citizen Peacebuilding;

Kian Tajbakhsh, a consultant working for George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Robert A. Levinson, a former FBI officer reportedly investigating tobacco smuggling on behalf of a private client. He disappeared after he flew to Iran’s Kish Island in March.

How is it that this has been ignored? Ledeen goes on to say:

The two women — Esfandiari and Azima — were regular visitors to Iran, and both were visiting their mothers at the time of their arrests.

Iranian and Iranian-supported terrorists have been trying unsuccessfully to capture Americans in Iraq for some time (a hostage-taking operation failed last September, for example), but they found that the Americans fought back. They have now snatched unarmed Americans within Iranian borders. Several of them have been charged with espionage. Esfandiari has been accused of an additional crime: being married to a Jew. In the words of a website closely tied to President Ahmadinejad, Esfandiari is “married to Shaul Bakhash, a Jew, (and) is one of the leading figures in the international Zionist lobby planning the overthrow of the Iranian regime, including the Zionist regime’s plans to attack Iran.”

Actually, Esfandiari is one of the leading figures in the intellectual/scholarly opposition to the Bush administration, Azima works for an organization that has been a feckless voice of confusion and a frequent critic of American policy in the Middle East, and Tajbakhsh and Shakeri are advocates of dialogue with Iran. I don’t know anything about Levinson’s politics or religion.

Not that the actual views of the hostages have anything to do with their plight; they are hostages simply because they are Americans.

Why would Iran do this, you ask? Here's Ledeen's take on that:

The Americans were taken hostage for the same reasons the regime has routinely taken foreign hostages from the first year of its existence: to resolve internal power struggles, to demonstrate to the Iranian people the hopelessness of their condition by directly challenging the infidels to do anything about the humiliation of their countrymen, and to impose their will on a Western world the mullahs view as feckless and paralyzed. When the American embassy was overrun in the fall of 1979, Khomeini famously proclaimed that the Americans “can’t do a thing,” and today the regime is trying to show that neither the Americans nor the Brits (five more of whom were taken hostage in the past couple of days) can do anything to challenge the mullahcracy.

Ledeen goes into some detail and one of his points is this:

Message to the Iranian People
Two of the American hostages — Esfandiari and Tajbakhsh — have been charged with attempting to subvert the Islamic Republic and organize a “soft revolution” against the regime. At the same time, the mullahs have launched a new wave of political repression against students, teachers, women, intellectuals and, most recently, scientists. The information ministry, a.k.a. the secret intelligence service, recently declared that any Iranian who attended overseas conferences would automatically fall under suspicion of cooperating with foreign-espionage operations. All these measures are symptomatic of a regime that knows it is hated by most Iranians, and fears a popular uprising.

It is a basic tenet of the Iranians’ worldview that nothing of great significance will occur in the world without American support, which in practice means they are unlikely to launch a revolution until and unless they see signs of such support. It also means that the mullahs constantly seek to demonstrate that America is impotent, thus hoping to discourage potential challenges from below. What better way than to take American (and British) hostages, and show that the United States (and Her Majesty’s government) are powerless to do anything about it?

He finishes with this:

Messianic movements of the sort led by the Islamic Republic can inspire masses of people, but they are uniquely vulnerable, because any dramatic setback raises a frightening question: Has divine support suddenly been removed? It follows that we should strain to defeat them, primarily by supporting their own gravediggers, the people of Iran.

Alas, not even that celebrated warmonger, George W. Bush, has the will to support democratic revolution in Iran, or even to say the simple words “we want regime change in Tehran.” His secretary of State insists that we do not want regime change, but only a change in the behavior of the regime. Which is rather like saying that the best way to fight evil is by reading the Psalms. Instead of vigorously defending the Americans outrageously arrested and incarcerated in Iran, we opened a new round of negotiations with their captors, and the killers of our troops in Iraq, on Memorial Day. Yes, there are American warships in the Gulf, but no one in his right mind expects them to do anything other than show the flag.

But then, nobody even seems to have noticed the existence of a hostage crisis. Why would anyone expect the American government to do anything about it?

There is a lot going on in this world that the American public is uninformed about. Some is our fault for not keeping up with current events, of course, but some is because of the selective "reporting" practices of the MSM. I highly recommend reading all of Michael Ledeen's column.

For Women Everywhere

In The Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers writes an article called "The Subjection of Islamic Women" that should be required reading (and study) for women everywhere.

In her article, Ms Sommers discusses the differences between current American feminism and the growing feminism of Islamic women. She also points out the differences between current feminism in America and the "first wave" feminism of a century ago here in America. It is a long article, but well worth your time to read.

In her first two paragraphs, Ms Sommers lets us know of her concerns:

The subjection of women in Muslim societies--especially in Arab nations and in Iran--is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.

If you go to the websites of major women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the National Council for Research on Women, or to women's centers at our major colleges and universities, you'll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.

You would think that the subjection of Islamic women would be of major concern to all feminists throughout the world, especially American feminists who, in spite of their statements to the contrary, have more freedom than any other women in the world and thus are free to help their sisters in the far more oppressive regions of the world. Ms Sommers' article discusses why the American feminists are not of more help to the women in other countries:

The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is--by tendency and sometimes emphatically--antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater....

One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women's movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.

Ms Sommers goes on to discuss American feminist writings both radical and moderate and talks about some of the methods used to accomplish early equality in the United States. She also summarizes what Islamic women have been doing--they aren't waiting for American feminists to help them. In her final two paragraphs, she states:

The women who constitute the American feminist establishment today are destined to play little role in the battle for Muslim women's rights. Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they can be of little help to others--especially family-centered Islamic feminists. The Katha Pollitts and Eve Enslers, the vagina warriors and university gender theorists--these are women who cannot distinguish between free and unfree societies, between the Taliban and the Promise Keepers, between being forced to wear a veil and being socially pressured to be slender and fit. Their moral obtuseness leads many of them to regard helping Muslim women as "colonialist" or as part of a "hegemonic" "civilizing mission." It disqualifies them as participants in this moral fight.

In reality, of course, it is the Islamic feminists themselves who are on a civilizing mission--one that is vital to their own welfare and to the welfare of an anxious world. A reviewer of Irshad Manji's manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, "This could be Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare." Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream. And if, along the way, Islamic feminism were to have a wholesome influence on American feminism, so much the better.

I would really like to see women everywhere read this article and give some serious thought as to what it means and what they can do to help others, as well as re-thinking their more radical positions here in America, where we have widespread freedom and equality.

The View from Israel

At Jewish World Review writer Caroline B. Glick of The Jerusalem Post has a few instructive things to say about the war on terror. She has written two columns, "Must We Lose This War?" and "The Long Road to Victory," both of which are worth the few minutes it will take you to read them in their entirety.

In "Must We Lose This War?" posted 6 April 2007, Ms. Glick has this to say about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria:

The President's criticism was well-founded. By visiting Damascus, Pelosi strengthened Assad's view that the free world has no problem with his behavior. Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Muallem made this clear Tuesday when, speaking to a Kuwaiti newspaper Tuesday, Muallen said that Pelosi's visit proved that Syria's international isolation, which began after Damascus masterminded the Februaray 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, is officially over.

Other Syrian officials made clear that far from softening Syria's policies, Pelosi's visit, like those of European leaders will only toughen Syria's positions. As Imad Moustapha, Syria's ambassador in Washington put it, " Syria will not hurriedly offer concessions when it refused to offer them under much greater pressure from the United States in the past." Wednesday Pelosi stated triumphantly, "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from [Assad that] he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Yet this is a lie. Over the past several weeks, it has become abundantly clear that Syria is preparing to attack Israel in the coming months. If Pelosi had bothered to pay attention, she would have noted the terrorists from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq passing her at the Damascus airport en route to training camps in Syria and Iran.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also visited Syria recently. Of her visit, Ms. Glick says:

On the face of it, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who also paid a visit to Syria this week, seems to take a stronger stand on the issues than Pelosi. While visiting Ramallah she called for Hamas to accept Israel. While in Lebanon she called for Syria to stop arming Hizbullah. While in Israel, as is her wont, she said that 70 years after her nation murdered a third of the Jewish people, she strongly opposes letting Iran acquire the means to kill another six million Jews.

Strong words. Unfortunately, Germany's actions tell a different story. As German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel pointed out in a recent paper, through its support for German trade with Iran, Merkel's government is a central driver of the Iranian economy and so enables Iran to finance both the global jihad and its nuclear weapons program.

When I read these things, I am left wondering why anyone thinks negotiations in the Middle East are even possible, if no one bothers to be truthful or to state their positions accurately. Ms. Glick writes about several other recent actions and words, including some from Britain, the EU, and the Bush White House, that are causing the Middle East problems to worsen. She ends with these statements, however:

If maintained, the current policy trend will lead us directly to the worst-case scenario. In this scenario, after the US leaves Iraq in shame, or remains only to watch the country officially become an Iranian proxy, Israelwill find itself encircled and under attack from Iran's proxies as Iran itself becomes a nuclear power.

But it is far from inevitable that the current trend will continue. For every step that takes us towards the worst-case scenario, there are multiple counter-steps that can lead us away from it. This week British could have honorably confronted the Iranians. They still can.

The Americans can attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Germany can destroy Iran's economy.

Israel can initiate a campaign against the Palestinians or Hizbullah or Syria and so weaken Iran's creeping regional hegemony and at least partially extricate itself from its present encirclement. (To this end, of course, the Knesset must vote for new elections and the people must elect a government capable of crafting policies to defeat our enemies.)

Iran grows stronger in the face of Western weakness and hypocrisy. But it still isn't all that strong.

The fact remains that even at this late date, we alone will determine whether we win or lose.

The United States, Israel, and Western civilization are worth saving. We just need to work toward that end instead of stumbling around in the dark and allowing rogue politicians to interfere with national foreign policy.

Ms. Glick's other column, "The Long Road to Victory" discusses some of the mistakes that have been made and ways they might be corrected. She writes:

"Right-thinking" people these days claim that if the US and Britain hadn't invaded Iraq, everything today would have been perfect. The US would have been loved. The Europeans, Arabs and the UN would be standing on line to support the US in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

As British commentator Simon Jenkins put it in *The Guardian* on Tuesday, "If ever [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair hoped to carry his 'western values agenda' on a white charger to the gates of Tehran, that hope vanished in the mire of Iraq."

Yet this is untrue. The US's difficulties with confronting Iran have little to do with the decision to invade Iraq. Rather, America's feckless diplomacy towards Iran to date is the result of the administration's early misunderstanding of Iraq and of Iranian and Arab interests.

So, what kinds of misunderstanding are we talking about here? Well, there is this:

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration identified certain basic guiding realities and missed others. First there was the issue of Arab tyranny. As Bush recalled last September, "For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by pursuing stability at the expense of liberty. The lack of freedom in that region helped create conditions where anger and resentment grew, and radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits."

Yet recognizing this basic reality did not lead the administration to adopt appropriate policies. Rather than promote liberty, which at its core revolves around a certain foundational understanding of human dignity, the administration promoted elections — fast elections — in Iraq and throughout the region.

In so doing, the administration placed the cart before the horse, with predictable results. The legacy of tyranny is hatred and dependence. And the values of hatred and dependence were those that were expressed at the ballot boxes in Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. In all jihadists, often allied with Iran, were empowered while those that were considered moderates modified their positions in opposition to the US.

If you are like me, you saw the early elections in Iraq as nothing but positive--and to some extent they were--but perhaps better groundwork could have been laid first. Ms. Glick gives other examples and offers some ideas for solutions. I think that reading her articles will give you a broader understanding of the Middle East situation--what is at stake and what needs to be done. She concludes this last article with the following:

The success the US is now experiencing in Iraq is the result of a process of identifying and correcting mistakes. If such learning could take place regarding the US's regional strategy, there is every reason to believe that it will contend successfully with Iran and the Arab world. But to correct mistakes it is first necessary to recognize them.

The US is not failing to contend with Iran because it went to war in Iraq. It is failing because it is implementing policies that prefer imaginary silver bullets to real solutions to real problems.

There are no shortcuts in this war. But victory is still waiting at the end of the long and difficult road.

Ms. Glick's insights are valuable reading. If we can gain some greater understanding of the entire situation, it can be handled better. Nothing is simple, of course, but persistance pays off.

The Logan Act

I have some serious concerns about the way so many politicians (from both parties, present and former office holders) feel free to go to foreign countries with whom we have conflicts. It is one thing to go on a fact-finding mission, but another entirely to meet with leaders of these countries and discuss current situations, diplomatic matters, and so forth when they are not authorized to do so by the government of the United States. The latter is what concerns me so much.

Obviously, my thoughts turn to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her recent sojourn to Syria, but there is also Jimmy Carter with his various trips attempting to arrange agreements with countries with whom we are in conflict. And there have been Republicans and others, as well as Democrats, who do this type of thing.

It should go without saying that this interference can ruin any hope of the governments reaching some solution. In addition, it is illegal. There is the Logan Act, which has been on the books since 1799, addressing this very situation. For a good explanation, complete with the wording of the act itself plus background information, see this link for a pdf file from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.

At Jewish World Review, David Limbaugh writes a column about Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. The title is "Gen. Pelosi's Gift to Our Enemies". Have a look and see what you think. He says:

President Bush strongly urged Pelosi not to go. But in keeping with her flagrant disrespect for President Bush and, manifestly, for the presidency itself, she openly defied him and went anyway.

Her action is indefensible. She was not legally representing the United States, since the president refused to authorize her mission. And if she wasn't purporting to represent the United States, her trip was pointless. But she was.

Pelosi and her delegation were clearly attempting to influence American foreign policy by pressuring the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Syria.

Also:

If you believe the Pelosi delegation was merely "fact-finding," which characterization is laughable, listen to its own post-trip assessment. Delegation member Tom Lantos boasted that the meeting "reinforced sharply" the potential benefits of talking to Syria. "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."

And then there is this to consider:

Under the Constitution, President Bush is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. In that capacity, he has attempted to isolate Syria and has persuaded our allies to do likewise. Pelosi, in direct contravention of presidential authority, directly contradicted the U.S. policy toward Syria by sending the unmistakable signal that Syria is part of the international mainstream when it is our policy to discourage that notion. As the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives, she colluded with a terrorist tyrant to humiliate the commander in chief and countermand his foreign policy.

It wasn't just the US foreign policy she was interfering with--it was also Israel's policy:

Pelosi not only undermined the United States through her unconstitutional usurpation and contradiction of executive authority. She also intermeddled with Israeli policy and caused great harm there, too, by misrepresenting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in implying he had softened Israel's stance toward Syria and wanted to renew peace negotiations. This reckless blunder incensed the Olmert administration, which strongly denied it had changed its position. Olmert said that until Syria changes its sponsorship of terrorism, peace talks will be meaningless.

Mr. Limbaugh concludes with these two paragraphs:

If there is any doubt about Pelosi's collusion with Syria to weaken the president and thus the United States, or if there is any doubt about the poisonous fruits of that infernal collusion, hear the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem following the Assad-Pelosi meeting. He said, "These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them one thing: Dialogue is … the only method to close the gap existing between the two countries. … We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."

Pelosi has caused enormous anxiety to our allies, but has given great comfort to our enemies who seek to divide and conquer us, by doing the dividing part for them. Her actions were disgraceful.

I believe that we elect Senators and Congressmen to support our country, not to tear it down and cause further problems. Speaker Pelosi has shown on more than one occasion that she is not working to support our country. So what is she doing? I'll leave it to you to answer that.

On Negotiations

At Jewish World Review, Caroline B. Glick has an article titled "If Iran Gets the Bomb." This is an excellent piece which lays out why the world should get busy and stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. Her first two paragraphs read as follows:

With the Bush administration now happily basking in the glory of positive coverage in The New York Times and enjoying the warm embrace of the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft wing of the Republican Party, it is hard to imagine that it will reconsider its decision to abandon the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine, named after President George W. Bush and most forcefully enunciated by him, eschewed appeasement of terror supporting, weapons of mass destruction proliferating enemies of the free world.

Today, what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refers to as a "diplomatic initiative" aimed at appeasing terror supporting, and weapons of mass destruction proliferating Iran, and its terror supporting, and weapons of mass destruction proliferating Syrian colony is about to take off in Baghdad. So too, this week the US began normalizing its relations with the terror supporting, weapons of mass destruction proliferating Stalinist dictatorship in Pyongyang.

She goes on to explain the consequences of following this appeasement/negotiation pathway. Read the piece and see what you think.

Also at Jewish World Review is this article by Michael Ledeen titled "The Negotiations Hoax." In this piece, Mr. Ledeen demonstrates the falsity of the Left's position that negotiations have not been tried in the Middle East or elsewhere by the United States. He begins by saying:

A great hoax is being perpetrated on the world, the hoax of negotiations as an untried method to "solve" the "Iranian problem." In fact, we have been negotiating with the mullahs ever since—indeed even before—the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah and brought to power the Islamic Fascist regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the intervening 28 years, we have participated in countless face-to-face encounters, myriad "demarches" sent through diplomatic channels, and meetings—some on the fringes of international conferences—involving "unofficial" representatives of one government or the other. The lack of any tangible result is obvious, yet the chatterers, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and cheered on by intellectuals, editorialists, and instant experts on Iran, act as if none of this ever happened.

and concludes with this:

Those who still dream of the grand bargain—including those in the G.W. Bush administration who have pursued it avidly, and have gotten kicked in the same place as the Clinton pursuers—must explain to us simple souls why there is anything different today that might make a bargain with the Iranians more likely than it has been for the last 28 years. Certainly the Iranians have shown no desire for reconciliation; quite the contrary, unless you think killing Americans at a rate considerably faster than the tempo of murder in the Clinton years represents some odd form of mating dance. The Supreme Leader is the same fanatic as he was then, in terrible health to be sure, but no friendlier towards satanic negotiators. The only big change in Tehran personnel is the president. Instead of Khatami-the-Reformer we've got Ahmadinejad, Hitler's great admirer. I don't think that is an improvement.

If they were forced to answer these questions, the advocates of negotiations would resort to the hoax—we haven't tried negotiations, and it's worth a try. But the real history of U.S.-Iranian relations suggests very strongly that the only possible winners in such talks will be the mullahs. They will gain more time to organize their war against us, and to build atomic bombs.

All those who think we haven't tried negotiating with our enemies and that if we would, we could solve all the problems, should read these two articles. Talk about a wake-up call!

How Concerned Should We Be About the Activities of our Congress? Very!

At The New Media Journal there is an article by Raymond Kraft titled "When Congress Commits Treason". Strong word that he uses--is it justified? Read Mr. Kraft's first paragraph and see what you think:

Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.

If the Democrats don't want an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq, they have a funny way of showing it. More strong words:

Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left. Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars. Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger." America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right. Treason for votes. Treason for dollars. Treason as a political calculation. Treason, for revenge on George Bush.

Treason, to put a Democrat in the White House.

I have to ask myself, given the behavior of Democrats in Congress, not to mention the Mainstream Media and assorted Leftist groups, if that isn't indeed what they want.

And there will be consequences to that behavior. Remember Vietnam?

Thirty-two years ago, in 1975, after America and the Republic of Vietnam had fought and won a ten-year war to save South Vietnam from the predations of the communist north, a Democrat Congress voted to terminate life support for South Vietnam in the face of another North Vietnamese invasion, backed by the USSR. A Democrat Congress voted to "pull the plug," and condemned millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions to death, torture, imprisonment, re-education camps, condemned others to flee their homes and countries as refugees. That, in my view, was the blackest day in American history, and the blood of those people is on the hands of the Democrats who voted to abandon them. Until now.

Now, another Democrat Congress is poised to repeat that act of infamy, and abandon the people of Iraq to the conflagration that will almost certainly follow if the United States withdraws its forces prematurely. Another Democrat Congress declares to the world that America is a fair weather friend, that America cannot be relied on, that America cannot be trusted to stand by its promises when the going gets tough, that America no longer has the will to lead the world toward a future of freedom, that America has decided to embrace defeat, to retreat and surrender. Another Democrat Congress declares that America, having liberated the Iraqi people from the bloody tyranny of Saddam Hussein, has grown tired of the messy business of liberation and will now wash its hands of the whole affair, and abandon the Iraqi people to the bloody tyranny of the Jihad.

This is a long article and you should read it in its entirety to get the full story, but this is how Mr. Kraft, an attorney and writer in Northern California, concludes:

America's Congressional Democrats en masse are betraying, rejecting, repudiating, their own ostensible dedication to the Liberal values of freedom and liberty, multiculturalism, diversity, democracy, for money, for votes. Their half-spoken mantra is, "No war for oil, no victory for freedom."

We see America's Congressional Democrats becoming the American Judas, betraying America, and Iraq, for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. We are watching the astonishing, appalling, and unprecedented spectacle of a Democrat Party so hungry, so greedy, so blindly avaricious for political dominance that it is committing itself to the retreat, defeat, and surrender of America, of Iraq, of the Middle East, perhaps Africa, perhaps Europe after that - where, if anywhere, will the Democrats' firm resolve to retreat and surrender end?

This is treason.

When will all of our elected representatives in Congress start thinking seriously about what they are doing?

Do Most People Understand the Mindset of the Jihadists?

One reason I write about politics a lot on Scholar is that I feel there is a lot of information and a lot of ideas that need to be considered that are simply not available in the mainstream media due to their leftist agendas. As a result many voters and many political leaders don't have the perspective needed to solve this nation's problems--and, in many cases, the world's problems. There are many "solutions" that look good on paper or in the short term, but that would prove disasterous if carried out. And so I do my little bit to provide information and insight into truth and what is really going on out there in the world.

Today's feature is an article from The New Media Journal titled "Wake Up, America: Understand the Mind of the Jihadist" by David J. Jonsson. In his article, Mr. Jonsson explores the mindset of the Jihadist--what they are really after. He also discusses how we can counteract that--and why we need to. This is not about tolerance or intolerance--this is about human liberty. This is about protecting our agency, our will, our freedom.

Here is a quote from the beginning of the article:

The war on terror might be lost not on the streets of Baghdad but in the corridors of Congress. A divided America and Anti-Americanism serves our enemies well. Soon we may see a vote in Congress that says, "We can't stop the surge plan, but we don't support it." It is time for America to understand who the enemy is, the murderous ideology that is driving them and their strategy for success. This would be the Islamist's greatest fear.
It is important to understand that the goal of the Jihadists is – following in the footsteps of Muhammad to create the "Islamic kingdom of God on Earth." The primary goal is not primarily to conquer lands but to Islamize the world. The drive is to instill Islamic law (Shariah) into both Muslim society and the entire world, and ultimately to recreate society under their interpretation of the law. The strategy is to utilize the sword of Islam. The sword may include terrorism, but more importantly it is bringing together groups of people with a common hatred, which can cause the ultimate decline in will of the populous. This cabal has coalesced as the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. As we will see pacifism, self-hatred, complacency and appeasement – deserve attention, equally important is the use of Islamic Finance to gradually make the West comfortable with accepting living with Shariah law.

The article is informative and contains links to further information. It is worth your while to read it carefully and think about it seriously. Human beings were not created to be oppressed and downtrodden.

Israel

I have gathered some websites here for you if you are wanting to learn more about Israel. I don't plan to do a big series on countries on this blog, but Iraq (previous post) and Israel are much in the news these days and are of great concern to Americans (or should be!).

First up is Wikipedia's article on Israel. This will give you a good overview of Israel's history and culture. Also, the Library of Congress has A Country Study: Israel.

The Jerusalem Post is Israel's English language newspaper and a source of information for current events there.

The University of Texas at Austin has a maps page for Israel that you might enjoy perusing.

Last but not least, here is a link to the English language version of the official Israeli government website.

I hope these links will be useful and that you'll enjoy looking them over.

Iraq

If you are interested in learning more about Iraq, I have gathered some websites for you.

First up is the official Iraqi government website here. I have linked to the English language version. It gives profiles of leaders, the constitution, and other government information. Lots to read!

A news site for Iraq is Iraq Daily, a part of the World News Network. Down the left side of the screen are links to other sites that you might find interesting. Iraq Daily has current events, sports, society, etc.

Also, there is the Wikipedia article on Iraq, which is full of links and outlines the history and culture, as well as the political life of Iraq. The Library of Congress has a page on A Country Study: Iraq which looks fascinating, as well.

The University of Texas at Austin has a site of Iraqi maps of all kinds. You might find that interesting, as well.

ThingsAsian has an article on Iraqi food here. A few recipes are linked to.

There are many more sites on Iraq, but maybe this will get you started. Enjoy!