Politics Blog

Yesterday, a web blog at the BBC had some comments from a senior military officeron the “Gulf Incident:”

Our forces were carrying out a routine inspection. They were approached at high speed by two heavily-armed Iranian boats, although they initially adopted a ‘friendly posture’. It was only at the last minute that the Iranians, armed with RPGs and heavy machine guns, became aggressive. By then, we were told, there was a distance of only a few feet between the British and Iranian boats - a distance too short, we were told, for an ‘arc of fire’.

That is in line with my original guess of the situation considering that the United Kingdoms position with Iran (economic and diplomatic) is much different than the United States.

What was even more interesting was that there were some comments in that thread that had a link to another web blog that had some comments on the possible positioning of the craft. I have no opinion of the writer though I suspect he does not like the government. For the purpose of this discussion, the technical point he brings up is rather interesting.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

In the United States, we are able to rely on all types of maps and no one disputes them. When was the last time Ohio had a map dispute with Kentucky? The rest of the world however is not so clear cut. Much of the world’s nations are constantly disputing borders. Go ahead and google “border dispute.”

This may offer a clue as to how we will see the situation defused by the diplomats. Or it will be some interesting technical foot note.

UPDATE: If someone has links to maps of that area, showing boundaries, and who made the map, please leave a link in the thread.

UPDATE II: From the above link more comments on the “maps:”

It is true that there is no agreed maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq. However, you have missed two important points regarding the Iran-Iraq boundary:

1) The international law of the sea require that, in the absence of agreement on a territorial sea boundary, neither side may extend its territorial sea beyond the median line between the two coasts unless historic title or other special circumstances justify doing so. I can see no such justification in this case. While Iran is not a party to either the 1958 or 1982 law of the sea conventions, the provisions in those conventions concerning the territorial sea are widely-regarded to have become customary international law, and therefore binding on Iran. So until Iran and Iraq formally agree a territorial sea boundary, the median line (more or less as depicted on the Ministry of Defence graphics) serves as a de facto boundary.

2) The land boundary agreed between Iran and Iraq in 1975 extended to the mouth of the Shatt al Arab river at the lowest low-water line. The point at which the British government claims that the incident took place lies just under 1.7 nautical miles southwest of the agreed land boundary terminus, and it is arguable that the incident actually took place on what is technically Iraqi land territory: Britsh charts of the area show the low-water line (the normal baseline from which the territorial sea is measured) running around 100 metres south of where the British government says the incident took place.

My feeling is that the British government slightly oversimplified the legal situation in its presentation but, assuming the coordinates given for the incident are correct, it is extremely unlikely that Iran has any legitimate claim to the point in question.

Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Durham University

Again as I have written, the purpose of those post is to bring discussion as to how this situation may find itself being resolved in the real world amongst diplomats.

— Oak Leaf

Anyone supporting this guy needs to re-evaluate their opinion of him:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen.Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

McCain ‘08! R.I.P.

— The Ace

Lets see, the United States is spending $9 Billion a month along with countless numbers of American Soldiers and Marines that are getting killed and wounded to protect the minority Sunni population in Iraq from the Shiite population seeking thirty years of revenge.

Just what would our “ally” the Saudi King (psst, a Sunni) have to say about our presence in Iraq?

Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the “illegitimate foreign occupation” of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

Doesn’t King Abdullah realize that there are a whole lot of formerly very patient Americans that are ready to hand him and his fellow Muslims (who I guess would not be “foreign”) the “keys to Iraq” and tell them to go have fun (and pound sand)?

— Oak Leaf

Unreal,

Nancy Pelosi took an early survey of her first 100 days as speaker of the House of Representatives and called reporters to the Capitol Wednesday to proclaim she had compiled a “remarkable record of which I’m enormously proud.”

Outside experts said her boast was only somewhat hyperbolic. Even Republicans conceded that Pelosi, whom they have derided as an out-of-touch San Francisco liberal, has done a good job of keeping the 233 House Democrats together through some tough votes – although few of their bills have made it through the Senate and onto President Bush’s desk.

Uh, let’s see:
Surrendered to al Qaeda in Iraq? Check.
Cobbled together the largest tax increase in history? Check.
Increased pork spending? Check.
Politicized the Congressional Research Service? Check.
Got outmanuevered by House Republicans on the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007? Check.
Change the rules on Republicans when they’re in the minority? Check.

Yes, a lot there to be “proud” of Nancy. You’re an embarrassment to the office and America.

— The Ace

What do you really expect on the “new tone” of employer enforcement when the illegalsthemselves get “five free passes” themselves at the border?

SAN DIEGO - Two executives at a company that once helped build a fence to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border were sentenced Wednesday to six months of home confinement for hiring undocumented workers.

Yep, you read the right six months home confinement.

What did the law provide?

Federal prosecutors took the rare step of seeking prison time after the men acknowledged hiring at least 10 illegal immigrants in 2004 and 2005. The charges carried a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison.

What about the Judge?

Moskowitz said he was uneasy with handing down jail time because the company did not deserve to be “the poster child” for unscrupulous employers. All of Kay’s workers paid
Social Security taxes and received health benefits, vacation and sick time. Many earned more than $50,000 a year.

Someone must have gotten their wires crossed. We want the illegals sent home and the employers in jail.

— Oak Leaf

Code Pink, the anti-war, anti-military group funded by a Communist organization, is following Hillary everywhere:

An anti-war group, Code Pink, is hounding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at almost every stop she makes on the campaign trail, hitting her again yesterday as she joined other candidates in seeking a union endorsement.

Standing in front of the Capitol Hill Hyatt Regency, the group made its presence known, inviting a sea of union members from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to “go back downstairs and kiss Hillary’s a–.”

While the group of laborers, enjoying cigarettes between speakers at the Communications Workers of America (CWA) forum, looked on with bemused interest, the protesters sang songs and waved signs advising Clinton not to “buy Bush’s war.”

Although they rarely show up at an event in large numbers, the pink-clad protesters do make their presence known with persistence and intensity.

As The Hill reported last week, former President Bill Clinton all but acknowledged his wife’s glaring vulnerabilities — stemming from her vote for the Iraq war authorization in 2002 — by offering an animated and full-throated defense of her decision.

Will stop when Hillary introduces legislation to bring troops home:

One of Code Pink’s co-founders, Gael Murphy, said the group has been following Clinton for almost two years and will continue to do so until she introduces legislation to bringAmerican soldiers home from Iraq. Murphy said it was likely the group would protest Clinton and other candidates at this morning’s forum sponsored by the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

“We think it’s important to put pressure on her as one of the most important politicians in the United States,” Murphy said.
Murphy said not even an apology for the 2002 vote, like the one rival candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has given, would appease the group.

“She’s welcome to apologize, and it would be great to hear her apologize,” Murphy said, adding that the group would only be satisfied with a candidate who will “sincerely demonstrate” his or her commitment to ending “the occupation” of Iraq.

Bill standing by his woman:

Clinton’s campaign did not return phone calls from The Hill Tuesday, but President Clinton hardly was shy in his wife’s defense last week, questioning the fairness of media reporting on Sen. Clinton’s votes.

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” the former president said last week.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

Former chief of staff to Gonzales will make remarks today that firings were based on lack of support for President Bush’s priorities:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush’s priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to Congress.
Separately, the Justice Department admitted Wednesday it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove’s role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney’s post for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

In a letter accompanying new documents sent to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

Using taxpayer money to go after republicans:

Conyers , meanwhile, has signed a contract with the law firm Arnold & Porter worth up to $225,000 through the end of the year to help with the investigation.

Republicans said the contract, which was first reported by The Washington Times, was evidence that Democrats were willing to invest taxpayer money in efforts to conduct political investigations of the administration.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

Republicans in power=monitor every dollar. Democrats in power=turn a blind eye:

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.
“To me, something doesn’t smell right,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. “I just hope no one is pressuring” the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
While not blaming the Democratic leadership, Mr. DeMint added: “I guess if you’re looking for a motive, you’d have to look in that direction.”
CRS, a nonpartisan agency of the Library of Congress created to conduct research for members of Congress on legislative issues, changed its policy in February – a month after Democrats took control of the Congress and vowed to curb the number of special-interest projects inserted into spending bills or even reports that don’t require a vote.

Director claims no alterior motives:

CRS Director Daniel P. Mulhollan developed the policy after consulting with “internal CRS appropriations experts” and deciding the service was redundant with what other agencies do, CRSspokeswoman Janine D’Addario said.
“His decision was strictly an internal decision,” said Miss D’Addario, whose agency began providing Congress members with information on earmarks in 1994, when Mr. Mulhollan took over as director.
CRS said the Office of Management and Budget recently has been taking on a greater role in monitoring earmarks. And with both chambers of Congress this year establishing new guidelines and clearer definitions of earmarks, the agency said its role as a scorekeeper of earmarks is obsolete.

New rule of thumb, if you have a (D) next to your name, I’ll assume that you are corrupt and crooked. Now, let’s see you prove me wrong.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

This weekend ends the first fundraising quarter:

(CNSNews.com) - The first vote won’t be cast until next January, but the first competition in the long road to the White House ends this weekend. That’s the contest in which Americans vote with their pocketbooks, and presidential aspirants have been scouring the country to add more money to their first quarter fundraising report.

“The first fundraising quarter is really like a first primary,” Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert and government professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, told Cybercast News Service. “It’s a campaign within the campaign. They want to use their fundraising to tell a story about their campaigns.”

If you’re Hot:

Fundraising can tell a story about how sustainable a candidacy will be and whether it meets expectations. A better-than-expected showing could propel a candidate into more serious consideration by the public, media and other donors.

And if you’re Not:

A showing that falls below expectations could raise questions about a candidate’s viability. Presidential hopefuls have until April 15 to report to the Federal Elections Commission what they raised during the first three months of the year, ending March 31.

The rest of the article talks about candidate expectations, and who is low-balling their figure knowing they will raise more which will allow them to claim how great the candidate is doing.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

Aw, aren’t those Iranians cute?!

The religion of peace, hard at work folks.

— The Ace