Soldiers told to stop handing out food

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY

January 19, 2010

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Food handouts were shut off Tuesday to thousands of people at a tent city here when the main U.S. aid agency said the Army should not be distributing the packages.

It was not known whether the action reflected a high-level policy decision at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or confusion in a city where dozens of entities are involved in aid efforts.

“We are not supposed to get rations unless approved by AID,” Maj. Larry Jordan said.

Jordan said that approval was revoked; water was not included in the USAID decision, so the troops continued to hand out bottles of water. The State Department and USAID did not respond to requests for comment.

Jordan has been at the airport supervising distribution of individual food packages and bottled water since his arrival last week. Each package provides enough calories to sustain a person for a day.

The food is flown by helicopter to points throughout the capital and distributed by paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division. At the tent city, set up at a golf course, more than 10,000 people displaced by the Haitian earthquake lay under makeshift tents. Each day, hundreds of people, many young children, line up for a meal.

Tuesday morning, the helicopters came only with water. Soldiers carried boxes of water in the hot sun and supervised Haitian volunteers who handed the supplies out.

Does it matter who hands out the food? To some people, yes (from an Instapundit reader):

The “aid” agencies did the same thing in Afghanistan. Being a logistics specialist, I volunteered to help an American NGO [non-government organization] with rebuilding schools, and was on the ground in Kabul in January of ‘02. (I later ended up in charge of UNICEF’s warehouse/distribution operation for all of the new school supplies…leaving me with a complete and total disdain for all things UN-related.)

For the NGO community, to be seen co-operating with the US military was the kiss of death. NGO co-ordination meetings specifically warned against co-operation with the US military, as opposed to UN agencies. The supposed reason was that they wanted a clear line between the “killers” and those that were “there to help”. They would actually COMPLAIN that the military was out doing things like rehabilitating wells and such, whining that these were things that should be left to the aid agencies. The irony of the fact that we were all sitting in a meeting, DISCUSSING it, while the US military had already been out DOING it, was completely lost on them.

Sounds like it’s same-old, same-old. Nothing but tools, the lot of them.

If you want the straight dope on American politics, consult this fellow:

Little guy sends message to Washington: Drop dead

Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

Washington Examiner

January 20, 2010

The final percentages aren’t in as this is written, but it’s plain that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a substantial margin in the race for the remainder of the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate term. In Massachusetts. The state that in the last four presidential elections has voted on average 61 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. That’s a bigger margin than in any other state.

If a Republican can win there, he (or she) can win anywhere. That’s a message that is not lost on anyone whose name is on the ballot later this year.

A lot of attention over the next several days will be focused on health care legislation. Liberal bloggers and think tank denizens have been demanding that Congress pass a health care bill, by slow-walking Scott Brown’s swearing-in and slamming a compromise through the Senate, or by having the House pass the Senate bill, or by using the reconciliation process that would require only 51 Senate votes.

Have any of these people ever worked a precinct?

The slow-walk tactic is probably illegal, as Fred Barnes has argued in The Weekly Standard; there don’t seem to be 218 votes in the House for the Senate bill (because of the abortion issue and the Cadillac tax on union health care plans); the reconciliation process is not available for many of the key features of the Democratic bill.

Plus, the Massachusetts vote is a loud and clear signal that the American people hate this legislation. Barack Obama came into office assuming that economic distress would move most Americans to favor big-government legislation. It turns out that’s not so. Not when Democratic bills would take away the health insurance most of them are content with. Not when it’s the product of backroom deals and blatant political bribery.

But Scott Brown’s victory was not just a rejection of Democrats’ health care plans. Brown also stoutly opposed the Democrats’ cap-and-trade legislation to reduce carbon emissions. He spoke out strongly for trying terrorists like the Christmas bomber in military tribunals, not in the civil court system where lawyers would advise them to quit talking. He talked about cutting taxes rather than raising them as Democrats are preparing to do.

Brown’s victory represents a rejection of Obama administration policies that were a departure from those of the Bush administration. In contrast, on Afghanistan, where Obama is stepping up the fight, Brown backed Obama while his hapless left-wing opponent Martha Coakley was forced (her word) to oppose it to win dovish votes in the Democratic primary.

Democrats will be tempted to dismiss Brown’s victory as a triumph of an appealing candidate and the rejection of an opponent who proved to be a dud. But Brown would never have been competitive if Americans generally favored the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders. In that case, even a dud would have trounced the man who drives a truck.

Unfortunately there was no exit poll (because news organizations didn’t think this would be a seriously contested race until 10 days ago), and so we can’t be sure whether, as at least one pre-election poll indicated, Brown swept young voters in a state where they voted 78 percent to 20 percent for Obama.

But a look at the incoming election results in Massachusetts’ cities and towns shows the depth and breadth of his support. Brown ran especially far ahead of John McCain’s 36 percent in blue-collar areas, and turnout was sharply down in inner-city neighborhoods of Boston and old mill towns. In other words, those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Democrats’ health care and “spreading the wealth around” either trended Republican or stayed home.

Brown’s gains were not as great in areas dominated by what the New York Times’ David Brooks called, perhaps archly, “the educated class.” Cambridge and Amherst remained solidly monopartisan. But in suburbs with many upward strivers, people who (like Scott Brown) have worked their way from the economic margins to some comfort, turnout was almost as high as in November 2008. Towns that split evenly in the presidential race went 2-to-1 for Brown.

Obama and “the educated class” think they know what is best for the little guy. The voters of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) beg to differ. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Michael Barone, The Examiner’s senior political analyst, can be contacted at [email]mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com[/email]. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Little-guy-sends-message-to-Washington_-Drop-dead-82127817.html#ixzz0dDAzf8Up

Hanging by a thread:

http://autos.aol.com/article/spyker-ceo-on-saab

One of the victims of Lockerbie was a 30-year old American named Jonathan White. He was the son of actor David White and his first wife, actress Mary Welch. With his trademark white hair and black mustache, David White was one of the most familiar faces on television in the fifties and sixties, well remembered for playing Darren’s boss Larry Tate on the comedy series Bewitched (1964-72). Mary Welch is little known today because her career and life were both cut short when she died giving birth to their son.

According to those who knew him, David White was consumed by grief, anger, and frustration following his son’s murder. He died of a heart attack in 1990 about a month short of the second anniversary of Jonathan’s death.

At this time of year, we’re often reminded to remember the less fortunate. We usually associate that with lack of money, but Lockerbie reminds us that there are other misfortunes as well.

And the “Vickers-Armstrongs Spitfire…. “

That’s a new one on me, although I’ve seen scattered references to the “Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire.”

27Vet, you’re probably thinking about this case (from Wikipedia):

The Hindawi affair was an attempted bombing of an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv in April 1986 and its international repercussions.

Overview

On the morning of April 17, 1986, at Heathrow Airport in London, Israeli security guards working for El Al airlines found semtex explosives in a bag of Anne Mary Murphy, a pregnant Irishwoman attempting to fly on a flight with 375 fellow passengers to Tel Aviv. In addition, a functioning calculator in the bag was found to be a timed triggering device. She was apparently unaware of the contents, and had been given the bag by her fiancé, Nezar Hindawi, a Jordanian. He had sent her on the flight for the purpose of meeting his parents before marriage. A manhunt ensued, resulting in Hindawi’s arrest the following day after he surrendered to police. Hindawi was found guilty by a British court in the Old Bailey and received 45 years imprisonment, believed to be the longest determinate, or fixed, criminal sentence in British history.

Hindawi subsequently appealed the sentence of 45 years. His appeal was rejected by the Lord Chief Justice who noted that “Put briefly, this was about as foul and as horrible a crime as could possibly be imagined. It is no thanks to this applicant that his plot did not succeed in destroying 360 or 370 lives in the effort to promote one side of a political dispute by terrorism. In the judgment of this Court the sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment was not a day too long. This application is refused.”

Background

During Hindawi’s subsequent interrogations and trial he described two conflicting stories leading up to the incident. In the first, Hindawi claimed to have arranged the plot with high-ranking officers in Syrian Air Force intelligence a year earlier in Damascus, where he was given Syrian papers and instructions for operating the explosives. He supposedly conducted a training run back in England before returning again to Syria for final details and preparation. As for the explosives themselves, Hindawi said that they were delivered to him in the Royal Garden Hotel in London on April 5, less than two weeks prior to the attempted bombing. This story is supported by the fact that Hindawi first sought refuge in the Syrian embassy after he had learned of the failed bombing, and Syrian officials were in the process of altering his appearance before he fled again, only to surrender to police. Also, British intelligence had previously intercepted Syrian communications with Hindawi’s name, Hindawi was using genuine Syrian documents although he was not Syrian, and Hindawi’s original escape plan involved leaving England with Syrian agents working on Syrian Arab Airlines.

In attempting to construct a credible defence for his client, Hindawi’s legal counsel suggested an alternative interpretation of events during the trial, when he alleged that his client was not working for the Syrians after all, but was being manipulated by Israeli intelligence, which wished to damage and embarrass the Syrian government. The jury was unconvinced by this version of events, and subsequent appeal judges have dismissed such interpretations as entirely lacking in evidence. There is a broad consensus in the intelligence community that such an interpretation is highly unlikely, at best.

Repercussions

After the court found Hindawi guilty, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher broke off diplomatic relations with Syria. Following this the United States and Canada recalled their ambassadors from Syria. The European Community also imposed minor sanctions.

Aftermath

In April 2001 Nizar Hindawi became eligible for parole, but his right of appeal was denied by Home Secretary David Blunkett, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Embarasing:

The Daily Beast

Obama Snubs the King

by Katarina Andersson

December 9, 2009 | 1:10am

Finally some Europeans are angry with Obama—the very ones who are awarding him his Nobel. Katarina Andersson on the president’s decision to decline lunch with King Harald and skip his own Nobel exhibit.

A day before President Obama receives his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the president’s treatment of his Norwegian hosts has become hot news across Scandinavia.

News outlets across the region are calling Obama arrogant for slashing some of the prize winners’ traditional duties from his schedule. “Everybody wants to visit the Peace Center except Obama,” sniped the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, amid reports the president would snub his own exhibition at the Nobel Peace Center. “A bit arrogant—a bit bad,” proclaimed another Aftenposten headline.

“It’s very sad,” said Nobel Peace Center Director Bente Erichsen of the news that Obama would skip the peace center exhibit. Prize winners traditionally open the exhibitions about their work that accompany the Nobel festivities. “I totally understand why the Norwegian public is upset. If I could get a few minutes with the president, I’d say, ‘To walk through the exhibition wouldn’t take long, and I’m sure you would love the show. You have no idea what you are missing.’”

Meanwhile, the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet is reporting that the president has declined an invitation to lunch with King Harald V, an event every prize winner from the Dalai Lama to Al Gore has attended. (The newspaper’s headline: “Obama disses lunch with King Harald.”)

Also among the dissed, according to news reports: a concert in Oslo on Friday that was arranged in his honor, and a group of Norwegian children who had planned to meet Obama in front of City Hall.

“The American president is acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop,” said Norwegian public-relations expert Rune Morck-Wergeland. “In Norwegian culture, it’s very important to keep an agreement. We’re religious about that, and Obama’s actions have been clumsy. You just don’t say no to an invitation from a European king. Maybe Obama’s advisers are not very educated about European culture, but he is coming off as rude, even if he doesn’t mean to.”

Indeed, judging by statements surrounding the president’s trip to Europe this week, it is beginning to appear as if the European love affair with Obama—which culminated in giving him the Nobel Prize—is over.

The Swedish news agency TT reported today that 44 percent of the Norwegians found Obama’s diss to King Harald V to be “rude.” Even more—53 percent—are upset about the fact that he is not attending the traditional concert. And by now a third of the Vikings believe that the U.S. president doesn’t deserve the Peace Prize. At the same time, 20 different Norwegian organizations have applied for a permit to demonstrate during Obama’s visit.

But some news outlets are cutting him a bit of slack, noting that he is dealing with two wars and soaring unemployment back home and a new war, and that his main focus this week should rightly be on the climate-change summit in Copenhagen. Taking part in all the activities surrounding his Nobel Prize could send the wrong message.

That may have something to do with Obama’s uncharacteristic shunning of the press. Whereas other prize winners have viewed the standard Nobel Peace Prize CNN interview as an opportunity to address the world for a full hour, Obama seems unwilling to answer any questions at all. There will be no press conference, just a statement from the president.

“It’s very strange that he is unwilling to meet the press,” said Marie Simonsen, political editor at Dagbladet, one of Norway’s biggest daily newspapers. “I’m very disappointed. You get the impression he is not proud of the prize.”

“You just don’t say no to an invitation from a European king. Maybe Obama’s advisers are not very educated about European culture, but he is coming off as rude, even if he doesn’t mean to.”

Obama is the second sitting American president to visit Norway. Ten years ago, President Clinton traveled to the country at the invitation of King Harald. “When Clinton was here he was walking into cafes in downtown Oslo, shaking hands with Norwegians on the street,” said Simonsen. “It doesn’t seem as if we are going to experience something similar with President Obama.”

Katarina Andersson is a New York-based freelance reporter for Swedish Broadcasting. She previously hosted a popular radio talk show in Sweden and covered politics, economy, and arts for numerous Scandinavian media outlets in the U.S. She lives in Brooklyn with her son.

For those interested in this topic, I strongly recommend this website with numerous links:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/

Note: at last report, about 140 private jets were being used to transport attendees to the big shindig in Copenhagen.