The Dinaradmin is doing a great job with this new pad every month. The old one wasn't even getting slow yet. I love it!
Keep up the good work.
Go Iraq, go dinar!
We have had a couple of years of bad news from Iraq, and now we have had about a half a year of good news, but good or bad, no movement of any significance have happened so far.
Eventually the whole thing will break lose, but as we are sitting today, there is not much difference in the economy in Iraq compared with one or two years back, it is quite a difference when it comes to the security scene, and the political landscape, the alliances have shifted and there is a shift in who is winning the war ( we do) and all that, but looking at it from a pure economic viewpoint, not much have happened.
We are getting daily news of contracts signed, new companies, new oil investments, new industry investments, big budgets, big oil revenue surplus and all that.
This will make a difference, but nothing have effectively kicked in, in any significant form.
A good indication of that is the ISX, it is moving slowly upwards, but it is not moving upwards in a dramatic form, more of a very shalow rise. This is not indicative of a country that have billions in oil revenue, and are sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
The way ISX is behaving right now is more indicative of a "normal country".
The ISX is a mirror of how much the industry is worth, and if Iraq would be in the "boom" condition that we all wish it to be, the ISX growth curve would have been raising much more rapidly.
A boom economy is when the value of the industry is shooting straight up, but as long as the ISX is lingering in the level it is now, and have not gone up significantly from the past, this is a pretty good indicator of how things are going in Iraq as we speak right now.
Good news are good, no question about that, but as usually in that part of the world, a decision not taken is good policy, so things have a tendency to be dragged on forever.
This even when the "good news" are in, it is indecision's, and non action.
Possibly this last battles with the Shiite, AlSadr clans, will be the very last of the major offensives, before all the militias, groups and different factions have come to rest.
Either way, on top political level in Iraq, it's ministries and it's spokes men, and on international level, it looks really good, and I keep hearing daily about new contracts and all that, but from that, to see a real change, that still has to materialize.
We're in a far better position now, than last year with this thing, and it is possible now to say that it is just a matter of time, but still ...nothing.
The value of the Dinar doesn't necessarily show the condition of Iraq, as it is a manipulated currency, but the movement of the stock exchange shows pretty much the actual economical condition.
If you are not speculating in stocks in Iraq, you could still just check out the ISX statistics as time goes by, and you will have a pretty day to day pulse over the Iraqi economy.
I wasn't sure where to place this...in the news section or speculation (please move if needed).
I found this and thought it was curious. It was in a Jordanian newspaper.
Iraq in the Arab press
Iraqi affair in Jordanian newspapers on Sunday April 27
4th paragraph down..
She says Arabs today that Royal Jordanian has succeeded last month in the completion of the tender new Iraqi currency transfers from London to the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad. Informed sources reported '"behind" the bid for ownership tender for the transfer of new Iraqi currency, will be declared the winner of the tender soon.
Thursday, March 13 / Baghdad / The General Company for banking services currency transfer and achieved sixteen trips to transport currency treasury Rafidain Bank and Rasheed Bank treasury as well as the charter of civil banks and government departments.
Those trips came under (7) and the duties of public quoted company for banking services which amounted to $ (150, 949, 502, 57) dinars (Fifty-seven billion, five hundred and two million nine hundred and forty-nine thousand, one hundred and fifty Iraqi dinars) and the total amount transferred for all banks and Chambers governmental foreign currency (000, 700, $ 3) three million, seven hundred thousand dollars and the number of cars used to transport the currency (and accompanying vulnerable) (24) car http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl...language_tools
The good news is that neither the Jordanian airline or their airforce probably have a fleet large enough to accomodate an entire currency swap, like the one in 2003 that required, what, 27 Boeing 747's. At least they would not be able to handle a transport of that magnitude all in one fell swoop and still have planes in service at home. Maybe over a two year period though
Of course, there might be other tenders offered up for the currency transport. Royal Jordanian just happened to win this one.
I would like to get the boards opinion about a statement made by the CBI concerning the 25000 dinar note. Paraphrasing, it said the CBI has no intention to remove from circulation 25000 note.
What do you make of this? Without a doubt statements are made from inside the country that are ignored by Western news outlets. I am interested in knowing why the CBI had to make such a statement.
A statement like this may hurry my decision to open an Al-Warka account.
Roger - Thanks for the update, appreciate the post and your insights, as always. :) Good food for thought.
Cornish_boy - Interesting links and articles, thank you. :)
Rob N - I think there are a lot of holdings out there denominated in that 25000 Dinar note and the CBI is just assuring everyone holding that denomination of their currency that - no matter what happens in the near term future with any lower denoms being brought into circulation - the CBI is not removing the 25000 note from being legal tender currency and having worth.
Iran dumps U.S. dollar for oil trades Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, has called the dollar a 'worthless piece of paper.'
April 30, 2008
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, has stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars, a top Oil Ministry official said Wednesday, in a concerted attempt to reduce reliance on Washington at a time of tension over Tehran's nuclear program and suspected involvement in Iraq.
Iran has dramatically reduced dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of increasing U.S. pressure on its financial system and the fall in the value of the American currency.
Oil is priced in dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and eroded the value of their dollar reserves.
"The dollar has totally been removed from Iran's oil transactions," Oil Ministry official Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told state-run television Wednesday. "We have agreed with all of our crude oil customers to do our transactions in non-dollar currencies."
Iranian oil officials have said previously that they were shifting oil sales out of the dollar into other currencies, but Ghanimifard indicated Wednesday that all of Iran's oil transactions were now conducted in either the euro or yen.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the depreciating dollar a "worthless piece of paper" at a rare summit last year in Saudi Arabia attended by state leaders from OPEC countries.
Iran put pressure on other OPEC countries at the meeting to price oil in a basket of currencies, but it has not been able to generate support from fellow members -- many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.
Iranian analysts say Tehran can withstand U.S. pressure as long as it can continue its oil and gas sales, which constitute most of the country's $80 billion in exports.
Central Bank Denies Cancelling 25000 IDs Note
PUKmedia 2008/05/01
Central Bank of Iraq denied the news of cancelling the 25000 IDs local note.
An official source in the bank said “some Medias published on their websites that there is an intention to cancel the 25000 IDs note to strength the local currency. The news is incorrect and baseless.”
“Iraqi dinar value was refreshed in front of dollar in the past two years. The operation that the Central Bank carried out proves the success of the fund policy in raising the local currency value. News like this aimed to effect on the local economy situation”, the source added.
Rob i seem to remember a while back talk of keeping the 25.000 note mainly four large transactions like real estate. It would be a shame to get rid of this note after all it is a work of art.
Gulf States May End Dollar Pegs, Kuwait Minister Says
Gulf States May End Dollar Pegs, Kuwait Minister Says (Update4)
By Fiona MacDonald and Matthew Brown
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Gulf states are considering dropping their pegs to the dollar after the U.S. currency's decline stoked inflation across the region, Kuwaiti Finance Minister Mustafa al- Shimali said.
``Yes, there are some'' Gulf Cooperation Council states considering dropping their pegs to the dollar, which has fallen 13 percent against the euro in the last 12 months, al-Shimali said in an interview in Kuwait late yesterday without naming the countries. ``Some countries will do what we are doing.''
Al-Shimali's comments may restoke speculation of a change in Middle East currency systems that eased after the United Arab Emirates and Qatar last month ruled out any revaluation or dropping the dollar peg in the short term. The issue will remain a key issue as long as inflation remains high.
``Inflation is rising in the Gulf to a great extent because of loose monetary policy,'' said Marios Maratheftis, head of research for Standard Chartered Plc in the Middle East in a telephone interview from Dubai. ``Tightening monetary policy can only happen if they drop their currency pegs or strengthen the currency, preferably both.''
The U.A.E., Bahrain and Qatar lowered their benchmark interest rates today by a quarter point, matching a cut by the U.S. Federal Reserve a day earlier. The move is needed to maintain the dollar pegs. Saudi Arabia is on its weekend while Oman moves its interest rates in line with the London Inter Bank Offered Rate.
Gulf Inflation
Inflation is running close to 10 percent in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., while Qatar's consumer prices rose 14 percent in the fourth quarter.
The Kuwaiti dinar has appreciated 7.9 percent against the dollar since the nation in May became the only Gulf Arab state to drop its peg to the U.S. currency. Contracts to buy U.A.E. dirhams in 12 months time are trading at a 2 percent premium and Saudi riyal forwards are trading at a 1.3 percent premium to the spot price, suggesting that some traders are betting that those countries will follow Kuwait in revaluing. The link to the dollar meant that imports in euros and other currencies that have strengthened against the dollar became more expensive.
The idea of dropping the peg ``has been started by other Gulf countries and they are partially going this way because the dollar has been going down for some time,'' al-Shimali said yesterday.
Forum meeting
``This news has already been in newspapers,'' al-Shimali told reporters at a meeting of the Fourth World Economic Forum in Kuwait today.
Reuters reported today that al-Shimali said he was citing newspaper reports and not expressing his own opinion when commenting to Bloomberg on the future of the Gulf dollar pegs.
When asked at the forum about Gulf states considering dropping their pegs, al-Shimali told reporters that he would not comment on behalf of Gulf states.
Officials at the Qatari, Omani and U.A.E. central banks were not immediately available. The Bahraini and Saudi central banks were closed today.
Revaluation speculation peaked in November after U.A.E. central bank Governor Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said he was considering dropping the dirham's peg to the dollar, and a Saudi Arabia central bank official said that Gulf states may revalue their currencies together.
All the GCC states, apart from Oman, are planning to form a single Gulf currency by 2010. The group's central bank governors will meet in June in an attempt to get the project back on schedule.
``The case for currency reform is strong,'' Simon Williams, chief Middle East economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a telephone interview from Dubai. ``The inflationary pressures the Gulf faces not only demand a stronger currency, they also require an independent monetary policy. The issue is not going to go away, but I don't believe that change is close.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Fiona MacDonald in Kuwait fmacdonald4@bloomberg.net; Matthew Brown in Dubai at mbrown42@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 1, 2008 10:21 EDT
Iraq PM sends team to Iran to discuss militias
By Khalid al-Ansary and Waleed Ibrahim
May 1, 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has sent a delegation to tell Iran to stop backing Shi'ite militias, officials said on Thursday, underscoring Iraq's unease over the influence of its powerful neighbor.
The delegation from Maliki's ruling United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) left for Tehran on Wednesday amid further accusations from U.S. military officials that large amounts of Iranian weapons have been found in Iraq.
"The UIA has decided to send a delegation to press the Iranian government to stop financing and supporting the armed groups," said Sami al-Askari, a senior legislator in the Shi'ite party and a close confidante of Maliki.
In London, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said "very, very significant" amounts of Iranian weapons had been found since Maliki launched an offensive against militias in late March.
Petraeus told the BBC after meeting Prime Minister Gordon Brown this included more than 1,000 mortar and artillery rounds, hundreds of rockets and dozens of amour-piercing bombs. The number found in Baghdad was even greater, said Petraeus.
Washington accuses Shi'ite Iran of arming, training and funding rogue elements of the Mehdi Army militia of anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Iran denies the charges.
"It's a very important step (to send the delegation)," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Texas.
"I think that the Iranians do care about what the shape of their future relationship with Iraq will be .... Do they want to work with the government of Iraq or are they going to subvert the government of Iraq?" said Gates.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the delegation had taken questions to Tehran that needed answering.
U.S. military officials had planned to put on display some of the recently captured Iranian weapons but decided to let the Iraqis make their own case to Iran first.
Maliki, a Shi'ite himself, is having to tread a fine line between Tehran and Washington -- two bitter foes that are also at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear program.
But Maliki has also sought to show his independence.
At a news conference on Wednesday, he said: "I am not Iran's man in Iraq." And he launched his offensive in the southern city of Basra without giving the U.S. military much notice.
Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih this week described Baghdad's ties with Tehran as among the most complex it had.
"We cannot afford to have a precarious relationship that could degenerate and go back to a state of conflict that we have had in a previous era," Salih told Reuters.
"The time has come for this relationship to be put on a real sound footing, state to state."
Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980s in which hundreds of thousands were killed. Ties have improved since Sunni Arab strongman Saddam Hussein was ousted in the U.S.-led invasion and a Shi'ite-led government came to power in Baghdad.
Iraq Kurdistan Region said ready to export 100,000 barrels of oil per day
Nechirvan Barzani has announced that the Kurdistan Region Government (KRG) will soon export 100,000 barrels of oil and [Iraq] oil experts warn that the Kurds should not produce more than the rate of production allocated to Iraq as a whole.
(www.noozz.com)
Maliki targets "outlaws" not political factions, says Talabani 01/05/2008 17:17:00
Baghdad (NINA)- President Jalal Talabani said that Premier Nouri al-Maliki has targeted "outlaws and not any political power as some might want it to appear." In an opening speech on the inauguration of the sixth "al-Mada" cultural week Thursday
(www.ninanews.com)
Government seeks crisis solution in Iran, says Ubaydi 01/05/2008 15:52:00
Baghdad (NINA)- Salah al-Ubaydi, spokesman for cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said that the government is seeking Iran's mediation to resolve the crisis with Sadrists, who are already negotiating with the president and parliament's speaker to solve the problem.
(www.ninanews.com)
Salah al-Din, 01 May 2008 (Voices of Iraq)
Print article Send to friend
The Criminal Court in Tikrit on Wednesday sentenced a senior commander of an al-Qaeda-linked group to death, a Salah al-Din police source said.
“The Criminal Court handed down a death sentence on Adnan Faraj, the military commander of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq in Salah al-Din,” a police source, who requested anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI).
The source pointed out “the ruling was based on item four of counter-terrorism law after the suspect pleaded guilty to killing an Iraqi army officer in Dhuluyia town during the summer of 2005.”
“The suspect will be also tried in a number of cases after admitting involvement in several operations which were documented by judicial authorities,” he added.
Adnan Faraj, a Dhuluyia resident, was arrested in late 2007 in Mosul while trying to travel abroad with a forged passport.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
Strike Kills al-Qaida in Somalia Leader
May 01, 2008
Associated Press
MOGADISHU, Somalia - The U.S. military killed a man believed to be the head of al-Qaida in Somalia and 10 others in an airstrike overnight, an Islamic insurgent group said Thursday.
The U.S. military confirmed an attack on a suspected al-Qaida target but did not identify the target.
Aden Hashi Ayro was killed when the airstrike struck his house in the central Somali town of Dusamareeb, about 300 miles north of Mogadishu, said Sheik Muqtar Robow, a spokesman for the Islamic al-Shabab militia.
Another commander and seven others were also killed, Robow said. Six more people were wounded, two of whom later died, said resident Abdullahi Nor.
"Our brother martyr Aden Hashi, has received what he was looking for - death for the sake of Allah - at the hands of the United States," Robow told The Associated Press by phone.
Capt. Jamie Graybeal, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, confirmed there was a U.S. airstrike early Thursday in the vicinity of Dusamareeb. Another U.S. military spokesman, Bob Prucha, said the attack was against a "known al-Qaida target and militia leader in Somalia." Both declined to provide further details.
But another U.S. defense official confirmed that the military launched a missile strike targeting Ayro at about 3 a.m. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
The attack comes just before U.N.-sponsored peace talks are due to begin in Djibouti on May 10.
Analysts say the strike is likely to harden extremists and make it more difficult to appeal to moderate elements in the Islamist movement, which contains many clan members, businessmen and members of the Somali Diaspora.
Iise Ali Geedi, an analyst at the Somali University, says the attacks will increase anti-American sentiment. The attack may also weaken the position of the prime minister, who wishes to bring more militant elements into the talks against the wishes of the president.
Over the past year, the U.S. military has attacked several suspected extremists in Somalia, most recently in March when the U.S. Navy fired at least one missile into a southern Somali town.
Somali government officials have said Ayro trained in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and is the head of al-Qaida's cell in Somalia.
He was a key figure in the al-Shabab movement, which aims to impose Islamic law and launches daily attacks on the shaky Somali government and their Ethiopian allies. Ayro also recently called for attacks on African peacekeepers in Somalia in a recording on an Islamic Web site.
Sheik Muhidin Mohamud Omar, who Robow described as "a top commander" in the Al-Shabab, was also killed in Thursday's attack.
"We heard a huge explosion and when we ran out of our house we saw a ball of smoke and flames coming out of the house where one of the leaders of al-Shabab Aden Hashi Ayro was staying," said local resident Nur Geele.
Another resident, Nur Farah, said, "the bodies were beyond recognition, some them cut into pieces, and those wounded have been severely burnt."
Al-Shabab is the armed wing of the Council of Islamic Courts movement. The State Department considers al-Shabab a terrorist organization.
The Council of Islamic Courts seized control of much of southern Somalia, including the capital, Mogadishu, in 2006. But troops loyal to the U.N.-backed interim Somali government and the allied Ethiopian army drove the group from power that December.
Ethiopia's archenemy, Eritrea, has offered assistance to the group, and it is re-emerging. In recent months it has briefly taken several towns, freeing prisoners and seizing weapons from government forces. The insurgents usually withdraw after a few hours but continue to target Ethiopian and Somali forces in an Iraq-style insurgency.
The United States has repeatedly accused the Islamic group of harboring international terrorists linked to al-Qaida, which is allegedly responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people.
Over the past year, the U.S. military has attacked several suspected extremists in Somalia, most recently in March, when the U.S. Navy fired at least one missile into a southern town targeting Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a Kenyan suspected in the embassy bombings.
America is concerned Somalia is a breeding ground for terrorist groups, particularly after the Islamic militants briefly gained control of the south and Osama bin Laden declared his support for them.
"As I have said before, we will pursue terrorists worldwide," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said in Washington. "The U.S. is committed to identifying, locating, capturing and if necessary killing terrorist wherever they operate, train, plan their operations or seek safe harbor."
Fighting between government troops and the insurgents claimed thousands of lives last year and drove hundreds of thousands from their homes.
(www.military.com)
Iraqi dinar will see the high value of 2008
Experts Iraqi economy was likely to continue to rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar against the dollar during the year 2008, in the event of continued policy of the Central Bank of Iraq in the activation of open auctions and withdraw liquidity.
These experts agreed that the gap between the financial and political cash is the motivation behind Ascending careful of the value of the Iraqi currency, and warned of the danger of inflation on the real value of the Iraqi dinar, and the need to find radical solutions to reduce the impact. The financial and economic expert Dr Majid picture, that "the adoption of Iraq to cover the need for goods and services through imports, led to the resort monetary policy to support the Iraqi dinar exchange rate even reached 1216 dinars to the dollar."
He told the Independent News (Voices of Iraq) that "it is expected to continue to support Pacific Iraqi dinar value as long as inflation factors were continuing." He added that "the basis of the weakness of harmony between monetary and fiscal policy in general, is the absence of clear economic policy, it is trying to hand monetary policy pressure on the money supply in circulation and supporting monetary unit, while fiscal policy to encourage ongoing expenditure policy."
It was that "the presence of the clear economic policy will lead to harmony between policies and all other factors relevant economic development."
Image stressed the need for "economic policy is the promotion of productive expenditure at the expense of consumer spending being." However, he said, "regrettably the budget in 2008 to removed emphasizes the ongoing non-productive expenditure, which represents 72.7% of total spending, while investment spending 27.3%, this is in addition to the fact that most investment spending for projects and service projects Aantegeh not."
Economic Iraqi scientist Abdul Jabbar Alafi, finds that "the high value of the Iraqi currency would continue year 2008, and that this increase stems from the policy of the Central Bank, which he described as flexible policy since in 2004" saying that the explanation that "Iraq is a dollar put incorrect, and that the bank amendment because the Iraqi currency is a national symbol, and it must be achieved real value, a policy of the Central Bank managed to correct the exchange value of the dinar to the dollar, which was dominant to the price of the dinar since 91 almost, and I think it succeeded calendar policy prevailing price of the dollar over the long years, the dollar's worth a thousand Dinar soon, God willing. "
Iraqi businessman, J. Aradi, speaking l (Voices of Iraq) on the pros and cons of the policy of financial support to the Central Bank of ERA selling the dollar and the currency was withdrawn from the market by granting private banks profits estimated proportion (20-25) percent said "the Central Bank of Iraq currently supporting Iraqi currency largely through the sale and purchase of the dollar auction of hand, and the withdrawal of currency from the market by granting profits 20% of the fixed deposits which contributed to withdraw a large part of the cash from the Iraqi market."
But he pointed to the seriousness of this situation that the "banks prefer to transfer all assets of cash to the Central Bank instead diverted to the labor market and Iraqi production because profits content between 10% and 12%, which led to the suspension of the role of these banks in the domestic investment."
Aradi noted that "disruption of the investment that led to the weakness of Iraqi products and the adoption of Iraq to foreign products led to the strengthening of the currency in digital and not real," and said "the prices of goods and services despite the depreciation of the dollar against the Iraqi dinar, which calls for measures economic and financial consolidation and strengthening of local and foreign investment to raise the value of the Iraqi dinar, which measured the quantity of real goods and services obtained by the citizen and not a numerical value of the currency and curb inflation. " Commenting Iraqi economic thinker Dr. Ismail Obeid that the warning of increasing interest rates, which leads to lack of investment, considering that this misguided policy action at all, pointing out that raising the price leads to the result of falling into the so-called Bfaj liquidity, which is the way of risk economically.
He added: "We need a constitutional amendment, so it can build an economy subject to development without a clear and transparent laws determine the course of economic changes, and can only deal with inflation dismissed commodities markets, or increase the supply of goods produced, but that we address inflation through trap this means stopping liquidity increased production capacities and foreign investment, which is also affected."
He said that "the lesson is not strongly Iraqi dinar officially, but strength against other currencies" noting that it is not "only to find the so-called Silhouette prices that presupposes the existence of an information base on imported goods as a kind of border prices and compares them once domestic prices."
Economic researcher Hossam Acommok sent from the anticipated decrease the value of the dollar against the Iraqi currency, but it explained to (vote for Iraq) that this reduction "will be the well-being of the Iraqi citizen, contrary to what was expected, due to increased inflation rate derived from the great imbalance in the economic structure of Iraq.
The lack of coordination between sectors of the government and the Central Bank in its policies, which has made great sacrifices in order to raise the value of the Iraqi dinar, but it failed to achieve tangible results because of indiscriminate actions contradict one another." He added Acommok "at the time the withdrawal of the Central Bank liquidity despite our reservations on the measure, rose Oil Ministry prices of oil derivatives by reached (2150) double what it was before 2003 and put forward this two hundred billion dollars rising inflation."
He concluded his speech by saying "what the monetary policy in Iraq is good, but it is inconsistent with the reality of the situation is correct structure of the Iraqi economy to serve the Iraqi people who have not benefited from reduced practically the dollar."
The Minister of Finance, the Iraqi statement said Zubaidi Jabr told media recently that the Iraqi dinar today much better than some global currency, because behind large amounts of gold and hard currency, noting that the proposal to delete the three zeroes of the Iraqi currency after assuming office in the Ministry of the Week and presentation this proposal to officials in the monetary policy of the Central Bank. He said that the Central Bank at the time was reluctant to accept this idea, but it became a strong dinar, the idea will be discussed by the Central Bank, and that there is a positive atmosphere to the idea.
For his part, the bank denied the existence of such intentions currently, and will remain current currency is adopted in local dealings, but in the faith of all coins withdrawn from circulation and replaced but the same categories of paper and include categories of (25,50,100) dinars.
Thanks and Regards,
Ken Kuhn
(630)-631-6407
902 S. Randall Rd. Suite C337
St. Charles, Illinois 60174
United States
www. dealorbuydinar.com
I read your post. You seem a bit frustrated. It's understandable. Just don't lose hope! I had a thought about what might happen if the dinar suddenly took off. I think it might spiral out of control, upwards. The world is looking for somewhere to park its money, and stop it from declining in value. I think a lot of charlatans would spring up with bogus investment opportunities sort of like the Nigerian boiler room scams, urging people not to miss out. I think the currency may go high if a mania (bubble) occurs, when everyone turns to Iraq as a safe haven for their cash, even with the genuine investment opportunities. So, getting in now while the costs are relatively low, and cashing out when it reaches a high that makes us feel uncomfortable in case the bubble bursts, could be a strategy. Everyone has their threshold - 1 dinar = $0.10, $1, $3, $5, more?
Israeli forces kill Islamic Jihad chief, sources say
April 30, 2008
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- One person was killed and three were wounded Wednesday in an Israeli airstrike targeting a metal shop in Rafah, according to Palestinian security and medical sources.
Israel Defense Forces confirmed the airstrike.
The person killed was the deputy commander of the Islamic Jihad military wing, according to the Palestinian sources, who said he also served as a school headmaster at a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school.
UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunnes said he could not immediately confirm that the person was employed by the United Nations.
About that Presidential race.. (since it affects our Dinar investment who is elected)..
It looks like Hillary has ample reason to remain in the race..
The rise and fall of circumstances - including Jeremiah Wright and how those" clinging to God and guns" in Penn and Ohio - (and voting that way) are interesting to note.
===
CNN Poll: Obama losing support
May 1, 2008 A new CNN poll shows Obama losing ground.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new national poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a virtual tie.
Forty-six percent (46%) of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday support Obama as their party’s nominee and 45 percent (45%) back Clinton, a statistical dead heat when taking into account the poll’s 4.5 percent sampling error on that specific question.
“In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. He adds that “six percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way.”
So why is Obama losing support?
“Obama has lost his edge. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
“The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win,” says Schneider.
But the poll suggests that Wright certainly doesn't help the Illinois senator.
“Among all Americans, Wright gets a 59 percent unfavorable rating; only 9 percent of the public has a favorable view and a third are unfamiliar with him. Among Democrats, the figures are virtually the same,” says Holland.
Of note also is the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for today... since it says that there has been a TEN POINT change away from Obama to Hillary since the Wright press conference:
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the Wright impact is especially evident. Clinton now has a statistically insignificant two-point edge over Obama, 46% to 44%. However, that represents a ten-point swing since Wright’s press conference. Before Pastor Wright appeared at the National Press Club, Obama led Clinton by eight points (see recent Democratic Nomination results).
===
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, May 01, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that Barack Obama’s former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has had a significant impact on the race for the White House. The news is not good for Obama.
In general election polling John McCain now attracts 46% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 43%. Just before Wright had his press conference on Monday, McCain and Obama were even. A week ago, Obama had a two-point edge. McCain is now tied with Hillary Clinton at 44%. A week ago, McCain had a two-point edge over the former First Lady.
Those figures mean that Clinton now outperforms Obama by three points. A week ago, Obama outperformed Clinton by four. New polling in New Hampshire shows that Clinton has gained ground on McCain in the Granite State while Obama is heading in the opposite direction. That poll also found significant voter concerns about Obama and his former Pastor.
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the Wright impact is especially evident. Clinton now has a statistically insignificant two-point edge over Obama, 46% to 44%. However, that represents a ten-point swing since Wright’s press conference. Before Pastor Wright appeared at the National Press Club, Obama led Clinton by eight points (see recent Democratic Nomination results).
Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 45%. (see recent daily favorable ratings). Obama is now viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 48%. For Clinton, the reviews are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable. At noon Eastern today, Rasmussen Reports will release the President's Job Approval ratings for April.
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes. The GOP has the advantage in states with 189.
About that Al-Qaeda leader and the other senior terrorist who had killed so many - including foreign aid workers:
==
US air strike kills Al-Qaeda leader in Somalia: officials
by Mustafa Haji Abdinur
Thu May 1, 2008
MOGADISHU (AFP) - A US air strike in Somalia killed at least 12 people on Thursday, including a man said to be Al-Qaeda's military leader in the war-torn country, Ethiopian officials and rebels said.
The militant leader was named as Moalim Aden Hashi Ayro who trained with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and had been linked to the deaths of foreign aid workers in Somalia. He had been a target of a US air strike in 2007.
Ayro was military leader of the Shabab, a group on the US government's terrorist list. Another senior Islamist was among the dead, the militant group said.
Shabab spokesman Sheikh Mukhtar Robow said Ayro and another senior Islamist, Sheikh Muhyadin Omar, were among the dead from the air strike.
Ayro is said to have overseen the desecration of an Italian cemetery in Mogadishu, exhuming and throwing into the sea the remains of hundreds of corpses. He reportedly ordered a makeshift mosque erected there.
In addition to leading operations against Somali and Ethiopian troops and African Union peacekeepers, Ayro has also been linked to the murders of foreign aid workers in Somalia.
Since the Islamists were ousted from Mogadishu in early 2007, they have carried out attacks against government officials, Ethiopian forces backing the Somali government and African Union peacekeepers.
Western intelligence has accused Somali Islamists of having links to Al-Qaeda, which is believed to want to use war-shattered Somalia as a haven.
A little interesting perspective for you to ponder in light of the sudden TEN POINT move in the opinion polls lately that I just documented (above):
===
Obama's Fantastic Flip Flop Won't Help
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Apr 30, 2008
People are finding out that Rev. Wright privately prayed with Obama before Obama publicly announced his presidential campaign, but was "disinvited" from appearing on stage because his sermons were "rough."
Fittingly, rookie United States Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. used a tactic of Senator John Kerry, the man who gave him a national stage in 2004 by inviting him, then a state senator, to give the keynote address at the Democrat national convention: flip flopping.
After the national media called attention to some of the incendiary comments of Rev. Jeremiah A. "God damn America" Wright, Jr. and Obama took a hit in the polls, Obama chose to deal with the political problem posed by his twenty-year relationship with Rev. Wright by taking about race in America, disassociating himself from Rev. Wright's incendiary statements but refusing to "disown" Rev. Wright, equating that with disowning the Black community or his white grandmother.
In that speech, Obama threw his white grandmother under the bus, telling the world that she had made him cringe by saying that she was concerned about her physical safety when she encountered black men whom she did not know.
Obama did not explain WHY he equated that private grandmother-grandson confidence with Rev. Wright's incendiary statements from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, including his call for God to damn America, his claim that America invented the AIDS virus to destroy black people, his claim that the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001 was explainable as "the chickens coming home to roost and his claim that America is using drugs to incarcerate blacks.
Obama was NOT willing to throw Rev. Wright under the bus that night.
On the morning of April 29, 2008, however, Obama flip flopped bigtime and denounced Rev. Wright, as a matter of political necessity.
Rev. Wright had been on his own campaign explaining himself, beginning with a very friendly interview by Bill Moyers broadcast on April 25, 2008.
During that interview Rev. Wright unambiguously asserted that to the extent Obama had publicly distanced himself from Rev. Wright, he had done so for political purposes, because he is a politician.
Stated otherwise, Rev. Wright essentially said Obama really was with him on the same page and publicly pretending otherwise on the political stage.
Obama did not respond.
Last weekend Rev. Wright addressed an NAACP meeting in Detroit, defending himself
Obama did not respond.
On Monday morning, April 28, 2008, Rev. Wright answered questions before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.. and received the media's full attention. He explained that the United States is capable of anything, including inventing the AIDS virus to exterminate blacks, reiterated that Obama was a politician who had publicly distanced himself from Rev. Wright to placate the public.
That night Obama responded, mildly.
The next day, however, Obama angrily condemned Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright had not said anything new on his current "tour" or anything public since Obama's mild response, so Obama'a anger the next morning seemed to be attributable to the grievous political damage to him that resulted from much greater public attention being paid to the same old Rev. Wright.
To be sure, Obama did NOT own up to flip flopping.
Instead he said that Rev. Wright is not the same man he met twenty years ago.
But Rev. Wright's religious and political views did not change significantly over that score of years.
Of course, it was politically necessary for Obama to finally did, but now Obama has two more problems: (1) if he needed twenty years to realize what sort of man the pastor who brought him to Christ, performed his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and gave the sermon from which Obama took the title of his second book (The Audacity of Hope, he's much too oblivious to be President of the United States; and (2) since Obama is generally regarded as very intelligent and perceptive, people are going to conclude that he joined Rev. Wright's church for political advantage, stayed quiet about Rev. Wright's incendiary statement to avoid offending Rev. Wright and finally broke with Rev. Wright for political purposes.
Bottom line: Obama is not a "new" politician who transcends race, but a typical politician who put opportunism before principle and has been the net beneficiary of both race and gender in his race with Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, as 1984 Democrat vice presidential nominee Geraldine A. Ferraro honestly said (for which she promptly was vilified by outraged Obamaites who pretend otherwise).
Pundit Dick Morris, (defending Obama):
"...if Wright has come to be the poster child for what America fears in a black public figure, he gives Obama an opportunity to be the opposite."
"By playing off Wright, by attacking his views in depth and detail, Obama can define himself as the un-Wright, reassuring Americans and carving out his identity in opposition to the reverend’s rantings."
The big problems with that analysis are that it presumes a clean slate and if and as Obama does what Mr. Morris suggests, it will become more and more obvious to more and more people that he's doing it as a typical political opportunist who finally HAD to do it.
Mr. Morris: "The key to surviving the Wright challenge does not lie in the history of Obama’s 20-year involvement with his church. That story is a quagmire from which he will have difficulty extricating himself. The answer is, rather, to speak out in the here and now against Wright’s weekend comments in Washington and, thereby, tell us who he is and in what he believes."
That would be true if the Wright challenge was survivable; it's not. People are finding out that Rev. Wright privately prayed with Obama before Obama publicly announced his presidential campaign, but was "disinvited" from appearing on stage because his sermons were "rough."
People will realize that they were fooled and not be fooled again.
Earlier Obama appeared to be a stronger general election candidate than Hillary.
Now the reverse is true, thanks to the national focus on the long-term Obama-Rev. Wright relationship and Obama being caught on tape disdaining Americans who believe in God and exercise their Second Amendment rights as bitter people who "cling" to "religion" and "guns" because they don't have more money.
Mr. Morris: "If Obama continued to base his defense on history, he [would] just wade into deeper trouble. The 'I wasn’t there; I didn’t hear him' defense just invites journalists to interview thousands of members of the congregation to find one who sat next to Obama during one of Wright’s racist and anti-American sermons."
That defense is not comforting to voters either. If the Obamas never learned that there pastor was asking God to damn America and saying other hateful things, how disconnected were they?
Mr. Morris: "Nor will Obama solve his Wright problem by subtly distancing himself from his pastor and condemning his views, in general, as 'offensive' or 'not representative of my campaign.' Rather, he needs to seize the opportunity Wright presents and rebut the pastor’s views, point by point — as he began to do Tuesday — and, in the process, define himself and his candidacy. He needs to rebut all of the spurious points Wright raised in his now-famous 'chickens coming home to roost' sermon and speak up for America, our record and our values. He needs to explain why we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — to save millions of American and Japanese lives, which would have been lost in an invasion. He should defend our support of Israel and take issue with Wright’s characterization of our backing for its efforts to protect itself as 'terrorism.' He needs to speak out about America’s moral role in the world and differ sharply and publicly with Wright’s worldview. By playing off Wright, he can recapture his identity as the personification of white hopes for a color-blind politics rather than white fears of anti-American and anti-white public figures."
Now it would be too little, and much too late.
It's obvious that such laudable white hopes were misplaced when placed in Obama.
These "Ten Simple Truths About Oil" show us EXACTLY why our investment in the Iraqi Dinar is 'spot on' a great investment.. (the US, as well as the rest of the world, will continue to need the Iraqi oil).
Well worth reading. :)
===
Ten Simple Truths About Oil
By Alan Caruba
MichNews.com
Apr 30, 2008
Having written about the energy industry and issues now for a long time, I hope I can be forgiven for being enraged by the comments by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in response to President Bush’s press conference Tuesday morning. There is simply no way to describe them other than false.
The Democrat Party has long made “Big Oil” their favorite punching bag, confident that the public has no idea what influences the price and supply of oil. Saying anything favorable to Big Oil is immediately deemed evidence that one is in their pay and whatever facts are offered are therefore invalid.
There are, however, some simple truths about Big Oil that cannot and should not be ignored. To do so leaves everyone at the mercy of energy policies that have created the situation in which the United States finds itself today.
Fact #1. The combined ownership of oil reserves by the independent, investor-owned oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Conoco-Phillips, BP, Chevron and others is barely 4% of the total known oil reserves in the world. By itself, ExxonMobil’s share is 1.08%.
Fact #2. Oil is a global commodity sold on mercantile exchanges for whatever price it can command. Speculation in oil prices is the primary reason they have been driven to utterly insane costs per barrel. It has nothing to do with actual supply and demand.
Fact #3. No nation on Earth is or can be “energy independent.” The geopolitics of oil is complex, but as nations such as China and India have seen their economies grow, their need for oil grows with it and thus they compete with long established industrialized nations for existing oil supplies. This competition has an impact on prices.
Fact #4. The OPEC nations, those in the Middle East and including Venezuela, control 77% of the world’s known oil reserves. Like Russia and Mexico, where the oil industry is controlled by the state, it is generally poorly managed. Several Big Oil companies that were induced to undertake exploration and development in Russia and Venezuela actually had their assets nationalized or stolen at prices well below their investment and value.
Fact #5. Energy is the master resource. All nations with any hope of growing their economies require it, mostly in the form of electricity, but also for oil’s role in transportation. The failure to have a national long-range energy policy that is based in reality can severely impact energy prices.
Fact #6. The United States has, for years, pursued an energy policy based on environmental myths such as “biofuels” in which corn is turned into ethanol to reduce the import of oil, but it costs as much to produce ethanol as to refine oil and it provides less mileage per gallon, thus negating any reason for this additive. Likewise, suggesting that wind or solar energy can generate anything more than its current 1% of the nation’s electricity needs ignores their unreliability and the fact they are heavily subsidized, a form of hidden consumer tax.
Fact #7. It costs billions to explore, discover, extract and transport oil. It takes lots of lead-time as well. The United States Congress has, for decades, refused to permit the extraction of vast oil reserves in ANWR despite the fact it would have little or no impact on the Alaskan wildlife reserve. In addition, Congress has declared 85% percent of the nation’s coastal, offshore areas off-limits to any exploration for oil or natural gas.
Fact #8. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under the mandate of Congress, requires Big Oil to refine oil into some seventeen different formulations in the name of clean air. With three grades of gasoline, that means that refiners must produce some 45 different blends. The quality of air in America is excellent, but the cost of gasoline at the pump continues to rise as the result of these mandates.
Fact #9. America imports two-thirds of the oil it uses. All of its transportation runs on oil. The population continues to grow. Failure to encourage the construction of a single new refinery since the 1970s puts a further strain on the ability of Big Oil to provide the nation’s oil and diesel fuel needs.
Fact #10. Democrats continue to demand that Big Oil’s profits be confiscated in some fashion and some of the inducements offered to explore for more oil be ended. Because the costs of exploration, extraction, refining, and transporting of oil represents billions, the actual profit margin of a company like ExxonMobil is about 10%, well below what industries such as pharmaceuticals and banking enjoy.
For these and many other reasons, Americans are being impoverished at the gas pump because Congress has dithered and failed in one of its most important responsibilities.
WASHINGTON - A Senate panel has agreed unanimously to block the Defense Department from funding Iraq reconstruction projects worth more than $2 million and to begin to force Baghdad to cover the costs of training and equipping its security forces.
Democrats and many Republicans say it is unfair that Iraq is looking at pulling in as much as $70 billion in oil revenues this year while Americans grapple with soaring fuel prices at the pump.
Oh yes I am frustrated, no doubt on that point, but I have been pretty frustrated for about two and a half years now, so nothing new on that front.
By holding out this long at least I can show, that despite my frustration I am ready for the long haul, and have practicing it, since day one in this game. At the time I didn't know it, but thought this would be a quick affair, but as realities set it, things changed, I have much more understanding of why it is taking this long, and even though I don't agree with it, or dislike it or wish for other economical solutions in Iraq, it will after all be a long haul experience.
I am very frustrated of this endless slow go, slower than watching paint dry, but have come to grips with the pace of thing over there.
There is news coverage, that will try to zoom in on blood and gore, then there is a US "official" version, then there is an Iraq "official" version.
Discarding all the MSM news related to Iraq, and concentrating only on the US and Iraqi "official" version, you feel better about the enterprise. However, the "official" version is also there to sell Iraq, as a success.
I can buy that, but the real status of that country is very well mirrored in their own economics. The "official" news are giving all kinds of good and uplifting news, in all kind o areas of life in Iraq, and that is the kind of news that we rather see.
The reality though, is despite all the good news, nothing significantly has moved yet.
I am bringing this point up especially to point out that the good news that we want to hear, will not in itself do any good, unless they are acted upon.
When it comes to act upon things in Iraq, it is a different story.
From the people I have been in contact with over there, it seems like a decision not made is good policy. It's not only me, that are frustrated with the slow progress. It's probably a long line of US representatives from the President of the US, to the US ambassador to Iraq, to the attaches, to technical support teams, to organizers, to....you name it.....
What I really wanted to point out is that we all like good news, that is what the Iraqis need, the US needs, the troops being there, and even us as investors. I don't want to bring down the "good news" trend, because this is a good trend.
I merely wanted to open the eyes for the fact that "good news" is what we are getting at this point in time, but we are not getting any movement in any significant form. So far, not a big hill of beans, despite the fact that this insignificant hill of beans are praised very much on "official" channels.
So from feeling good about Iraq, to Iraq's actual economical standing in present time, is two worlds.
The bla bla bulletins doesn't mean much, it will make us feel good, but the real barometer, or thermometer if you wish of Iraq's economical situation is seen very much in the value of Iraq's industry. And a straight index of that, is the graph that shows the daily trading.
If it is not highly valued, it will not bring a good price.
At the peak of the insurgency, the index fall to it's bottom level, and I had the idea that ok, now everything will kick in, they have had years of planning, and as soon as the fighting is over, the bulldozer's and excavators will be busy.
The ISX bottomed out pretty much just where I bought most of my stocks, but then the recovery was abysmal. It is a lingering up and down trend, with a slight increase overall, but any significant rise, it is not.
So despite all the good news, the recovery have not even started yet.
It will, but as no decision is a good decision over there, things will take some time before it is into what we can call (and are awaiting for) a boom economy.
I'm sure this year will be a good year for us, but have given up hope to see Iraq come into it's boom condition for this year. Face it, almost the half of the year have passed and not much have happened up until now, so in the last months of the year, it will most probably go a bit better, and that's about it, but no Iraqi wonder boom economy ...sorry I just don't believe that is possible.
The future of the Dinar value will also go hand in hand with the Iraqi economy.
cornishboy,
CBI is up to something.
RobN,
Fun article, AlSad'r wants to have Iran as a mediator, in his affairs with the Iraq government. I am sure he wants Iran to decide, to bring it up in some sort of court, and call it "international" and I am sure he wants all jurors to be Islamic conservatives.
There's a lot of things that AlSadr wants, too bad he doesn't realise that ..... he IS the problem.
Sara,
How does it look if we were to vote right now, would it be Clinton vs McCain??? ...Obama on the slipping and sliding???
I have been looking at it, and this may not mean more than just a reprint of currency, paper currency don't hold up, and have to repeatedly be replaced.
What makes me think that is the small (well it is a big shipment, but still) amount of currency compared with the existing currency.
If this as to be a prelude to a zero lop action, this is far too small of an operation, becuase ALL the bills in circulation have to be replaced in that case, you can not choose to stay with overlapping currency, because the value of all bills have to follow.
So lets say that you will do a 1000 to 1 zero lop for example. You don't get away with printing 1000 times less currency, just because the currency changes value. You must for each and every piece that is out there, replace it with something that is a new substitute.
If they withdrew the coins, and have a lot of curency denominations under the value of 1000 Dinars, they will have a problem, and that's exactly what they have. If they replace the currency with a 1000 to 1 unit, well come in with a 500 Dinar note and ask for something in return and they wont have it. -"Here's a 0.5 Dinar note....".
If they do a 1000 to 1 zero lop then they need to fill the void from the new 1 Dinar note, and the fractions thereof.
Otherwise the Iraqi man will find himself with a Dinar that is worth about a Dollar, and have no change.
Paper money in circulatin don't last too long, and to me this seems like just another infusion of newly printed Dinars of the NID.
We have about a 10 year turnaround on our paper money , and seldom do we see older than that (coins excepted).
This despite the fact that we live in an almost cashless society, we use cards, we do online banking, we order stuff and have it sent home, and we pay the bills for it, we fuel and we do all kinds of stuff without touching physical currency.
Iraq must have a much much higer wear and tear on their currency than we have. They are a cash society, they have very little banking, and very litte credit cards, and have to haul around that bunch of paper for everything they do. Once that piece of paper have hit the streets, it will be repeatedly folded and unfolded, counted and restacked over and over.
I would say that the lifespan of a NID in Iraq is compared with the US, very low, and the replacement of currency in Iraq is in high demand.
Roger - You asked me my opinion concerning the Presidential election and IF WE WERE TO VOTE RIGHT NOW.. how it would look when you said, "How does it look if we were to vote right now, would it be Clinton vs McCain??? ...Obama on the slipping and sliding???" (end quote)
The statistics I quoted say that if we were only dealing with the popular vote right now then McCain would win the Whitehouse against Obama who has the greater portion of the nationwide general popular vote.
Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 45%. (see recent daily favorable ratings). Obama is now viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 48%. For Clinton, the reviews are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable. The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes. The GOP has the advantage in states with 189.
So McCain would win the greatest vote of the general populace and win the Whitehouse today according to this poll. Next in popular vote is Obama, so if there were an election today and Obama were running against him, McCain would squeak by a win against Obama. If it was Hillary in opposition to McCain for the Whitehouse, the lead for McCain is even larger, and note she has a 54% unfavorable review from the general public. So the stronger candidate appears to be Obama for the general election by this polling data.
But that is the data for nationwide voting of all people, not the voting within the party as to who should be the candidate for the Democrats - Hillary or Obama. And that is the race they are now working on. In that race, from the polling numbers, we saw that Obama's ten point drop has proven he has lost a lot of support among his fellow Democrats, but this does not sew up the Democrat nomination for Hillary, in spite of how it looks. The two candidates are truly neck and neck for the Dem popular vote for the Democrat candidacy. I pointed out before concerning the Democrat nomination vote that this appears to be going NOT to the popular vote, but to the superdelegates to decide. So this means that even though Hillary is more popular among Democrat voters, she may not end up with the nomination. This was the very thing the Democrats railed against as being "selected not elected" when it went to the electoral college with the vote concerning President Bush. Now they get to wear the shoe on their own foot.. and look the part of hypocrites to their own people who believed in them when they said it was "wrong" to "select not elect" a leader. They are about to do the same thing..
Many say Obama will still win in such a scenerio because he has more superdelegates, even if he is not the most popular among the Democrat people. This is because he looks better in a matchup against McCain as those statistics say, so the superdelegates will want the stronger candidate against McCain to win the nomination process, not just the most popular one in their party. How the Democrat nomination process will finish - for Hillary or McCain - I just don't know.
But whichever of the two faces off against McCain will not win, that I do know (and the polling data suggests). You can see the arguments which will prevail against Obama if Obama wins the nomination all over the press.. and you can also see the way it will go if Hillary wins the nomination. Note again that the Rasmussen poll said:
Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 45%. (see recent daily favorable ratings). Obama is now viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 48%. For Clinton, the reviews are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable.
Hillary already has more than half unfavorable toward her among voters nationwide, and Obama is behind McCain in the nationwide vote as well. Since it is that vote which determines the Whitehouse, it would be squeaky, but McCain would win the Whitehouse if the election were called and people voted the way they feel today, no matter which of the two Democrats McCain faced off against.
Again, circumstances will play a large role in who gets elected. No one predicted the debacle which has just happened to the Obama campaign due to his pastor Wright and his comments and views reflecting back on Obama. But because God is behind the circumstances, it will happen that the public will be moved by their faculty of reason (in spite of a pro-Dem press) to the point where people will vote in large enough numbers for McCain to be in. Simply because, of course, God's will prevails in the end over the machinations (and pouring of money into campaigns) of men. What we are seeing now is just a prelude to what is to come.
I posted an article (above) which said that the VOTING public won't be fooled again. Remember that those who vote are more keen on politics and follow things more closely than those who do not have much to do with politics or voting. I suggest that the assessment that the public who votes won't be fooled and taken in again is correct and as time goes by we will see a further strengthening of McCain against Obama, (and if it is Hillary, she is already facing an uphill battle since 54% see her unfavorably).
While it is not quite a cakewalk or shoe-in for the Whitehouse for McCain, he is going to be seen as the only viable candidate to vote for in the end analysis, and bashing his age or trying to equate him unfavorably to President Bush is not likely to fly as a strong negative in comparison to electing a man who is racist, anti-patriotic, a disloyal flip-flopper, untried politically or militarily during a time when the country is at war, and a friend of a known and convicted domestic terrorist. The "God and Gun clinging" and VOTING American public do have pretty fair powers of recall, and their memories tend to be married to a shred of common sense.. in spite of the fact that many of them intereact with the MSM and follow its biases far too closely.
Iraq presents proof of Iranian meddling: official
By Khalid al-Ansary
May 2, 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi delegation in Iran has confronted Iranian security officials with evidence that Tehran is providing support for Shi'ite militias battling Iraqi government forces, an Iraqi official said on Friday.
"They presented a list of names, training camps and cells linked to Iran," Haidar al-Ibadi, a member of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Reuters.
"The Iranians did not confess or admit anything. They claim they are not intervening in Iraq and they feel they are being unfairly blamed for everything going on Iraq," he said of the talks, which took place on Thursday.
Ibadi said he had been in contact with the delegation.
Washington has long accused Tehran of backing Shi'ite militias, particularly fiery cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, providing them with weapons, funding and training. It has displayed some of the weapons, including rockets and mortars.
The Shi'ite-led Iraqi government, however, has generally been more restrained in its criticism of its Shi'ite majority neighbor, which denies the charges and says it supports the government.
Maliki launched a crackdown on the Mehdi Army in the southern oil hub of Basra in late March, provoking a furious response by the militia in southern Iraq and Baghdad, including relentless volleys of Iranian-made rockets against the Green Zone government and diplomatic compound in the capital.
The U.S. military said this week that "very, very significant" amounts of Iranian weaponry had been found in Basra and Baghdad during the offensive. Some of those arms were made in 2008, a senior U.S. military official said on Friday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there had been a "sea change" in Baghdad's view of Iranian activity in Iraq since the discovery of the weapons.
"Basra changed it for the Iraqis. I'm not sure they believed it before. But they went to Basra and saw it first hand," he said.
Maliki's ruling United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shi'ite Islamist parties, sent the delegation to Tehran to tell Iranian officials to stop backing the militias.
Ibadi said the delegation had presented evidence showing that Mehdi Army leaders in Basra had escaped to Iran to avoid the assault by government troops.
"The delegation also carried evidence of the smuggling of weapons and training of individuals in Iran to enter later into Iraq," he said.
The senior U.S. military official said the delegation had taken with them photographs of the recently seized weapons with markings showing they originated in Iran, as well as testimony from detained militants who had received Iranian training.
In the talks, the delegation stressed Iran should have contacts only with the Iraqi government and not with other groups, Ibadi said.
"The Iranian side confirmed their support for the Iraqi government and the political process in Iraq and their readiness to ... help the government control outlaws," he said.
Roger - It now looks like Obama is being damaged quite badly as today's gallup poll says McCain is up 6 points over Obama.. and Hillary now leads Obama in the popular vote of the DNC nomination process:
===
Gallup Daily: McCain Moves to 6-Point Lead Over Obama
May 2, 2008 Clinton 48%, Obama 46% in national Democratic nomination preferences
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain has moved to a six percentage point, 48% to 42%, lead over Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the general election, while he edges out Hillary Clinton by only one point, 46% to 45%.
This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 27-May 1 with 4,381 national registered voters.
Although both Clinton and Obama have lost ground to McCain over the past week, the current results may be particularly troubling for Obama in trying to combat Clinton's assertion to superdelegates that she would be the more electable of the two candidates in November.
The current six-point margin for McCain over Obama is the largest lead McCain has had over either candidate since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in early March. The gap between Obama and Clinton's percentage of the vote when both are pitted against McCain is also the largest since the general election tracking began.
The Nomination
Today's results from the Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the Democratic race, based on interviews conducted April 29-May 1, mark the ninth straight day that Clinton and Obama have been statistically tied in the preferences of national Democratic voters. With 48% of Democrats nationwide backing Clinton for the presidential nomination and 46% favoring Obama, neither candidate can currently claim superiority in popular Democratic support. -- Lydia Saad
I just don't think they are going to put one by the American public on this one, Roger.
QUOTE:
Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.”
How does that fit into his chances in the General election against McCain? Exactly how will people vote in the general election if this is what they believe?
===
58% Say Obama Denounced Wright for Political Convenience, not Outrage
Friday, May 02, 2008
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation’s Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most—58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.
Wright held a mini-media tour last weekend capped by a press conference at the National Press Club on Monday. Only 33% of voters believe that Obama was surprised by the views Wright expressed at Monday’s press conference. Fifty-two percent (52%) say he was not surprised.
Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.” That figure includes 26% who say it’s Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it’s Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it’s Not at All Likely.
Just 7% of the nation’s voters agree with Wright’s views of the United States. As you would expect, there are strong partisan differences on these questions.
Just 36% of Democrats believe outrage was the motivation for Obama to denounce his former Pastor. That view is shared by 38% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Republicans.
Free economic handouts and political benefits, the development of nuclear power including with state-of-the-art technology.. and isn't it amazing Iran said YES to being given all these goodies?
Think that means they will go peaceful and stop trying to aquire weapons?
Or is this the reality:
Anthony Cordesman of Washington's CSIS think-tank said he doubted this would change Iran's mind. "Iran is not proliferating as a hobby, it sees the development of missiles and nuclear weapons as a critical national interest," he said.
===
Major powers agree new incentives offer to Iran
By Adrian Croft and Arshad Mohammed
May 2, 2008
LONDON (Reuters) - Major powers agreed on Friday to make a new offer of incentives to Iran to halt its sensitive nuclear work and a European diplomat said helping Tehran develop civil atomic power remained at the heart of the proposal.
The offer, whose details have not been made public, is based on a package of economic and political benefits laid out by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany in June 2006 but so far spurned by Iran.
"I am glad to say that we have got agreement on an offer that will be made to the government of Iran," said British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, flanked by senior officials from China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
"We very much hope that they will recognize the seriousness and the sincerity with which we have approached this issue and that they will respond in a timely manner to the suggestions that we are making," he added.
The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran of using its civil nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas.
The 2006 proposal included recognition of Iran's right to develop civil nuclear energy, a promise to support the building of new, proliferation-resistant light water reactors and guarantees that Iran would have access to fuel.
Russia has been the main country to promote the idea of refreshing the June 2006 offer while the United States has made no secret of its skepticism, with U.S. officials saying they saw little reason to expect Iran to change course.
The European diplomat said the heart of the previous offer -- helping Iran develop civil nuclear power, including with state-of-the-art technology -- remained.
"The central part is maintained. It also contains a series of elements that can make the core more attractive," said the diplomat, who asked not to be named. "It relates to economic issues," the diplomat added, declining to elaborate.
Anthony Cordesman of Washington's CSIS think-tank said he doubted this would change Iran's mind. "Iran is not proliferating as a hobby, it sees the development of missiles and nuclear weapons as a critical national interest," he said.
Can the politics be set aside and can we acknowledge the empirical evidence in an apolitical manner?
===
Yes, Iraq Had Unsettling al Qaida Connections
Nicholas M. Guariglia - 5/3/2008
The proposition that Iraq, prior to our intervention, never had a connection to al Qaida, or to any jihadist movement in a broader sense, has prematurely congealed into conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, this exemption of the Hussein family is fallacious and untrue. It would be appropriate if we can look at the history and information we have — the known knowns, let’s say — in an empirical and apolitical manner, separating this discussion from the debate as to whether or not any of this merited war.
Firstly, it should be noted that it was always unclear whether or not al Qaida’s relationship with the Ba’athist government (which it distrusted immensely) had reached a collaborative level; secondly, it should be noted that al Qaida is unique amongst the world’s terrorist networks in that it has few, if not zero, “collaborative” and “operational” relationships with other states and regimes (including their long-time patrons and ideological clones, the Islamists in Sudan and the Salafist Taliban guerrillas); and thirdly, the entire premise behind preemptive/preventative intervention is to prevent such collaboration.
Yet what does the 9/11 Commission report say about the relationship?
Some cite this testimony and are acute in washing their hands of the issue. “Iraq never attacked us, never worked with al Qaida, end of story,” the reasoning goes. But there is more to it than meets the eye. In the same 9/11 Commission report which discounts a collaborative link, there is recognition of long-held attempts by both parties to cooperate against common opponents.
During his time in Sudan, we know that bin Laden himself “met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994… (bin Laden) is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to the request,” the report reads. The next few years saw “additional efforts to establish connections,” as bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri sent out “a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation.”
The investigation continues, stating “Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis… led him to stay clear of bin Laden.” But in mid-1998, “the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.” The report goes on, detailing how in March and July of that year al Qaida operatives met with Iraqi intelligence agents. In 1999, during a period of “strains” with the Taliban, “Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.” Two years later, Kurdish Islamists in Iraq “with bin Laden’s help… reformed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.” Intelligence suggested at the time, and suggests today, that the “Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy,” namely, the other secular Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani and Masoud Barzani, who were despised equally by the Islamists and the Ba’athists.
What does this all mean?
The point is not that there was any provable impending doomsday on the horizon, or that the Iraqi Ba’athists and the al Qaida chaps were fond of each other. They were not fond of each other, and were ideologically in disagreement, inasmuch as the Ba’athists in Damascus and their Hezbollah surrogates in Beirut, or the Shi’a mullahs in Tehran and their Sunni beneficiaries in Gaza, conjure up diametrical opposition.
The point is simply that those who discount any unsettling link — or worse, and even more irresponsible, discount the possibility that the two entities might curtail their pride, hold their noses, and collude against innocents — ought to be challenged. And they ought to be challenged by sources and references they themselves cite when they assert there was no reason ever to be concerned.
So, there we have it: requests for basing privileges and offers of asylum, each of which were turned down not due to hostility but due to the unfavorable logistics of the moment. One looks at Hussein’s history of offering safe haven to the world’s most wanted men (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, etc.), and Iraq’s preponderance to support jihadist groups, affiliated with al Qaida, as far away as Algeria (the GSPC) and the Philippines (the Abu Sayyaf Group), and it should be acknowledged that it was not entirely unreasonable for a statesman to look at Iraq and al Qaida’s unclear relationship and say, “This is as far as it is ever going to get.”
- Nicholas M. Guariglia writes on the issues of national defense and counterterrorism, specifically regarding Middle East geopolitics. He is a student at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, where he is studying American foreign policy. Mr. Guariglia also contributes to WorldThreats.com.
Thanks for the in depth coverage of the Presidential elections, it is indeed one of the cornerstones for the future US/Iraq policies.
This presidential pre nomination, campaign, have been an all out Democratic affair, as the Republicans had it done in no time, so it has been Democrats on the floor almost all the time.
An election is always hard to tell, ideas and support swings. One reporter finds that one of the delegates chopped a head off a frog, and tossed it down the blouse behind a girls neck as a six year old, and will dwell on that story for ten weeks, including animal rights advocates that will do daily testimonies.
The story will not end until that candidate have to do a public apology for his mischiefs with the frog, and he will for the occasion find and invite the girl that was the victim of his prank, and have a big photo op when they are either hugging, or shaking hands with the White House as a backdrop. In the meanwhile as the story was running, his points dropped.
One candidate say something, someone gets offended, and starts a campaign against the candidate. The candidate may very well have been spot on, and very frank, but in pre election times, you better keep your mouth shut, other than saying the generic political phrases commonly accepted.
Close to some point in the election, where the points are hanging in balance, the rival opponents team will usually "leak" some mishaps with a bartender in 1969.
So it is pretty much a thing in the air, candidates have been even stronger in the past and lost at the goal rope.
The mechanisms of swaying voters is usually not logic and reason from the candidate, but scandals and cover ups, leaked from the opposite side.
McCain seems right no to be the strongest one, on the Republican side, he have won all the points needed to get nominated, Clinton and Obama have still to fight it out, but it is right now in a position where none of the candidates actually have got the nomination.
Obama seems to be sliding, and Clinton will probably have a better shot at it because of that, but the internal split in the Democrats seems to be much bigger than I first anticipated, and there is a kind of "new age" Democrats, with Obama, and "Classic" Democrats with Clinton. The two factions , once they have battled out whom to nominate, will probably not unite in the same way as the Republican party.
I bet you, mark my words, that at the Democratic Nomination Congress, there will be some upsets, some that will scream and be taken out by security guards. Some kind of demonstration, some kind of non planned thing that will take place, that will bring the attraction of hordes of photographers. Inside or outside, I don't know, but the Democrats are not as homogeneous as in the past.
If you or I are a Republican or Democrat is of less importance, as the effect of the next presidency will heavily weigh in on future Iraqi policies.
If worse come to worse, and the next president would consider scrapping the whole Iraqi deal, bring the troops back, the Iraqi investment would not collapse, but it for sure would make it very hard on Iraq to get trough for a couple of years, as it would leave Iraq very vulnerable from outside sources.
Probably they would live through it, and as I can understand it, as we speak, the Iraqi Government is already strong enough right now to deal with it's own internal affairs (militias), They still have some shaky legs, and are supported with US expertise, but all in all, the strength is increasing by the day.
The US withdrawal have in fact started already, but it will not be a quick one, and by the time of the next year there will be a completely different scene. Even the most hard nose president that have promised withdrawals as soon as possible, will by the time the presidential post is to be occupied, be in the midst of a withdrawal anyway.
The harder part is if the new president will order a withdrawal that is not in par with the need in Iraq, and is too hastily.
The last battles with a militia is probably what we are seeing now, with the Al Sadr and his criminals, but as with all the other battles, he will be defeated, and the people formerly supporting him, will also say, -"enough is enough".
With that, probably the whole Iraq will be pacified, ( except from rouge elements, probably some elements of Al qaeda, and some freelancing rebels might very well pledge fighting to their death, but as organized big militias are concerned, this is the last of the groups to be subdued). I don't think that more than a month or two is needed in order for the whole thing to start settling down.
That's still far away from any new president.
The new president will actually face a lot more pleasant issues, like the reconstruction of Iraq.
As for security poicies, our interntional politics, and our war on terrorism, things might or might not change with our new president, but as far as the investment and the danger that it might not pan out...naa..Iraq will have a good grip on things by the time this presidential election is over. They actually already have.
You are absolutely right. It amazes me how stupid we can be.....or are we??? Is there some effect that we are being baited for? I sure hope so.
What also amazes me is how upside down journalists ( even conservatives) research their issues.
Wouldn't you have thought that 30 seconds after Rev.Wright announced that he was a strong promoter of Black Liberation Theology, SOMEONE would have researched what that meant and made it public? (I couldn't googles it fast enough)
As Wright was announcing his devotion to Black Liberation Theology, within the same day Obama publicly declared Wright one of the top most gifted and learned Theologians of our time.
So,.....#1. Are we to believe that he had no clue of what WRIGHT really brought to the pulpit.....and #2. WHY DID JOURNALISTS,(ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVES) not pick up on this?
These revelations, alone would have stopped all of the insanity that is taking place now on the air waves. And more than likely, Obama would not be ahead in anyway as far as delegate votes.
This election year presents a paradox of choices. I guess, the least of the evils,is Mc Cain. But I see him as a dangerous man, soley because his agenda is to be something to everybody. The spin on his legacy as a war hero has grown rusty, and in my opinion, he's looking for a new identity. He is wishy washy, flows with the way the wind blows, terminally looking for away to appear to be a peacemaker and pacifier. DEFINITELY NOT WHAT THIS WORLD NEEDS IN A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.
Regardless, of what BLACK POLITICIANS, would have the masses believe, we have made phenmonenal strides against destructive racist practices in this country.
As we have made great strides in equality of women. WE THE POEPLE, have done it!
I believe, WE are ready, more than ever, to have a Black President or Woman President......just not Obama, who is not only liberal but under it all anti-foundational and traditional America, or Hiliary, who has had a socialist marxist agenda most all of her adult life.
What a slap in the face to Americans, by presenting these pitiful candidates for us to chose from, especially when so much is at stake globally.
Roger, you doubt the good intentions of Iran? You don't believe they will stop all development of weapons and take the nice incentives they are offered instead? What on earth could have led you to that conclusion? LOL
That is PRECISELY the kind of logic and reasoning I expect to prevail in the upcoming election. No one can pull the wool over your eyes (feed you a falsehood which you will receive as truth), and I believe the American people are intelligent like you. There is a limit to how much false information can make inroads into the public mindset when there is freedom of information. The soundbytes of "God damn America" from Obama's pastor now have a place in history and in the collective conciousness of the voting pu
Comments