Epstein Secrets

stead to the government; and 4) indicated that the Syrian people supported him -- otherwise he would not be in his position. Does this suggest that Bashar is out of touch with political reality? Or -- as he has watched with dismay the fate of his fellow Arab dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, who

n killed, a worrying sign that the violence is accelerating. Yet, in a remarkable interview this month with ABC's Barbara Walters, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad 1) denied the extent of violence in his beleaguered country; 2) disputed the evidence in a U.N. report charging him and his government with crimes ag

st Israel. In fact, in a rare public appearance this month, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared that his party will remain defiant, side with Assad's Syria and never relinquish its arms. If Hamas, an ally of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran (the so-called Resistance Axis), truly intends to reinvent it

Mr. Maliki; now they say their worst fears may be coming to pass. "The Americans pulled out without completing the job they should have finished," Iyad Allawi, the leader of the secular political bloc supported by most Sunnis, told the Reuters news agency Tuesday. The U.S. withdrawal was forced in part b

Sticks to His Guns Patrick Seale 21 Jun 2011 -- All those dreaming of -- and working for -- `regime change' in Syria will be outraged by President Bashar al-Asad's speech last Monday, 20 June. They want him out, together with the hate figures around him who have been conducting the brutal repression of the pr

esent evidence, a bloody stalemate that further destabilizes the region. It's distasteful to contemplate dialogue with leaders such as Gaddafi and Assad who, to put it bluntly, have blood on their hands. But this approach is worth exploring if it can foster a transition to a democratic government —

democracies (whereas most Islamist exiles were confined to places like Iran and Syria), seemed not to understand how democracy works: people like Iyad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi had an air of entitlement, assuming that people would vote for them merely because they were modern, progressive and famous. They

emplate dialogue with leaders such as Gaddafi and Assad who, to put it bluntly, have blood on their hands

present evidence, a bloody stalemate that further destabilizes the region. It's distasteful to contemplate dialogue with leaders such as Gaddafi and Assad who, to put it bluntly, have blood on their hands. But this approach is worth exploring if it can foster a transition to a democratic government - wh

cases, the insurgents are seen in the West as the "good guys," battling corrupt, autocratic leaders. Personally, I wish that both Moammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad would give up power tomorrow. But that doesn't seem in the cards: Both leaders have shown they're willing to kill thousands of their citizens to hang

ern democracies (whereas most Islamist exiles were confined to places like Iran and Syria), seemed not to understand how democracy works: people like Iyad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi had an air of entitlement, assuming that people would vote for them merely because they were modern, progressive and famous. They d