"Drew Peterson Speaks Out?" That is how the Today Show promoted their interview with Drew Peterson, the apparently unluckiest man on Earth. Drew Peterson didn't speak out. He didn't say anything. He is just appearing on TV to get his ugly face on TV. It's sickening. His whole attitude and his lack of concern for his 4th wife id DISGUSTING. And it's pathetic to watch him on TV.
Do we have to see Drew Peterson on TV, smirking and laughing? His 3rd Wife's death was ruled a homicide. Murder. It sounds like the original ruling was manipulated to suggest she died accidentally. Who was the Orland Park Police Officer who was a part of the Will County Coroner's Office jury that pushed the members to rule the death of his 3rd wife was an accident when in fact it has now been ruled a murder?
Do you think Drew Peterson is innocent or guilty? That's one of the questions on tonight's radio show. Call in to the show tonight at 5 PM during the Hot Topics Segment and share your views ont his and other topics.
773-777-1450
WCEV RadioChicagoland.com 4 to 6 PM every Tuesday and Thursday night.
Ray Hanania
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hillary Clinton's is coming across like a sore loser, whiner and poor leader
Wow. If Hillary Clinton wanted to challenge Barack Obama's leadership flaws, should might have tried not using her own as the measure of who is better or worse. Every time I turn on TV, all I see if Hillary whining about something. She doesn't like this. She doesn;t like that. What she doesn't like is that the public is not buying her agenda, and the resentment many Americans harbored for Bill Clinton's indescretions are starting to come out in full force now. Apparently, we didn't like the Republican fanatics (jerks like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others) hypocritically hammering Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinski episode, but now that those morons have been neutralized, and have been pushed out of the way, we Americans can express our disappointment ourselves.
I think it's time for Hillary to step aside and start supporting the Democratic Party and the strongest candidate to defeat the Republican fanatics and their puppet, sleepy John McCain. Or, is Hillary going to do what she and Bill did by undercutting Al Gore in order to insure the election of George W. Bush so they could "come back" and sweep the elections.
Ah, the best laid plains ...
Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com
I think it's time for Hillary to step aside and start supporting the Democratic Party and the strongest candidate to defeat the Republican fanatics and their puppet, sleepy John McCain. Or, is Hillary going to do what she and Bill did by undercutting Al Gore in order to insure the election of George W. Bush so they could "come back" and sweep the elections.
Ah, the best laid plains ...
Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tinley Park Police Chief Mike O'Connell joins show today with Lane Bryant murders
Tinley Park Police Chief Mike O'Connell will join the Radio Chicagoland show today to offer an update on the Feb. 2, 2008 murders at Lane Bryant in Tinley Park ... five women were murdered execution style on Feb. 2, 2008 and one other was shot but survived. The police have a sketch of the killer. It's received huge coverage on America's Most Wanted and other national programs, and the hunt is on for the killer.
Also, joining the show is African American Jewish comedian Aaron Freeman.
Other guests include Cook County Board Commissioner Tony Peraica on county taxes, and Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute giving us an update on the challenges facing the many countries of the Middle East.
Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com
Also, joining the show is African American Jewish comedian Aaron Freeman.
Other guests include Cook County Board Commissioner Tony Peraica on county taxes, and Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute giving us an update on the challenges facing the many countries of the Middle East.
Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com
Column by Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute on Peace in the Middle East
Here's the most recent column by Jom Zogby of the Arab American Institute on MIddle East peace. Zogby is our guest tonight on WCEV Radio Chicagoland at 5:20 CST/Central. We'll be talking about this and the entire gamut of the Middle East challenges during the interview tonight.
Ray Hanania
http://www.radiochicagoland.com/
=========
Washington Watch:
"Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace" - Is Peace Possible?
By James ZogbyFebruary 25, 2008
This month the U.S. Institute for Peace released "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East," the report of a study group which examined U.S. peacemaking efforts over the past four decades. Headed by Daniel Kurtzer (former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Israel), the group met during 2006-2007 and interviewed over 100 officials and experts from seven countries and three international organizations.
The main body of the report is a concise and precise look at successes and failures, and strengths and weaknesses of the past three administrations' efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. It concludes by detailing ten lessons learned, and then outlining recommendations based on those lessons to guide the next administration.
The examination of Washington's peace making efforts during the past three administrations begins with a largely positive assessment of "Bush 41," crediting President George H.W. Bush for "having the clearest sense of strategy," which he pursued "in a highly disciplined, effective and committed manner." Bush and Secretary of State Baker are praised for understanding and taking advantage of the opportunities that flowed from the end of the Cold War and the end of the first Gulf War, and moving aggressively, with balanced pressure, to convene the Madrid peace conference. On the other hand, the major weakness of "Bush 41," pointed to in the report, was his "failure to build a strong coalition at home to support [his] strategy." It was the combination of this failure, and the distraction of his reelection effort in 1992, that caused the Bush Administration to lose focus on its peacemaking efforts.
In spite of this, the report notes that the Clinton Administration "inherited an ideal strategic environment for peacemaking." Noting that President Clinton more effectively built a domestic support base for his peacemaking efforts, he was, however, "less disciplined and less strategic than his predecessor." Specifically, the report noted that the Clinton team "failed to understand and deal with key asymmetries in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. While the U.S. paid attention to Israeli security requirements, less attention was devoted to Palestinian political requirements. The U.S. did not find a way to compensate for Palestinian political weakness. This was the first time in history a people under occupation was expected to negotiate its own way out of occupation while at the same time creating a viable, democratic and independent state." The report notes that President Clinton did not personally become directly involved in negotiations until late in his second term, and did not put forward his own peace plan until his last month in office. This was, of course, too late to make a difference.
It is the administration of George W. Bush's approach that receives the greatest criticism, the authors noting that "his approach to the conflict lacked both commitment and a sense of strategic purpose." This, they suggest, was due to the fact that too many of the president's advisors dismissed the importance of Middle East peace, placing greater emphasis on their "regime change" and democratization agendas.
When Bush did become involved, however, it was mostly on the rhetorical level, with little or no follow through. Plans were announced, and mediators were dispatched in succession, ignored and undercut, and then dropped. To some degree, this contributed to a widespread belief that the administration's efforts lacked seriousness.
The result of this mismanagement and/or neglect has negatively affected not only Israelis and Palestinians, but U.S. diplomacy in the broader region, and public attitudes toward the U.S. itself. This, the authors lament, makes it more imperative for the next administration to begin early and aggressively to reengage Middle East peacemaking.
Following this critical review of the past, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" goes on to list a number of important lessons which must be heeded by any future administration. Several of them, while viewed as obvious to many analysts of the conflict, have been ignored for too long by U.S. policy makers.
Here are three:
"Arab-Israeli peacemaking is in our national interest: September 11, Iraq, and increasing instability in the Middle East have made U.S. leadership in the peace process more, not less, important. The president needs to indicate that the peace process is a priority and ensure that the administration acts accordingly."
"U.S. policy must never be defined anywhere but in Washington. Consultations with the parties must take place and policy revisions based on these consultations are inevitable, but our policy must be seen as our own."
"The peace process has moved beyond incrementalism and must aim for endgame solutions. This not only requires U.S. leadership to help the parties make the necessary trade-offs on core issues, but also a commitment to an expanded diplomatic approach that involves key international and regional actors."
"Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" provides both a useful history and thoughtful analysis, with which one can find little disagreement. My concern, however, is that it comes too late. After decades of failed policy and deteriorating conditions on the ground, the Arab-Israeli arena is plagued by entrenched new realities and hardened attitudes that combine to make peace more difficult. With an Israeli wall snaking through the West Bank, settlements dominating the landscape, and Gaza and Jerusalem both engulfed and strangled by the occupation - how can the back of this intransigence and sense of entitlement be broken? And with the Palestinian Authority weakened and, in the eyes of many, discredited, a provocative Hamas in control of Gaza, and Palestinians desperate and angry - how to break the back of extremism and despair?
It may be possible. But not by conducting "business as usual." If "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" is to be followed, it must be followed by a very determined president willing to use pressure and politics not only to bring Israelis and Palestinians together, but also to work to transform U.S., Israeli and Palestinian attitudes and build a new consensus that recognizes the necessity and benefits of Middle East peace. It will not be easy. But it must be done now, or, in short order, it will be too late.
Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute.
We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.
end
Ray Hanania
http://www.radiochicagoland.com/
=========
Washington Watch:
"Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace" - Is Peace Possible?
By James ZogbyFebruary 25, 2008
This month the U.S. Institute for Peace released "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East," the report of a study group which examined U.S. peacemaking efforts over the past four decades. Headed by Daniel Kurtzer (former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Israel), the group met during 2006-2007 and interviewed over 100 officials and experts from seven countries and three international organizations.
The main body of the report is a concise and precise look at successes and failures, and strengths and weaknesses of the past three administrations' efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. It concludes by detailing ten lessons learned, and then outlining recommendations based on those lessons to guide the next administration.
The examination of Washington's peace making efforts during the past three administrations begins with a largely positive assessment of "Bush 41," crediting President George H.W. Bush for "having the clearest sense of strategy," which he pursued "in a highly disciplined, effective and committed manner." Bush and Secretary of State Baker are praised for understanding and taking advantage of the opportunities that flowed from the end of the Cold War and the end of the first Gulf War, and moving aggressively, with balanced pressure, to convene the Madrid peace conference. On the other hand, the major weakness of "Bush 41," pointed to in the report, was his "failure to build a strong coalition at home to support [his] strategy." It was the combination of this failure, and the distraction of his reelection effort in 1992, that caused the Bush Administration to lose focus on its peacemaking efforts.
In spite of this, the report notes that the Clinton Administration "inherited an ideal strategic environment for peacemaking." Noting that President Clinton more effectively built a domestic support base for his peacemaking efforts, he was, however, "less disciplined and less strategic than his predecessor." Specifically, the report noted that the Clinton team "failed to understand and deal with key asymmetries in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. While the U.S. paid attention to Israeli security requirements, less attention was devoted to Palestinian political requirements. The U.S. did not find a way to compensate for Palestinian political weakness. This was the first time in history a people under occupation was expected to negotiate its own way out of occupation while at the same time creating a viable, democratic and independent state." The report notes that President Clinton did not personally become directly involved in negotiations until late in his second term, and did not put forward his own peace plan until his last month in office. This was, of course, too late to make a difference.
It is the administration of George W. Bush's approach that receives the greatest criticism, the authors noting that "his approach to the conflict lacked both commitment and a sense of strategic purpose." This, they suggest, was due to the fact that too many of the president's advisors dismissed the importance of Middle East peace, placing greater emphasis on their "regime change" and democratization agendas.
When Bush did become involved, however, it was mostly on the rhetorical level, with little or no follow through. Plans were announced, and mediators were dispatched in succession, ignored and undercut, and then dropped. To some degree, this contributed to a widespread belief that the administration's efforts lacked seriousness.
The result of this mismanagement and/or neglect has negatively affected not only Israelis and Palestinians, but U.S. diplomacy in the broader region, and public attitudes toward the U.S. itself. This, the authors lament, makes it more imperative for the next administration to begin early and aggressively to reengage Middle East peacemaking.
Following this critical review of the past, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" goes on to list a number of important lessons which must be heeded by any future administration. Several of them, while viewed as obvious to many analysts of the conflict, have been ignored for too long by U.S. policy makers.
Here are three:
"Arab-Israeli peacemaking is in our national interest: September 11, Iraq, and increasing instability in the Middle East have made U.S. leadership in the peace process more, not less, important. The president needs to indicate that the peace process is a priority and ensure that the administration acts accordingly."
"U.S. policy must never be defined anywhere but in Washington. Consultations with the parties must take place and policy revisions based on these consultations are inevitable, but our policy must be seen as our own."
"The peace process has moved beyond incrementalism and must aim for endgame solutions. This not only requires U.S. leadership to help the parties make the necessary trade-offs on core issues, but also a commitment to an expanded diplomatic approach that involves key international and regional actors."
"Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" provides both a useful history and thoughtful analysis, with which one can find little disagreement. My concern, however, is that it comes too late. After decades of failed policy and deteriorating conditions on the ground, the Arab-Israeli arena is plagued by entrenched new realities and hardened attitudes that combine to make peace more difficult. With an Israeli wall snaking through the West Bank, settlements dominating the landscape, and Gaza and Jerusalem both engulfed and strangled by the occupation - how can the back of this intransigence and sense of entitlement be broken? And with the Palestinian Authority weakened and, in the eyes of many, discredited, a provocative Hamas in control of Gaza, and Palestinians desperate and angry - how to break the back of extremism and despair?
It may be possible. But not by conducting "business as usual." If "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" is to be followed, it must be followed by a very determined president willing to use pressure and politics not only to bring Israelis and Palestinians together, but also to work to transform U.S., Israeli and Palestinian attitudes and build a new consensus that recognizes the necessity and benefits of Middle East peace. It will not be easy. But it must be done now, or, in short order, it will be too late.
Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute.
We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.
end
Monday, February 25, 2008
Topics for Tuesday's show at WCEV 1450 AM February 26
Is Hillary Clinton hitting below the belt in her attacks against Barack Obama. Clinton's campaign, clearly upset by Obama's brochures attacking her failed healthcare policies during her husband's administration, and her husband's NAFTA policy, is hitting back. Her campaign allegedly sent a picture of Obama in an Somali "dress" (robes and headdress) that he wore during a tour of Kenya and Somali ... his grandfather is from Kenya near the Somali border and converted to Christianity and then later Islam. Obama went there as a U.S. Senator a few years back to help promote residents there taking HIV tests to promote the fight against AIDS.
But, in the wake of controversial Imam Louis Farrakhan, of the Nation of Islam, endorsing Obama in a three hour long speech (all Farrakhan knows how to do is give speeches and cause controversy), Clinton's photo of Obama is on the web site of conservative gossip hatemonger Matt Drudge.
Here's the link:
http://gawker.com/360385/obama+in+dress-photo-backfires-on-clinton
AND ... should Ralph Nader quit the presidential campaign. Nader jumped into the campaign -- his 5th race since 1992 ... here;s my column on the topic:
http://swnewsherald.com/online_content/2008/02/021508rh_nader.php
What's your thoughts on either topic?
Call in at 4:30 for the open line at 773-777-1450 and share your views.
Thanks
Ray Hanania
http://www.radiochicagoland.com/
But, in the wake of controversial Imam Louis Farrakhan, of the Nation of Islam, endorsing Obama in a three hour long speech (all Farrakhan knows how to do is give speeches and cause controversy), Clinton's photo of Obama is on the web site of conservative gossip hatemonger Matt Drudge.
Here's the link:
http://gawker.com/360385/obama+in+dress-photo-backfires-on-clinton
AND ... should Ralph Nader quit the presidential campaign. Nader jumped into the campaign -- his 5th race since 1992 ... here;s my column on the topic:
http://swnewsherald.com/online_content/2008/02/021508rh_nader.php
What's your thoughts on either topic?
Call in at 4:30 for the open line at 773-777-1450 and share your views.
Thanks
Ray Hanania
http://www.radiochicagoland.com/
Friday, February 22, 2008
Funn week at new radio show WCEV 1450 AM
Loads of laughs and buttons and technology ... but the first week of radio shows went well ... we had Bill Lipinski on Tuesday helping to analyze the fall of Hillary Clinton and rise of Barack Obama, and Heather Warthen, the editor of the Orland Park Prairie Newspaper talking about the Lane Bryant/Tinley Park killings ... and some listener calls to the new station at WCEV 1450 AM Radio; we had syndicated columnist Suzette Strandring join us to discuss her new book "The Art of Column Writing" and then veteran journalist Monroe Anderson analyzing the latest from the campaign trail with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The best line so far: Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ, but isn't that merely an unjust slander of the anti-Christ?
Check out the archived interviews online at http://www.radiochicagoland.com/, or download the podcasts for all of the interviews segments.
Next week, we feature former City Clerk Jim Laski Jr., discussing his new controversial book "My Fall from Grace" which exposes allegations of corruption against many big name politicians, but mainly Mayor Richard M. Daley whose administration is soaked in corruption charges.
Ray Hanania
The best line so far: Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ, but isn't that merely an unjust slander of the anti-Christ?
Check out the archived interviews online at http://www.radiochicagoland.com/, or download the podcasts for all of the interviews segments.
Next week, we feature former City Clerk Jim Laski Jr., discussing his new controversial book "My Fall from Grace" which exposes allegations of corruption against many big name politicians, but mainly Mayor Richard M. Daley whose administration is soaked in corruption charges.
Ray Hanania
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
People who hate moderation thrive in Northwest Suburbs
This is the response I received to my column in the Arlington Heights Daily Herald arguing for moderation and fairness and an end to the killing and punishing of innocent people. It only shows that there are extremists and haters on both sides:
Letter to the Editor
Arlington Heights Daily Herald
Feb. 19, 2008
=========== =======
Ray Hanania must think he is really clever with his column "Punishing the people in Gaza feeds extremism" (Feb. 4). He decries that Israel is collectively punishing the innocent majority of Gazans for the actions of a few Palestinian terrorists.
He seems to ignore that Hamas was popularly elected by the majority of Palestinians as their government, which now has total control over Gaza. They are sworn to Israel's total destruction. They are the ones firing rockets daily into Israel or supporting the groups that also are involved. And they claimed credit for Monday's suicide bombing in Dimona as a "heroic act". This is not individual militia men acting independently as Hanania claims.
Where under international law is a country obligated to provide services to and trade with an enemy nation? We have had a trade embargo against Cuba for nearly 50 years. I don't seem to recall Castro ever firing rockets at Key Largo or Miami. We have sanctions against North Korea where people are actually starving to death. And we have sanctions against Iran, which ironically have caused gasoline shortages for its 75 million people. Tehran has rolling blackouts every day now leaving people without heat and electricity. Where is Hanania's outrage over all this?
The wall that Hamas blew up is along the border with Egypt, not Israel as Hanania indicates. Remember, Gaza belonged to Egypt before 1967. They could supply Gaza with all its fuel and electricity. But Egyptian President Mubarek does not want that responsibility so that it remains Israel's "problem".
In fact, Israel directly supplies nearly 70 percent of Gaza's electricity from a power plant in Ashkelon. What other country in the world would be expected to supply electricity to a government which aims rockets at the very same power plant and its employees supplying this electricity?
Hanania calls for peace between two states based on compromise, a very nice concept. Israel has openly accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and about 98 percent of the West Bank, even though it would mean no Jews would be allowed to live there.
The Palestinian National Covenant calls for Palestine to be an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. That would mean that Hanania's fellow Palestinian Christians would be second class citizens with less rights than Arabs have as Israeli citizens. He never writes about that situation.
Since Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction and will never negotiate peace with her, the only room for compromise is how fast the Jews are willing to flee Israel. The prospects aren't much better with Mahmoud Abbas' so-called "moderate Fatah." It was his own security forces which were responsible for murdering three Israelis last month. When George Habash, the arch-terrorist leader, died Jan. 26, Abbas declared three days of national mourning. And in November, during the time of Bush's Mideast Summit, Abbas along with all the other top Fatah leaders, declared they would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Steven Peck, Riverwoods
=========== ===================
RAY HANANIA COMMENTS: The Wall was built by Israel, and access in and out of Gaza has been controlled under agreement with and by Israel. It is amazing how extremist supporters of Israel never acknowledge the horrible deeds of their own country. It's always blame someone else. I don't agree. I think there is a growing clarion of voices among Israelis and Palestinians who seek peace and moderation and who are willing to acknowledge their own faults.
Letter to the Editor
Arlington Heights Daily Herald
Feb. 19, 2008
=========== =======
Ray Hanania must think he is really clever with his column "Punishing the people in Gaza feeds extremism" (Feb. 4). He decries that Israel is collectively punishing the innocent majority of Gazans for the actions of a few Palestinian terrorists.
He seems to ignore that Hamas was popularly elected by the majority of Palestinians as their government, which now has total control over Gaza. They are sworn to Israel's total destruction. They are the ones firing rockets daily into Israel or supporting the groups that also are involved. And they claimed credit for Monday's suicide bombing in Dimona as a "heroic act". This is not individual militia men acting independently as Hanania claims.
Where under international law is a country obligated to provide services to and trade with an enemy nation? We have had a trade embargo against Cuba for nearly 50 years. I don't seem to recall Castro ever firing rockets at Key Largo or Miami. We have sanctions against North Korea where people are actually starving to death. And we have sanctions against Iran, which ironically have caused gasoline shortages for its 75 million people. Tehran has rolling blackouts every day now leaving people without heat and electricity. Where is Hanania's outrage over all this?
The wall that Hamas blew up is along the border with Egypt, not Israel as Hanania indicates. Remember, Gaza belonged to Egypt before 1967. They could supply Gaza with all its fuel and electricity. But Egyptian President Mubarek does not want that responsibility so that it remains Israel's "problem".
In fact, Israel directly supplies nearly 70 percent of Gaza's electricity from a power plant in Ashkelon. What other country in the world would be expected to supply electricity to a government which aims rockets at the very same power plant and its employees supplying this electricity?
Hanania calls for peace between two states based on compromise, a very nice concept. Israel has openly accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and about 98 percent of the West Bank, even though it would mean no Jews would be allowed to live there.
The Palestinian National Covenant calls for Palestine to be an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. That would mean that Hanania's fellow Palestinian Christians would be second class citizens with less rights than Arabs have as Israeli citizens. He never writes about that situation.
Since Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction and will never negotiate peace with her, the only room for compromise is how fast the Jews are willing to flee Israel. The prospects aren't much better with Mahmoud Abbas' so-called "moderate Fatah." It was his own security forces which were responsible for murdering three Israelis last month. When George Habash, the arch-terrorist leader, died Jan. 26, Abbas declared three days of national mourning. And in November, during the time of Bush's Mideast Summit, Abbas along with all the other top Fatah leaders, declared they would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Steven Peck, Riverwoods
=========== ===================
RAY HANANIA COMMENTS: The Wall was built by Israel, and access in and out of Gaza has been controlled under agreement with and by Israel. It is amazing how extremist supporters of Israel never acknowledge the horrible deeds of their own country. It's always blame someone else. I don't agree. I think there is a growing clarion of voices among Israelis and Palestinians who seek peace and moderation and who are willing to acknowledge their own faults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to Ray's
Join Ray Hanania on the LinkedIN network today
Follow Ray Hanania's Suburban Chicago Blog
