A Controversial and/or Informative Site

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

A BOOK REVIEW
"This superbly researched and well-written work serves as a vital reminder of the importance of leadership during this great national ordeal."
-- Booklist




The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope

(Hardcover)by Jonathan Alter
BuzzFlash.com's Review (excerpt)
The quintessential counterpoint to the age of Bush fear, of course, was the golden age of FDR who told America in his first Inaugural Address: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." What a contrast to the Bushevik slogan: "Be afraid, always afraid, so we can seize unlimited power."

In the "Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope," Jonathan Alter has penned a 400-page well-researched book that describes how a man crippled by polio restored optimism to a nation stricken by the economic failures of Republican rule. In short, Roosevelt galvanized Americans to believe that they could surmount the hardships of the Great Depression through a unified national resolve.

For FDR, we were all in this together. For Bush, we are all in this separately.

Alter emphasizes that Roosevelt created an aura of hope that often superseded his slow start in actually accomplishing concrete goals in the beginning of his first administration. His first order of business was repairing a crisis of spirit among the American people. And, to that extent, he succeeded magnificently.

Read the Complete Review >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/220

Other Reviews of "The Defining Moment"
"Alter’s account has a refreshing buoyancy, not unlike its protagonist. . . . Succeeds in bringing a remarkable man back to life."
-- The New York Times Book Review

"If you read THE DEFINING MOMENT, you’ll have to agree that FDR may have been the most interesting president ever."
-- St. Louis Post-Dispatch

"Alter is true scholar of politics. . . . Here is how politics is done, he seems to be saying. Did you forget?"
-- The New York Sun

"A brilliant account. . . . Alter’s careful prose is matched with relentless research."
-- The Sunday Oklahoman

Learn More >>> JUST CLICK ON FOLLOWING LINK >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it: Woodrow Wilson

~

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same: Marie Beyle

~

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.": George Orwell

~

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction: Blaise Pascal

~~~
Read this newsletter online
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[Saundra Hummer]

.......:clown: :rolleyes: :clown:....... Bush: Mister majestic
Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com

05.19.06 - Well, the good news is the President has finally come up with an immigration policy. The bad news is nobody can figure out what it is yet, but hey, give the man his props; he gave it a shot. He delivered his long awaited speech on immigration, and uncharacteristically revealed an actual plan. A magnanimous five-part plan, but not one that included amnesty. This was an amnesty-free plan. A plan that had something to do with increasing border guards and utilizing the national guard in an unnamed-amorphous manner, and there was a provision about going home -- not President Bush, unfortunately -- but there was nothing, I repeat, nothing, in there about amnesty, even the thing he called "earned citizenship." A concept that is totally different than amnesty. Somehow. No matter what those confused Republicans are saying.

This is a big deal, because Bush's base does not like the idea of letting illegal aliens stay without suffering some sort of penalty. A fine is fine, but there is a large portion of the right that wants to see some sort of Biblical retribution. Raised welts. A big long line of Mexicans bent over with their pants down by their ankles and Senator Doctor Reverend Indian Chief Bill Frist holding up a big wooden paddle to the cameras -- while he's long-distance diagnosing rutabagas in the Palm Springs Safeway produce section. There's an example of God's righteous justice for you. "Why do you think they call them illegal aliens?" Unhhhh, because "poor people seduced to cross a desert border by large corporations whose goal is to underpay an entire industry" takes too long to say?

Although doubts remain concerning the plan's workability, most members of Congress are interested in only one very important answer to this internationally vexing question: how does this affect their re- election campaigns? The way you can tell Bush's idea is not that bad is both sides of the aisle are pissed off at him -- which, if you remember, Clinton used to do all the time. Especially both sides of Hillary. That's what struck me: how grey it was. No good guys. No bad guys. Strange territory for George, whose world is normally cut and dried like a third grade Sunday School Primer. "With us or against us." "Good versus evil." "Sesame egg twist versus foccacia bread." But as most of us who graduated third grade figured out, life ain't like that.

Then the President, dressed as Charles Bronson on a dusty trip to the border, called America "a lawful society, and a welcoming society," but alas, not an amnesty granting society. In a stroke of existential irony, he listed speaking English as one of the qualifications for "earned citizenship," his un-amnestylike proposal and pretty much endorsed the moderate bill being debated in the Senate right now, instead of the extreme House bill. Which calls for illegals to be ear-tagged and used in rodeos as replacements for roping calves. A proposal the President disagrees with, mostly because that sort of steady employment could be seen as a form of amnesty.

Which he’s against.
. . . . . . .
Writer, comic, actor, radio talk show host, manual transmission driver, Will Durst is very much in favor of amnesty. For pretty much everything.

Catch Durst in stand up mode Friday, May 19th as part of Laughing Liberally at the Town Hall in New York City and Saturday, May 20th at COPIA in Napa.

And in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7- 10am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20837
. . .

[Coolguy]

May 19 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic activist groups that mounted an aggressive campaign against President George W. Bush in the 2004
election have a new target: Democrats who support his policies.

A loose network of organizations, ranging from women's groups to Internet bloggers, is pressuring incumbents such as Senator Joseph
Lieberman of Connecticut and Representatives Jane Harman of California and Melissa Bean of Illinois, in some cases by backing insurgent candidates in primary elections.



The groups charge that these and other Democrats have been too
supportive of Bush on issues like Iraq and trade, and say they're
trying to energize voters disillusioned with a party that has failed
to draw clear distinctions with Republicans.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~FACTCHECK.ORG
ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECKhttp://www.FactCheck.org

Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead"
The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs ads saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker." A professor objects, saying CEI deliberately misrepresents his research.

May 26, 2006

Summary
The business-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released two ads last week to "counter global warming alarmism."

One of the ads says research shows "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. . . Why are they trying to scare us?" Actually, scientists say increased snowfall in Antarctica's interior is evidence that global warming is taking place. Scientists also say that the ice sheet is melting at the ocean's edge and a recent report says it is shrinking overall.

The ads drew a protest from a University of Missouri professor who says they are "a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." He said one of them misuses a study he published in Science magazine last year on the Antarctic ice sheet. An editor of Science also said the ads misrepresent the findings of that study as well as a second study on Greenland's glaciers.

The second CEI ad notes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "essential to life," and says, "they call it pollution. We call it life." That ad fails to mention that too much CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise or that there is more of it in the atmosphere than any time during the last 420,000 years.

CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."



Analysis
CEI released two ads last week as part of a $50,000 ad buy in 14 cities scheduled to take place from May 18th to May 28th.

CEI Ad: "Glaciers"

Announcer: You've seen those headlines about Global Warming. The glaciers are melting. We’re doomed! That's what several studies supposedly found.
(The Cover of Science Magazine is shown opening up)
Announcer: But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite: Greenland ’s glaciers are growing, not melting; The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let’s force people to cut back, they say.

But we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke. It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.

Misrepresenting Conclusions

The CEI ad "Glacier" quotes two studies in Science magazine, one as saying " Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting" and the other as saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." That drew quick objection from an editor of Science and from the author of the Antarctica study.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor at Science, complained in a May 19 news release that CEI was misrepresenting both the studies and also the general state of scientific knowledge:

Hanson: The text of the CEI ad misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers and our current state of knowledge by selective referencing.

The lead author of the Antarctica study, University of Missouri professor Curt Davis, said in the same release that CEI was twisting his findings deliberately to mislead the public:

Davis: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public.

For one thing, the release said, Davis' study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet. More importantly, it said that growth of the interior ice sheet is just what scientists had predicted would happen as a consequence of global climate warming, bringing about more snowfall in previously arid regions of the continent.

Davis's study indicated the increased ice accumulation in the interior might be offsetting the loss of ice at the coastal regions, or might not. It said that whether the entire ice sheet is shrinking "will depend on the balance between mass changes on the interior and those in coastal areas."

What CEI Says

CEI posted a rejoinder to this criticism on their website. In it, they say:

CEI: Professor Davis admits that he doesn't know whether the coastal losses offset or outweigh the gains in the interior. This is precisely our point - the public needs to hear both sides of the story not just the coastal loss, if they are to judge whether we face an imminent catastrophe justifying policies that would drastically affect our way of life.

Actually, a more recent study (also published in Science magazine) says satellite measurements show that the ice sheet as a whole is in fact shrinking "significantly," and that most of the loss is taking place in the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.

That study, by Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado and John Wahr of the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used satellite measures of gravity to estimate the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. "We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly," the study said. It estimated the rate of loss at between 80 and 152 cubic kilometers of ice per year.

Greenland, too

As for Greenland, the CEI ad says its glaciers "are growing, not melting." That's a misrepresentation of a study by five scientists from Norway, Russia and the US published by Science magazine in November 2005. That study did report that the ice sheet in the interior of Greenland had grown thicker over the 11 years ending in 2003. But it reached no conclusion about whether "Greenland's glaciers" were growing or melting overall. The study said it is conceivable that melting at the coast more than offset the growth in the interior, and that the "the 11-year-long data set developed here remains too brief to establish long-term trends." It called for more measurement by newer, better satellite sensors to calculate what is going on with Greenland's glaciers overall.

A more recent study in Science, published in February, reports that Greenland's glaciers accelerated their movement to the sea between 1996 and 2000. It concluded, "As more glaciers accelerate farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue to increase. "



CO2: Too Much of a Good thing

A second ad, "Energy," downplays the adverse effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by identifying it as a natural biological occurrence.



CEI Ad: "Energy"

Announcer: There’s something in these pictures you can’t see. It’s essential to life. We breathe it out.Plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth, and the fuels we find in it. It’s called carbon dioxide---CO2. The fuels that produce C02 have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love. Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? Carbon dioxide.

They call it pollution. We call it life.

The ad correctly asserts, "we breathe it out, plants breathe it in." As many of us learned in high school biology classes, humans and animals breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, and plants take in the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
The ad goes on to say, "they call it pollution, we call it life." It is true that some politicians and environmental groups want to label CO2 as a "pollutant." Several environmental groups, states and municipalities are currently suing the EPA to do so.

But they are doing so for regulatory purposes so that CO2 emissions can be brought under the Clean Air Act. Nobody is claiming that they are as damaging to health as nitrous forms of pollutants such as smog and smoke. But in June 2005, the science academies of 11 leading industrial nations (including the National Academy of Sciences from the US) released a statement listing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and saying :

Joint Statement: Carbon Dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today - higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise .

Heeding his own advice

Even though CEI minimizes the impact of carbon dioxide, they still take Al Gore to task for his carbon footprint as a result of his travel surrounding his "Inconvenient Truth" presentation and documentary.

They posted a video with their TV ads as a "special web only bonus." It includes quotes from Gore's film about taking personal accountability for global warming with such actions as telecommuting, and limiting air travel. The video then shows Gore's lengthy air travel schedule and displays a rolling meter of carbon dioxide output and challenging Gore to start "walking the walk."

He says he is. According to NativeEnergy, Paramount Classics and Participant Productions plan to announce that they offset 100% of the global warming impact from production activities. In addition, NativeEnergy is offsetting all CO2 from Mr. Gore’s travel to discuss and promote the film and book. This is achieved by calculating how much CO2 your activities produce and purchasing the corresponding amount of credits to generate renewable energy.

Who funds CEI

CEI is supported, in part, by several major corporations and corporate foundations, including oil companies, according to the liberal organization SourceWatch. In 2004 CEI declared revenues of $2,919,537 with the IRS, according to their Form 990. Just over 9 per cent of that total, $270,000, came from donations from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's 2004 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments Report. Exxon said two-thirds of their donation was earmarked for "Global Climate Change and Global Climate Change Outreach."

by Justin Bank


Sources

Davis, Curt H.; Yonghang, Li; McConnell, Joseph R.; Frey, Markus M.; Hanna, Edward, "Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise."

Eilperin, Juliet, "Antarctic Ice Sheet is Melting," Washington Post . 3 March 2005.

Johannessen, Ola M.; Khvorostovsky, Kirill; Miles, Martin W.; Bobylev, Leonid P., "Recent Ice Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland," Science . 11 Nov 2005.

Rignot, Eric and Kanagaratnam, "Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet," Science. 17 Feb 2006.

Vedantam, Shankar, "Glacier Melt Could Signal Faster Rise in Ocean Level," Washington Post. 17 Feb 2006.

Velicogna, Isabella and Wahr, John, "Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica," Science. 24 March 2006.

Vergano, Dan, "Greenland Glacier Runoff Doubles over Past Decade," USA Today . 17 Feb 2006.

Press Release, "MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming," University of Missouri. 19 May 2006.

Press Release, "CEI Launches Ad Campaign to Counter Global Warming Alarmism," CEI, 17 May 2005.

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005.
...
This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

http://www.FastCheck.org

Forward to a Friend

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." George W. Bush UN Speech Sept 2004

~

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic: Joe Stalin, comment to Churchill at Potsdam, 1945

~

The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it: Louis Simpson

~~~

Read this newsletter online http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
TWO VIDEO'S TO VIEW.
+
AN ARTICLE OF INTEREST

Iraq: The Hidden War

Images of Iraq dominate our TV news bulletins every night but in this film, Channel4 news presenter Jon Snow, questions whether these reports are sugar-coating the bloody reality of war under the US-led occupation

A Must Watch Video

Video Iraq: The Hidden Story shows the footage used by TV news broadcasts, and compares it with the devastatingly powerful uncensored footage of the aftermath of the carnage that is becoming a part of the fabric of life in Iraq.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13420.htm

~~~

Is the Bush Regime a Sponsor of State Terrorism?

The Evil Within

By Paul Craig Roberts

Is the Bush regime a sponsor of state terrorism? A powerful case can be made that it is. In the past three years the Bush Regime has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Afghan ones.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13418.htm
~~~
Iraq: The Women's StoryMust Watch Video
The invasion of Iraq heralded promises of freedom from tyranny and equal rights for the women of Iraq. But three years on, the reality of everyday life for women inside Iraq is a different story.

Click here to view. Real media:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13419.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago: Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973

~

War would end if the dead could return: Stanley Baldwin

~


Mark Twain: The War Prayer

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire;

Read it here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2231.htm
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

“If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?” : Joan Baez quotes

~

Men love their ideas more than their lives. And the more preposterous the idea, the more eager they are to die for it. And to kill for it.: Edward Abbey -

~

"COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so—all to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'" : Chaz Bufe

~~~
Read this newsletter online

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[Saundra Hummer]

*

GOP outsources 'war on terror' to wage a war on 'foreigners' Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

05.23.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Last week, Bush visited Yuma, Ariz., to tour a portion of the U.S.-Mexico Border by Border Patrol buggy. Maybe Jorge was doing a little measuring for the $3.2-million-a-mile fence the Senate recently approved, which I guarantee will be really helpful.

Are they insane? As Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano observes, "Show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder."

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate have constructively declared English the national language. That'll fix everything. Every foreigner at our borders will stop and say: "Gosh, ma foi! English is the national language here. Good thing to know. I'll begin speaking it immediately."

Yes sir, you want a solution, call a Republican.

Of course, I am enchanted to discover that the entire project will be turned over to Raytheon, General Dynamics and other military contractors -- think Halliburton with noncompetitive bids, anyone? Because this outsourcing stuff is just working like a charm. Another Republican solution.

Naturally, in Texas, National Laboratory for Bad Government, we do it all first and worst. We started with this dandy plan to outsource applications and enrollment for social service programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. In theory, we were to save millions -- though I never could understand it myself. You see, Texas has one of the cheapest state governments on the continent, but when we hire outside contractors, they expect to make a profit. Add profit, add cost. Oh well.

So the state hired this firm based in Bermuda on an $899 million five-year contract. So far, the health and human services commissioner has been forced to ask 1,000 state employees who were scheduled to be laid off by the end of the year not to leave after all -- and to offer each of them a $1,800 bonus to stay. Oops.

Among other errors, the private consortium mistakenly dropped 6,000 children from the children's health insurance program. The state comptroller (who is running for governor against the incumbent, Goodhair Perry) says the program is "a perfect storm of wasted dollars, reduced access to services and profiteering at the expense of Texas taxpayers."

With a record like that, of course, Republicans want more outsourcing. Ted Koppel suggests in The New York Times that we outsource war: "Blackwater and other leading security companies are seriously proposing to officials at very high levels of the government that their private forces could relieve a number of the burdens now being shouldered (or not) by American troops. ... The Pentagon ... is nonetheless struggling to come to terms with what it now calls 'the long war.' There is every expectation that the fight against global terrorism and the most extreme forms of Islamic fundamentalism will last for many years. This is a war that will not necessarily require aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, fighter jets or heavily armored tanks. It will certainly not enable the United States to exploit its advantages in nuclear weapons. It is a war, indeed, that favors the highly mobile and adaptive fighting skills of the former Special Forces soldiers and other ex-commandos ..."

"Will"? Hell! Did and does. This is a war that is being fought with the wrong tools -- and, in Iraq, at the wrong time, in the wrong place and against the wrong enemy.

It never did call for tanks, jets or carriers -- just a combination of good detectives and good intelligence. In other words, smart, clever people with language skills. All of which we have fully available to us because of ... immigration. Lebanese, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis and Indonesians have all become Americans, and in so many cases we got the bravest of the brave -- those who fought Saddam, the Ayatollah and Assad, Lebanese who saw their country torn apart by religious factions. These are Americans who know the culture and language of the Middle East and other Islamic countries, and who care deeply about how it all comes out.

By all means, reform immigration with this deep obeisance to the Republican right-wing nut faction and their open contempt for "foreigners." But do not pretend for one minute that it is not a craven political bow to racism (yes, racism -- I am actually calling them racists, although they pretend it hurts their feelings. Try reading their websites and see for yourself), and to nativism, to xenophobia and to Know-Nothingism. Just don't forget what you are throwing away in the process. (c) 2006 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20847

[Saundra Hummer]

:gavel: :gavel: :yeahthat: :gavel: :gavel:

The bright side of global warming Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com 06.02.06 - Oh, you're going to love this. It's the latest tripe being ground out of the ever-busy Bush Administration sausage factory of spin. Now that the evidence about global warming is pretty much nailed down, meaning every scientist on the face of the planet agrees that not only are we neck deep in the middle of it, the bottom of our earlobes are starting to tickle; turns out, no worries. It's really good for us. Yes. "Glaciers are actually growing." Well, at least one is. In spots. Some scientists say this is also due to global warming, but hey, why work yourself into a lather? You can't deny shipping will benefit due to the opening of a Northwest Passage. It's the fast-tracking of Armageddon. So what if other parts of the world are destined to suffer eternal droughts, or total submersion, or disappearing fauna and flora and coastline? That's just what you call your collateral damage. Can't have an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Just think of the future as a 12-ton boulder on a henhouse.

According to Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," we've got a window of about 10 years before we hit the point of no return, and let's face it: Americans are the lead dog in this Iditarod to hell. And we've got less chance of altering our gas-guzzling ways in time as a pack of Chihuahuas have of pulling a sled carrying the 101st Airborne. Wouldn't you say its just about time we weenie liberals accept the fate that God and Exxon-Mobil have mapped out for us and search for the silver lining in living on a planet speedily replicating the atmosphere of Mercury? I would. It's the point of this column. So let us take a couple of moments to band together, spray ourselves down with SPF 450 and look at the upside of overheating.

THE BRIGHTSIDE OF GLOBAL WARMING

• Casual Friday becomes clothing optional Friday.

• Not nearly as many frog species to catalogue.

• MTV's Jose Cuervo Spring Break Brought to You Live From the World Famous Beaches of Nova Scotia.

• History Channel specials on picnics.

• Dive the ruins of Bangladesh.

• Extreme Siberian Summers. In December.

• Less glaciers, more salt flats.

• Wyoming coconuts.

• Deteriorating ozone makes air travel too dangerous for politicians to make trips back to home districts.

• Louis Vuitton full body containment suits.

• A flourishing alligator sightseeing industry on Lake Michigan.

• Dune buggies everywhere, dude.

• Monkey wranglers; a North American growth industry.

• A perfect all-around tan in less than 30 seconds.

• Aged Duluth Coffee beans.

• Worried about unprovoked polar bear attacks? Don't be. Ever again.

• Oceanfront property in Missouri.

• Antarctic pinot noir.

• Real black panthers in Oakland.

• Surfing + Sweden = nirvana.

• So many hurricanes, your name guaranteed to cycle through the list much more often.

• Backyard dwarf banana trees.

• No need to retire to Arizona; Arizona will come to you.

:shrug:
Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, beer drinker, Will Durst is looking forward to that whole clothing optional Friday deal.


(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20899

[Saundra Hummer]

*
The takeover is complete
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

05.31.06 - HOUSTON, Texas -- A Houston jury convicted both Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, despite the fact that Kenny Boy packed his Bible to the courtroom every day.
Since it is a long and noble Texas tradition for the accused to fight all allegations by finding Jesus, this indicates a major degree of guilt. (While on trial for murder, T. Cullen Davis, the Fort Worth millionaire, not only found Jesus but also threw a big party to celebrate at the mansion, with piles of shrimp and BBQ and a soundtrack that announced over and over throughout the grounds that night, "The son of Stinky Davis has found the son of God.")

Meanwhile, Houston reacted as though the Rockets had won the NBA championship.

Many a thoughtful analyst has given us to understand that Lay and Skilling are guilty of arrogance and hubris. Actually, they were convicted of fraud -- massive, overwhelming and monstrous fraud. They also stole money and looted pension funds. They rigged energy markets and almost drove California (seventh-largest economy in the world) into bankruptcy.

And all along the way, this monstrous fraud was connected to government. Enron bought the politicians who bent the rules that let them steal, con and gyp. Lay and Skilling talked state after state into following the California model and deregulating electricity. Happy summer, everyone.

And then, of course, there was the thumbing-the-nose thievery, the offshore partnerships tricked out with the clever names so insiders would know how slick they were.

As the late Rep. Wright Patman Sr. observed: "Many of our wealthiest and most powerful citizens are very greedy. This fact has many times been demonstrated."

The interesting thing about Lay and Skilling is they weren't trying to evade the rules, they were rigging the rules in their favor. The fix was in -- much of it law passed by former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, whose wife, Wendy, served on the board of Enron.

Where does that sense of entitlement come from? What makes a Ken Lay think he can call the governor of Texas and ask him to soften up Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania on electricity deregulation? Not that being governor of Texas has ever been an office of much majesty, but a corporate robber wouldn't think of doing that if it were Brian Schweitzer of Montana or Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

The extent to which not just state legislatures but the Congress of the United States are now run by large corporate special interests is beyond mere recognition as fact. The takeover is complete. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay put in place a system in which it's not a question of letting the head of the camel into the tent -- the camels run the place.

It has all happened quite quickly -- in less than 20 years. Laws were changed and regulations repealed until an Enron can set sail without responsibility, supervision or accountability. The business pages are fond of trumpeting the merits of "transparency" and "accountability," but you will notice whenever there is a chance to roll back any of New Deal regs, the corporations go for broke trying to get rid of them entirely.

I'm not attempting to make this a partisan deal -- only 73 percent of Enron's political donations went to Republicans. But I'll be damned if Enron's No. 1 show pony politician, George W. Bush, should be allowed to walk away from this. Ken Lay gave $139,500 to Bush over the years. He chipped in $100,000 to the Bush Cheney Inaugural Fund in 2000 and $10K to the Bush-Cheney Recount Fund.

Plus, Enron's PAC gave Bush $113,800 for his '94 and '98 political races and another $312,500 from its executives. Bush got 14 free rides on Enron's corporate jets during the 2000 campaign, including at least two during the recount. Until January 2004, Enron was Bush's top contributor.

And what did it get for its money? Ken Lay was on Bush's short list to be energy secretary. He not only almost certainly served on Cheney's energy task force, there is every indication that the task force's energy plan, the one we have been on for five years, is in fact the Enron plan. Lay used Bush as an errand boy, calling the governor of Texas and having him phone Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to vouch for what swell energy deregulation bills Enron was sponsoring in states all over the country.

It seems to me we all understand this is a systemic problem.

We need to reform the political system, or we'll lose the democracy. I don't think it's that hard. It doesn't take rocket science. We've done it before successfully at the presidential level and tried it several places at the state level. Public campaign financing isn't perfect and can doubtlessly be improved upon as we go. Let us begin.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20887

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Lurching into the ludicrous
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

06.01.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- So, Haditha becomes another of the names at which we wince, along with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and My Lai. Tell you what: Let's not use the "stress of combat" excuse this time. According to neighbors, the girls in the family of Younis Khafif -- the one who kept pleading in English: "I am a friend. I am good" -- were 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1. What are they going to say? "Under stress of combat, we thought the baby was 2"?

"We have a Haditha every day," said Muhanned Jasim, an Iraqi merchant. "Were (those killed in Haditha) the first Iraqis to be killed for no reason?" asked Ghasan Jayih, a pharmacist. Well no, but we Americans don't count collateral damage unless we're forced to. We prefer to ignore collateral damage, especially if they're under 5.

Someone else with a greater taste for the ironies of technology will have to explain why it's funny that this "Haditha" was uncovered in part by a solider taking photos with his cell phone. Good work by Time magazine and Col. Gregory Watt. Apologies are owed by any on the right to Rep. John Murtha, who warned of Haditha early, though none of us is holding a breath. The attacks on Murtha's patriotism were despicable. When will that tactic wear out?

Meanwhile, back at the full-force fun festival known as Washington, here's a moment to cherish.

Two weeks ago, Amir Taheri had an op-ed article in the Canadian National Post claiming the Iranians have a law requiring Jews to wear yellow badges. It turned out to be a complete fabrication and has been the subject of much contempt among bloggers. So Tuesday, Taheri was invited to the White House along with other "experts" to give the president their "honest opinions." With advice like that, our war in Iran will be a slam dunk.

Speaking of slam dunks, Bud Trillin of the Nation is on a tear about Bush's picks for the Medal of Freedom. First, he gave it to old "Slam Dunk" George Tenet himself, after pushing him out as head of the CIA. Then, Paul Bremer got the medal. Remember him? Guy who screwed up Iraq beyond recall in the first year.

We're lurching into the ludicrous. So we're thinking, who else belongs on this distinguished roster? "Heckuva job Brownie" Brown, of course. The guy in charge of implementing the Social Security drug plan. Rumsfeld! By golly, there's a man who never made a mistake.

I think that lets out Tony Blair, who joined Bush in a mistake-admitting-athon last week. (The Prez is sorry he talked "too tough" to the terrorists.) Neither of them thought to name "the war in Iraq," for example, as a mistake. But, as The Economist rather unkindly put it, their meeting was "The Axis of Feeble."

Ever hopeful that some good might yet be pulled from the rubble, the appointment of Henry Paulson as treasury secretary raises hope among the never-say-die crowd. He's good on global warming -- how's that for a change? But the real irony is that the administration had to bring in someone who can "soothe Wall Street," which is said to be "nervous." This whole administration has been run to favor, and grant tax breaks to, "Wall Street." How dare the ungrateful louses be "nervous"?

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20892

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?: Eleanor Roosevelt:

~

They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason: Ernest Hemmingway

~

n such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners: Albert Camus:

~
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service: Albert Einstein

~~~Read this article on line by clicking on the following address

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[Saundra Hummer]

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :clown: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:


Gay-marriage amendment nothing more than political ploy
Cynthia Tucker - Universal Press Syndicate

06.01.06 - In 1964, just one congressman from the Deep South -- Charles Weltner -- voted for the Civil Rights Act. For all practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights -- he also supported the Voting Rights Act -- cost him his congressional career. He quit the race for re-election in 1966 rather than sign an act of loyalty to the segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But some analysts believe he would have lost anyway.

Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And the typical politician is willing to lose anything -- honor, integrity, dignity -- but an election.

That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in tight races.

It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to add amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states, including Georgia. The result was to lure religious conservatives to the polls in large numbers, probably giving President Bush the boost he needed in the battleground state of Ohio.

This year, conservative Republicans -- struggling against voter discontent over Iraq, health care and high gas prices, among other things -- are desperate to bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season -- they thundered against gay marriage as a threat to every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches -- Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now -- when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.

Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge issue. Oh, first lady Laura Bush has pointed out the unfairness of a constitutional amendment. So has Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, who lives openly with her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has recently published her memoirs. Earlier this month, Cheney told CNN that "writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."

But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against the amendment so pointedly on the campaign trail. While he has said in the past that he opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of his staunch support for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his part, has spent his remaining pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on immigration. He may not fight for an amendment banning gay marriage, but he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.

In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by the state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76 percent of Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior Court judge recently struck down the amendment on technical grounds. After the ruling, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced plans for a special session of the legislature to rewrite the ban and place it before voters again in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox, rushed to support the move.

Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing, since she pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary." Georgia law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many analysts have pointed out that Cox is desperate to draw black voters away from Taylor in the Democratic primary for governor; black Georgians, like their white neighbors, gave their unabashed support to enshrining bigotry in the state Constitution.

Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices of voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human inclination -- doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.

There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I give up my principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate." His courage is as rare now as it was then.

(c) 2006, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20894

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~


Bolton: ‘This is Put Up or Shut Up Time For Iran,’

Unilateral Military Action Is ‘On The Table’

06/02/06 - Runtime 1 minute 4 seconds

CLICK PLAY TO VIEW

Download Windows Media File
You may need to download Windows Media Player 10 to view this video. Its FREE
Transcript:
BOLTON: And I think when the President says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that is that it’s unacceptable. So it’s important…

CAVUTO But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you’re going to do something about it…

BOLTON:That no option is taken off the table. And Secretary…

CAVUTO: Military as well?

BOLTON: Exactly. Secretary Rice…

CAVUTO: Unilateral military action?

BOLTON:Secretary Rice made that point again today. But that’s why I think…

CAVUTO:That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?

BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.

Go on line to view Video at:

http:informationclearinghouse.info

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

When did Bush know?
~~~
THE QUESTION IS: WHEN DID CHENEY KNOW?
SRH
*****
Discrepancy seen as administration says he didn't learn of massacre probe for nearly a month

BY
CRAIG GORDON
Newsday Washington Bureau
June 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The White House said yesterday it took nearly a month for President George W. Bush to learn the military was investigating whether Marines gunned down civilians in Haditha - an incident Iraq's leader called "a horrible crime" as he launched his own probe.

That explanation appeared at odds with a White House statement earlier this week that Bush was told of the inquiry "soon after" it was launched in February. Bush never discussed Haditha in public until he was asked about it by reporters Wednesday.

Yet what happened there last November now looms as a serious threat to Bush's hopes of reviving public support for the war at home, as well as being a growing impediment to smooth relations with the newly formed Iraqi government.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, U.S. commanders announced that all 132,000 American troops and other coalition forces would receive a special course on proper battlefield conduct - a 30-day program to reinforce "the values that separate us from our enemies," said Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq.

But Iraq's new prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, stepped up his criticism of U.S. forces yesterday as he announced an investigation into the Haditha killings, along with other incidents involving U.S. troops.

The Iraqi government also demanded that U.S. forces apologize for the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha. Defense and congressional sources say the current investigation will show they were murdered by a handful of Marines in retaliation for the roadside-bombing death of a fellow Marine, and that the incident was covered up by mid-level officers.

"This is a phenomenon that has become common among many of the multinational forces," al-Maliki said. "No respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. It's unacceptable."

Al-Maliki also is calling for new limits on coalition forces who are detaining Iraqis or carrying out raids in Iraqi neighborhoods - a move that could restrict the activities of U.S. troops in battling a deadly insurgency that seems to be gaining strength in Ramadi, Basra and elsewhere.

Such a move could become a major sticking point with the United States, whose forces now operate in Iraq without any formal restrictions by the government. An earlier order by the Coalition Provisional Authority also said U.S. forces aren't bound by Iraqi legal processes - another stipulation the United States would appear unlikely to give up without resistance.

Despite good relations so far with the United States, al-Maliki hasn't shied away from giving voice to the growing frustration among everyday Iraqis about the continuing U.S. presence there, and what many see as a heavy-handed and often insensitive approach by U.S. troops.

For his part, Bush has sought to reassure the public here and in Iraq that the Pentagon will "get to the bottom of this" and that the world would see "the full and complete investigation."

"If there is wrongdoing, people will be held to account," Bush said yesterday.

Bush also appears eager to avoid one mistake of Abu Ghraib - when he appeared to be caught off guard by the allegations of prison abuse, causing him to fault Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for not keeping him apprised of the investigation.

So the White House yesterday put out a timeline of Pentagon and White House actions to deal with Haditha. According to the timeline of events after the Nov. 19 shootings at Haditha, Chiarelli first ordered a military investigation of the incident Feb. 14 after Time magazine challenged the initial Marine account of civilian deaths in a bombing and subsequent firefight.

Chiarelli ordered a further review March 9. But it wasn't until March 11 that Bush was told about the case for the first time by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Incident in Haditha

Military investigators are seeking to determine whether Marines killed as many as 24 civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha. Here's how the case has come to light:

Nov. 19: U.S. Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, is killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha. Later that day, Marines are alleged to have retaliated by killing the civilians.

Nov. 20: Initial report by Marines states that insurgents had attacked a joint U.S.- Iraqi patrol with small-arms fire after the blast, triggering a gunbattle that left eight insurgents and 15 Iraqi civilians dead.

Feb. 10: A Time magazine reporter asks military officials about reports of a massacre in Haditha.

Feb. 14: Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli orders an investigation.

March 11: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley briefs President George W. Bush about the investigation.

March 20: The U.S. military says it's investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a videotape of action in Haditha. Residents say U.S. troops entered homes and killed 15 people, including women, children and elderly men, after Terrazas' death.

April 10: The military says three officers were relieved of command in connection with problems including their battalion's actions in Haditha.

May 17: Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) says a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood."

May 30: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says the killings were not justified.

May 31: Bush promises that any Marines involved in the alleged murders of Iraqi civilians will be punished.

June 1: Chiarelli orders U.S. commanders to hold ethical training on battlefield conduct.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

http://buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Benjamin Franklin - (1706-1790) US Founding Father

~

"To educate a man is to unfit him to be a slave.": Frederick Douglass - [Frederick Baily] (1818-1895), escaped slave, Abolitionist, author, editor of the North Star and later the New National Era

~

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.": Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - (1749-1832)
~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

June 7, 2006 "Godless" is Gutless

A review of Ann Coulter's latest hate-filled tome and a debate challenge A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by
Greg Palast

Anne Coulter says we're "Godless" -- we "liberals." And by "liberals," she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants, out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.

It's time someone took on the blonde bully.

Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book on June 6 -- 06-06-06.

Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: "Godless" is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.

You accuse those who don't sign on to your list of prejudices as the Lord's enemies. That's not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.

You want to talk about Godless? OK, let's go:

Would the Lord lie us into a war?

Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?

Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?

You talk about being "Christian" -- but with all your zeal to fire up electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.

I suggest this, Anne: let's debate. Set the time, set the place, and I'll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.

But I know you don't have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from your electronic Fox-hole.

Your new book is called, "Godless." Your autobiography should be called, "Gutless."

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Greg Palast, winner of the George Orwell Courage-In-Journalism Prize, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Yesterday, he released his book, Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War. Order it now from BuzzFlash.com, GregPalast.com or your local book shop.


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06229.html

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

A Constitutional freedom lost is a pity. Once lost where will we end up? If you don't agree that this is a freedom we all should cherish and stand up for, then all the more pity as this is going against all our country stands for.

It need not be that we give so much power to the Presidency that this can happen, that our senators and congress men are so indebted to those who want this action to be allowed. Remember, it was the Congress who once wielded the power to do as Bush and Cheney and their "Cabal" are doing to us today, as big business didn't always have so much control, not that they haven't always tried to run the country, and at times have, but this is the most blatant usurption of power we in this day and age have ever witnessed.

Think about it, this needs to be stopped, and quickly. We have always had the means to operate covertly, but this massive data mining which is going on is a drain on our resources and unecessary, it is a travesty and an abuse of power in the extreme, but how surprising is it with these men who are running things in control? Not very surprising at all, as they have documented their desires and dreams for this country, as wacked and power seeking as they are. I only hope the damage they've caused won't come back to haunt us for years and years to come.
Such a pity that we've come to this state of affairs
.
~~~


Senators won't grill phone companies
Updated 6/7/2006 10:48 AM ET
By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A last-minute deal Tuesday with Vice President Cheney averted a possible confrontation between the Senate Judiciary Committee and U.S. telephone companies about the National Security Agency's database of customer calling records.
The deal was announced by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. They said Cheney, who plays a key role supervising NSA counterterrorism efforts, promised that the Bush administration would consider legislation proposed by Specter that would place a domestic surveillance program under scrutiny of a special federal court.

In return, Specter agreed to postpone indefinitely asking executives from the nation's telecommunication companies to testify about another program in which the NSA collects records of domestic calls.

If passed, Specter's legislation would give the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court power to oversee the NSA program and render an opinion on the constitutionality of conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant. The court, established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), normally considers case-by-case requests by intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance inside the USA.

The deal prompted protests from Democratic lawmakers, who said the Republican-controlled Congress had refused to challenge the administration's expansion of presidential authority. "Why don't we just recess for the rest of the year, and the vice president will just tell the nation what laws we'll have?" said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the committee.

Specter has challenged the administration to justify the legality of intelligence programs inside the country.

After the hearing, Specter said his hand had been forced by the telephone companies' refusal to discuss classified programs. Representatives of more than one company — which ones were not specified in the meeting — agreed to appear, Specter said, but told the panel they would not talk about classified information. Hatch said President Bush "is willing to work with us as long as it doesn't detract from the president's constitutional powers."

At least one Democrat shared Republican concerns about forcing telephone officials to discuss classified programs. "Companies that are trying to be good citizens shouldn't be held out to dry," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Feinstein said there were two programs at issue: the NSA surveillance of international calls with one end in the USA and in which one participant is suspected of terrorist activity; and a program that "does not involve content" of conversations.

The surveillance program was disclosed in December by The New York Times and then acknowledged by the administration. The other program, which has not been formally acknowledged by the White House, was disclosed last month by USA TODAY. The program involves the collection of domestic calling data — the numbers and times of calls — by the NSA for use in tracking calling patterns by people suspected of terrorist activities.

In the wake of the USA TODAY story, Specter, who had proposed legislation to give the FISA court power over NSA's warrantless surveillance program, said he wanted phone company executives to testify about any involvement they had with the NSA.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-06-senate-phone-companies_x.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
From
Capitol Hill BlueAmerica at War
al-Zarqawi's death will not end terror in Iraq
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Jun 8, 2006, 07:11

The death of al-Qaida in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, allowed U.S. counterterrorism officials an initial sigh of relief at what they hailed as a significant development, but they quickly cautioned against expecting it to end terror operations or violence in Iraq.

U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters there the development would not end the insurgency and an official in Washington, who requested anonymity while details of al-Zarqawi's death were still unfolding, said it should not cause anyone to have unrealistic expectations.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, discussed Zarqawi's death during a closed, mid-morning meeting of the North Atlantic Council.

But as the day wore on, and news of the U.S. military's most dramatic victory in Iraq in recent months dominated casual conversations in the NATO building, Rumsfeld stayed publicly mum and out of reach of the media.

The impact of al-Zarqawi's death is nonetheless symbolic: The U.S. has not seen the elimination of such an iconic figure since former President Saddam Hussein was found in an underground bunker in late 2003.

Al-Zarqawi was considered the most dangerous terror plotter and foreign fighter in Iraq, coordinating a loose coalition of militants numbering at least in the hundreds. Osama bin Laden called him the "emir," or prince, of al-Qaida in Iraq.

The U.S. government was offering up to $25 million for information leading to al-Zarqawi's killing or capture, putting him on par with Hussein, bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

During a speech in April, Gen. Michael Hayden, the newly appointed CIA director who was then serving as the No. 2 U.S. intelligence official, said the war in Iraq motivates jihadists, but their failure there would weaken the movement globally.

"The loss of key leaders like bin Laden, Zawahri and Zarqawi _ especially if they were lost in rapid succession _ could cause the jihadist movement to fracture even more into smaller groups, and would probably lead to strains and disagreements," Hayden said.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has taken responsibility for numerous mortar attacks, suicide bombings, beheadings and other violence against U.S. and Iraqi targets. Scores, including many ordinary Iraqis, have died.

Yet even into 2004, al-Zarqawi was considered a shadowy figure whose followers were known simply as "the Zarqawi network." He operated under the names of various jihadist groups, and began emulating bin Laden with recordings fraught with anti-Western rhetoric and calls to arms.

U.S. intelligence veterans have said he craved attention and saw an expanded role for himself in the al-Qaida organization.

But the U.S. government has misunderstood him at times.

The Bush administration cited al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the April 2003 collapse of Saddam's government among its evidence of contacts between al-Qaida and the former regime _ and part of its justification for the Iraq war.

While al-Zarqawi is believed to have been in Iraq, he was not operating as part of al-Qaida then. The July 2004 report from the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and bin Laden's terror organization before the invasion.

But by October 2004, al-Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to bin Laden.

Al-Zarqawi was also known for a time as the "one-legged terrorist," because U.S. authorities believed was fitted for an artificial leg in Baghdad in 2002. The assessment was later revised.

Over time, a more vivid picture of al-Zarqawi emerged.

Born in Jordan in 1966, al-Zarqawi developed ties to mujahedeen, or holy warriors, while fighting alongside them during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Intelligence officials believe al-Zarqawi has cells or links to Muslim extremists worldwide, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan and Kuwait.

In the United States, FBI and other government officials did not believe al-Zarqawi had operatives under his command, but they had said it's likely that he had ies to some U.S.-based militants or sympathizers from his years of work in the extremist community.

U.S. officials have said bin Laden contacted al-Zarqawi last year to enlist him in attacks outside Iraq. Al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for deadly bombings at three hotels in Jordan in November, including a wedding, which drew fierce condemnation.

At a rally, hundreds of angry Jordanians shouted "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" after the terrorist's group claimed responsibility for the blasts.

© 2006 The Associated Press

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

[Saundra Hummer]

*
An about face on Iran
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

06.08.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- It occasionally occurs to me that if I could understand the Bush administration's foreign policy, I might like it. After months of threatening Iran with everything up to and including nuclear war, we are now full of Sweet Reason and offering to have diplomatic talks with the very people we have been denouncing as Beyond Vile.

I never mind a good about-face in foreign policy myself. Always reminds me of the times when that great duo Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger decided it would be a good thing to convince the world they were both quite perfectly mad. They succeeded. (Bonus point: What did Richard Nixon say upon first seeing the Great Wall of China? He said, "This is, indeed, a great wall." Almost as good as the time George H.W. Bush barfed on the prime minister of Japan.)

John Bolton is my favorite Bush administration diplomat. He's the one they sent to the United Nations, since he has all the characteristics of a really clumsy bull in a China shop. Ambassador Bolton, his white mustache positively bristling in horror, has assured us over and over that we cannot consent to have diplomatic talks with Iran No Matter What.

Iran's highly unpleasant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started uttering anti-Semitic screeds. Condoleezza Rice has been wandering around saying the same thing as Bolton to the European allies, who kept tugging her sleeve and whispering, "Have talks, good plan, we'll do the hard part."

At least Rice realized threatening Iran was getting us nowhere -- particularly since we had already violated the nuclear weapons ban by making a deal with India. The great diplomatic lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis during JFK's presidency is that one can always choose to hear the less hostile response. Likewise, we can give a two-toned response -- both "no enrichment" and "some enrichment. "

It's so entirely pleasant to see the Bushies actually using diplomacy, one veritably vaults toward other cases where it might be helpful. All of Latin America? China? Denny Hastert? Who knows where this might take us.

And all with John Bolton in the lead, his moustache at full bristle, dropping imprecations upon one and all. I'm telling you, there's a great sit-com in this.

Meanwhile, there is nothing funny about Iraq, as we slide toward being just one more militia in the chaos. I had a slightly insane discussion the other day with a winger who wanted urgently for me to understand that the Haditha massacre is the kind of thing that happens in war. Whereas I was trying to point out to him that the Haditha massacre is the kind of thing that happens in war.

I think we both got that massacres occur in war -- but for me, it felt like a "don't teach your grandma to suck eggs" moment. Why would anyone who hadn't lived through My Lai try to explain Haditha?

I realize it's silly to let really stupid people upset you, but I have had it with the wingnuts who go about claiming that liberals are delighted about Haditha or want to use it for nefarious public relations purposes. Listen, twits, if you can't stop your petty little partisan political games long to enough to recognize Sad when you see it, then shut up.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20927

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." -- Thomas Jefferson - (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

~

"Anyone who tells you that 'It Can't Happen Here' is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no 'house rule' that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos." -- Mike Vanderboegh : (1953- ) Alabama Minuteman

~

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato -(429-347 BC)

~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...............
Other People's Blood

By
BOB HERBERT

06/08/06 "New York Times" -- - For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans, it doesn't seem to matter how long the war in Iraq goes on - as long as the agony is endured by others. If the network coverage gets too grim, viewers can always switch to the E! channel (one hand on the remote, the other burrowing into a bag of chips) to follow the hilarious antics of Paris, Britney, Brangelina et al.
The war is depressing and denial is the antidote. Why should ordinary citizens (good people, religious people, patriots) consider their role in - and responsibility for - the thunderous, unending carnage? Enough with this introspection. Let's go to the ballpark, get drunk and boo Barry Bonds. The nation is in deep denial about Iraq. For years the president and his supporting cast of arrogant, bullying characters have tried to put the best face on this war. They had no idea what they were doing when they ordered the invasion of Iraq, and they still don't. Many of the troops who were assured that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms are now dead. And there's still no plan.

Paul Wolfowitz, who fashioned the phony intellectual underpinnings of this catastrophe, told us that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the cost of reconstruction. He was as wrong about that as the president was about the weapons of mass destruction. (And as wrong as Dick Cheney was last June when he said the insurgency was in its last throes.)

Here are the facts: The war so recklessly launched by the amateurs in the Bush White House has already taken scores of thousands of lives, and will ultimately cost the United States $1 trillion to $2 trillion.

No one has been held accountable for this. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings are low, the public has been largely indifferent to the profound suffering in Iraq. This is primarily for two reasons: Because most Americans have no immediate personal stake in the war, and because the administration and the news media keep the worst of the suffering at a safe distance from the U.S. population.

The killing of American troops is usually kissed off with a paragraph or two in the major papers, and a sentence or two, at best, on national newscasts.
(Imagine if someone in your office, sitting at a desk across from you, were suddenly blown to bits, splattering you with his or her blood. You wouldn't get over it for the rest of your life. This is what happens daily in Iraq.)

The many thousands of Iraqis who are killed - including babies and children who are shot to death, blown up, or incinerated - remain completely unknown to the American public. So not only is there very little empathy for the suffering of Iraqis, there is virtually no sense among ordinary Americans of a shared responsibility for that suffering.

Despite the frequently expressed fantasies expressed by President Bush and some of the leading politicians of both parties, the idea of a U.S. victory in Iraq is an illusion. The nightmarish violence is rising, not receding. Iraq is not being pacified. A suicide bomber blew himself up in a bustling market in Basra over the weekend, killing 27 and wounding scores. On Sunday,
20 people were stopped and pulled from their vehicles on a highway near Baquba and shot to death.

John Burns, writing in yesterday's New York Times, told us: "The death toll in one of the most grisly recent attacks, in the village of Hadid, near the Diyala provincial capital of Baquba, rose to 17 on Tuesday when the police delivered nine severed heads to the Baquba morgue in the fruit boxes in which they were found in the village."

Eight other heads had previously been found.

Instead of beginning to pull our troops out of Iraq, we are sending more in. The permanent Iraqi government, which was supposed to be the answer to everybody's prayers, is a study in haplessness. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's man in Iraq, remains at large. (As does Osama bin Laden, somewhere in Pakistan.)

As was the case with Vietnam, the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. There is no clear mission for American troops in Iraq. No one can really say what the dead have died for. And yet the dying continues.

When it all finally comes to an end (according to President Bush, on somebody else's watch) we'll look around at the hideous costs in human treasure and cold hard cash and ask ourselves: What in the world were we thinking?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13539.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

...........

Matt Lauer is the BuzzFlash
"GOP Hypocrite of the Week"
for Interviewing Right Wing
Neo-Nazi Shock
Propagandist, Ann Coulter,
Coulter did everything to
degrade television standards
of decency except stand up
on her chair, lift her skirt, and
sing "Springtime for Hitler
and Germany."

Would NBC Allow a Domestic Terrorist on the Today Show to Promote a Book? Then Why Was Ann Coulter On, Again?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
June 9, 2006
Neo-Nazi Ann Coulter presents a challenge to BuzzFlash. She is a self-promoter who knows controversy sells books. To this freakish right wing shock bigot, all news coverage is good news coverage because it publicizes her books -- and she makes more money. And it increases her fees on the speaking circuit.

So, do you cover her in BuzzFlash or ignore her?

We've thought about this dilemma quite a bit, and have decided ignoring her would be like pretending Goebbels didn't exist around 1932.

The most disgusting thing about Coulter is not that shameless, vile immoral creatures like her exist; it is that the mainstream corporate press has moved so far to the right that they give her a platform without a second thought.

As we point out in our BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week: "That’s because Coulter is an individual who, if she were a Democrat, would be arrested on sight if she showed up in the NBC studios [or at any other television station]....Her calls for the deaths of 'liberals,' the bombing of the New York Times building, and the destruction of all Muslims (among other exhortations) makes her a terrorist provocateur, not just another shock troop GOP propaganda shill."

So you can't really ignore that a female right wing terrorist Mullah is given credibility and a megaphone by the big media companies that are in bed with the Republican Party.

It's not "fun" to talk with or hear Coulter, as Matt Lauer said at the end of their infamous interview. It's an embracement of a domestic terrorist and hate mongerer
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/06/ana06041.html

[Saundra Hummer]

Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? : Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count (Paperback)
By
Steve Freeman, Joel Bleifuss

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

It is odd to BuzzFlash that so many progressives still think that the possibility that the Busheviks stole the 2004 election is some sort of fringe theory.

After all, they stole the 2000 election. Why wouldn't they do it again, if they could? In fact, it defies common sense to think that getting away with one robbery, they, all of a sudden, wouldn’t try it a second time.

So many individuals have uncovered the evidence of a multi-pronged approach to suppressing and altering the votes by Republicans (the latter theory rooted in the private ownership of electronic voting machine tabulating software). Why then is the GOP penchant for stealing elections still a taboo topic among mainstream media and Democrats?

After all, it's only likely to get worse – and more sophisticated – with each election.

BuzzFlash has featured several books on the issue, as well as ongoing links to websites that cover voting fraud and the electronic voting machine scam.

We strongly recommend another edition to this growing library: "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count."

Steven E. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss are the co-authors. Freeman is the University of Pennsylvania academic specializing in polling. It was Freeman's groundbreaking study that gave the gravitas to the notion that the exit polling showing Kerry winning the election by a comfortable margin was statistically likely to be true. In fact, the likelihood that Bush would have "won" despite the large exit-polling advantage for Kerry was about equal to being struck by lightning in the Mojave Desert.

"Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?" is a book grounded in a thorough, detailed examination of the data. It is grounded in fact.

It is also eminently readable for such an exhaustively researched book.

As the authors note in their chapter on how the media has ignored the questions raised by the 2004 election, "That a journalistic examination of the exit-poll discrepancy is deemed 'not fit to print' by both the corporate and the independent media indicates how far our standards have devolved. It seems undeniable to us that the very same set of facts applied to a foreign election anywhere in the world would have garnered front-page coverage in every American newspaper and would have been the lead story on every American news program. If election fraud in Ukraine or Haiti is news, why isn’t election fraud in the United States?"

This is a question we ignore at great peril to our democracy.

We know the presidency was stolen in 2000. This book, along with others that BuzzFlash has featured, makes an extremely strong case that it was stolen again in 2004.

How long can we keep letting the Republicans get away with mugging elections?

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/240

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Glenn Greenwald Wants To Save the United States Constitution - Now, That's a Patriot Act!

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
June 8, 2006
I know from litigating – from obtaining phone bills and other documents like that against people in litigation – that if you have a record of every person who someone is calling, and every person who is calling that individual, you’re going to know an enormous amount about them. You’ll know what doctors they talk to, what drug counselors they talk to, if they have girlfriends or boyfriends, or anything else. You will know everything about their professional life, their personal life, and intimate details that compose their life. To allow the government to maintain a database of that information against the public gives the government enormous power against its population and against its citizens.

* * *

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. He recently wrote in his blog, Unclaimed Territory: "I genuinely believe that once Americans are truly aware of how radical this administration is, and how contrary to the most core American values its views and actions are, that will have a meaningful effect on public opinion." His new book details the Bush administration's usurpation of power and mounts a defense of our shredded Constitution. To us, that in itself is an act worthy of an American patriot. Read on for his views on how the power grab has occurred, and how it can be stopped.

* * *

BuzzFlash: In How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, you do an excellent job of stating the case that the executive branch is flaunting our Constitution, and dismantling it in many ways. You state that this extremism is neither conservative nor liberal by nature. What do you mean by that?

Glenn Greenwald: There is room within the American political system for both conservative and liberal political ideology, for differences on issues like tax policy or social spending, or the extent to which the government should regulate private business. Those differences have always existed within the principles of this system of American government that we have. The issues that I’m writing about in my book are issues that go to what system of government we have, what the basic principles are of how we have a government, and how that government operates.

We’ve always been a country that has guaranteed to American citizens the right not to be arrested without a jury trial. We’ve always been a country that requires the President to submit to checks and balances by other branches, and to abide by the rule of law. Those principles are not conservative or liberal, and those are the ones that are under assault by the Administration.

BuzzFlash: You make a point to say that you really weren’t that political of a person per se. You thought our system worked. What specifically caused you to ask and answer the question of your own book, How Would a Patriot Act? You’ve become a patriot to uphold the Constitution.

Glenn Greenwald: I’ve always been comfortable with different political ideologies, because I’ve always believed in the supremacy of the principles of the Founders, and how our government works, and the Constitutional limits that they imposed on what the government can do. What I began to see from the Bush Administration was not just isolated acts of unconstitutional behavior, which most administrations have been guilty of from time to time, but instead an extremist view of Presidential power that simply vested absolute and unconstitutional power in the President.

The first incident that I talk about in my book, that for me really began to be a cause for alarm, was when the Administration arrested Jose Padilla. He was a US citizen on US soil, and they put him in a military prison and refused to charge him with any crime. They refused to allow him to speak to a lawyer or to anyone at all. They insisted upon the right to keep him in a military prison without ever charging him with a crime, and without ever allowing him to contest the accuracy of those accusations. That, to me, is an attack on one of the most basic rights that American citizens have always had - the right not to be imprisoned without charges being brought out by the jury trial. When I saw the Administration doing that, and also claiming the right to do that based on extremist theories of power, I really began to be alarmed.

BuzzFlash: You describe in your book a whole series of attacks on the Constitution. One of the problems which we point out on BuzzFlash is that, in the age of the six-hour news cycle, people forget all but the latest transgression, unless they read a book like yours. That poses a problem in terms of the American public understanding how seriously the Constitution is under attack.

Glenn Greenwald: I think you’re exactly right, and that is why I wrote the book. There’s been reasonably substantial attention paid to each one of these scandals in isolation. The media has talked about the warrantless wire-tapping program, the use of torture as an interrogation tool, the case of Jose Padilla. But they talked about it, as you say, in very short and isolated news cycles.

The reality is is that none of those things is happening in isolation. They all have a common root, and that root is that we have a government in place that literally believes the President has the power to act without restraints of any kind. That is an unprecedented theory of presidential power, and it is extraordinarily significant for what kind of country we’re going to be and the kind of government we’re going to have. Yet you virtually never hear the issues discussed in the context of the views of Presidential power that this government has adopted. More than anything else, that was why I wrote the book – to make as many people as possible become aware of just how extreme this government is in terms of the views it has adopted of its own power.

BuzzFlash: We used to have the term "separation of powers" to mean there’s an Executive branch, a Judicial branch, and a Congressional branch. The Congress was supposed to legislate, the Executive was supposed to implement, and the Judiciary was supposed to interpret and decide disputes between the two. But as the Boston Globe reported, Bush has issued "signing statements" on some 750 pieces of legislation where he basically has said I’m not going to abide by the laws as Congress passed them. I’m going to abide by them as we see fit. This practice actually goes back to the Reagan Administration, with Samuel Alito working in the Justice Department, claiming that the Executive branch could, through a signing statement, for the record, interpret a law differently than how it was passed by Congress. Bush is not implementing the laws enacted by Congress – he is legislating through the signing statement.

Glenn Greenwald: The Boston Globe articles by Charlie Savage, which really detailed the extent of the Administration’s law-breaking through the use of these signing statements, were the only time that I had seen any discussion in the mainstream media of the fact that this administration is using these tactics to evade the obligations of law that the American people enact through their Congress. It's amazing that it wasn’t until February of this year that it was even discussed. As you say, the discussion began and ended with the Boston Globe.

BuzzFlash: Why do you think that is? We have a President who, prima facie, is admitting to violating the law and flaunting it, and there are no repercussions. It’s right there in the signing statements.

Glenn Greenwald: The signing statement has always been controversial, but the way that it began was simply as a tool for the Executive branch to go on record saying this is how we understand this law. Then, if there was a dispute about what a law meant, and it went to the Supreme Court, the Executive branch had a way, like Congress does, of saying this is what we understand the law to mean. It has been completely distorted by this Administration. It isn’t used to say, this is what we understand the law to mean. It’s used to say, we do not have to abide by these parts of the law because we have the power to break these parts of the law.

Why hasn’t the press informed American citizens of the fact that the government is doing that? I actually believe the real reason is that what the Bush Administration is doing is so extreme, so radical, that people in the media don’t really believe they’re seriously claiming the right to break the law. That’s the only thing I can think of as to why this story isn’t getting more attention.

They’ve made the same argument in Supreme Court cases and other court cases, claiming the right of the President to act in violation of the law. This ought to be the first and most significant controversy discussed by the media, and yet it’s barely discussed at all. I think the reporters simply don’t realize how serious of a crisis it is. They just don’t believe that it’s really happening.

BuzzFlash: This happens again and again. If we look at the NSA scandal, Bush admitted to breaking the law - he didn’t go to the FISA court to get approval for NSA eavesdropping - and then misled the public because he keeps implying this is just overseas calls, but apparently it’s also domestic calls. You point out that, when the Patriot Act was passed, Bush said, well, I have everything I need, basically. We’re all set. I have the powers I need. But then he went on to break the law. And not only did he break the law, but to this day, no one in Congress is telling him to stop breaking the law. We don’t see much in the press on the fact that they vowed to continue breaking the law.

Glenn Greenwald: They’re breaking the law as we speak. The law has said for 28 years that it’s a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Not only are they doing that, but they’re overtly vowing to continue to do it in the future. Some legislation finally was introduced a couple weeks ago by Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein proposing to cut off funding for any eavesdropping program in violation of FISA, and reiterating that all eavesdropping has to be in compliance with the law. But that’s not going to go anywhere. The President’s allies control both houses of Congress. And just as the media has failed to provide any check or balance whatsoever on the Administration by not even informing people about what it is they’re doing, the Congress has simply relinquished what was supposed to be its institutional objective of preserving its own power. It’s relinquished that power to the President, and has all but said that we don’t care if the laws we pass are ignored by the President. It is amazing.

In October of 2001, when FISA was amended at the President’s request, he could have had any amendments he wanted made to that law, because it was a month after September 11th. Democrats and Republicans were ready to give the President anything he wanted. He did make requests that Congress change FISA, and they did change the law the way that he wanted. Yet, he still ordered eavesdropping to be conducted without complying with the law. The reason for that, clearly, is because he wanted to establish the principle that he didn’t need to comply with any law or get anyone’s permission to eavesdrop on whomever he wanted. He wanted to act outside the law. He wanted to establish the legitimacy of that principle.

For the next four years, he lied about it repeatedly, telling Americans that the government only eavesdropped with warrants, and with court approval – which we now know is not true. Despite the overt law-breaking, neither Congress nor the media, and therefore the public, has reacted very much to some extraordinary revelations.

BuzzFlash: Over the years, as these reports have come up, we’ve covered them on BuzzFlash. Basically the Executive branch is breaking the law with impunity at this point. It is openly violating the law and probing incrementally to see what they can get away with. Now, with the NSA revelations, they've simply said, yeah, we’re going to continue to break the law. What are you going to do about it?

You mentioned the Feinstein and Specter bill, which is a feeble attempt to cut off the funding. They didn’t say, what’s a guy who’s breaking the law doing in the White House? They said, since we can’t stop him, we’ll cut off the funding. Usually someone who's breaking the law is brought to court, or in this case, impeached, which no one seems to think likely with a Republican Congress. What do you do with a President who openly breaks the laws, and basically says, try and stop me?

Glenn Greenwald: The Founders were aware of that problem, because neither Congress nor the courts have at their disposal an army or any law enforcement mechanism. Impeachment is the tool that they gave to the Congress. The problem is, the Congress hasn’t even been willing to investigate what has happened. The Democrats tried, in the Intelligence Committee, to get an investigation into what the President has done, and the Republicans voted by party line against that investigation. Senator Feingold proposed a censure resolution, to at least have the Senate debate what the President is doing, and members of his own party refused to go anywhere near it. That’s why I end the book with this discussion, which I think is the real point. When you have a Congress that’s controlled by the President’s own party, impeachment is not a realistic option. But the true check on abuses of power by the president always will be the American people. When enough Americans realize that the President is acting outside of our system of government in a radical and illegal way - which he is - then there will be checks automatically placed on what this government can do.

That’s why a public discussion of these issues is so critical. I think Americans have instilled within them a certain set of political values. And the reason they aren’t reacting more isn’t because they think the behavior is okay. It’s because they don’t realize yet what this behavior really is about, and what the Administration is really doing.

BuzzFlash: You point out that the Administration uses fear of terrorism to chip away at the Constitution. In fact, Senator Pat Roberts, who is constantly working to make sure that whatever law-breaking is going on by the Bush Administration stays covered up and doesn’t in any way get condemned by the Senate Intelligence Committee – essentially said that sometimes you have to sacrifice your liberty to prevent your death and ensure your security. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying the opposite - that he who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither.

Whenever they want to break a law or push a little further, they use fear. They say we have to protect you. They’re very paternalistic. What they’re really doing is chipping away at the Constitution. Why do you think they are doing this? Is it merely to become all-powerful, to vest all powers in the unitary executive and become almost a de facto dictatorship? Is it arrogance? What is it that’s driving them to undermine the basic Constitutional structure of America?

Glenn Greenwald: That's an interesting and complicated question. I think, first, that it’s a natural human tendency to try and increase one’s own power. Ultimately that really is the foundation of our government. Three coequal branches of government would fight over what power divisions ought to apply, so there would be a balance by each of the branches trying to gain more power. The problem is that we have two branches of government that have refused to engage in that effort.The Executive branch is the only one trying to consolidate more and more power, and they've encountered none of the impediments that the Founders envisioned.

I also think that there are a lot of ideologues in the Executive Branch who have long resented the conflicts that go back to the Nixon Administration and the fallout from it. Rumsfeld and Cheney were all part of the Ford Administration that really came to believe that there were too many limitations placed on the Executive, after the Church Committee findings and the Watergate abuses. I think the ideologues who are in the Administration believe they know what’s best for the government, and they want to be able to act without restraint. Everything that places any limits on what they can do, whether that be Congress or the press or the law or whistle-blowers, becomes the enemy in a way that I think is unprecedented.

So it’s a combination of a natural personal desire for more power and an ideological belief that the country will run best when all power is consolidated in one strong executive ruler.

BuzzFlash: Now we have a Supreme Court decision, with Justice Alito playing his role for the Bush Administration in being the deciding vote, that whistle-blowers cannot sue the government. It’s basically going to make anyone in the government think twice before they blow the whistle, because if they suffer repercussions, if they’re demoted or their pension’s cut off, they won’t have any recourse. It’s interesting to see that, on the first key decision concerning the powers of the Executive branch, Alito upheld the Executive branch.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but it’s always struck me that the Constitution is the document that holds this country together. It’s a country of people of diverse origins, religions, backgrounds, but the Constitution is the great leveling system. It’s what protects our freedom and equality. The law is the glue that holds society together. If the Constitution is the most significant and sacred document of democracy, what happens when you have an Executive branch that basically says that document doesn’t really matter to me?

That’s what Bush says. You need to trust in me as an individual. I know what I’m doing. He doesn’t say trust the Constitution. So there’s a transference. Bush is saying, transfer our faith in the Constitution to protect us, to him, the great father figure, and he will protect us. Suddenly we’re investing our faith in an individual rather than in this document which has guided the country since its inception.

Glenn Greenwald: The reason I referred to patriotism in the title of my book is because, to me, that lies at the heart of all of these issues. I consider myself a patriot. I love the values and principles that have defined our country and distinguished our country from other countries. I believe in the supremacy of our system of government.

That’s not to say that we’ve been perfect, but I believe our system of government really is a unique achievement in modern political history. That’s because of the values created by the Constitution that the Founders, after a lot of debate, came to embrace. The Founders talk about this in the Federalist Papers - and part of their debates were in the Constitutional Convention. They knew that no system of government would be invulnerable to some future tyranny. Their principle challenge when creating a system of government was to figure out how all these rights would really be protected in the future. It’s one thing to say you have the right to free speech and to freedom of religion, and the right not to be punished without due process. But the question then becomes, how do you really protect against tyrannical leaders in the future?

The government that they created was designed, first and foremost, to prevent any one individual or political group from consolidating unchecked power, and from insisting that the country’s prosperity and its freedom lay in putting the trust in a single individual, rather than distrusting our political leaders and insisting on their compliance under the law in a transparent way. That is really the centerpiece of what our government is – insistence that political leaders always remain limited in their power and subject to the law – precisely because we don’t trust government officials to exercise power properly. That really is how the Founders wanted our liberties to be protected.

What we have now is the very opposite of that. We have a President who is claiming the right to exercise power without any limitations. To me, what a patriot does is take a stand in defense of the principles that have made our country great.

Those principles are all under assault by this Administration. The powers they’re insisting on are exactly the powers that the Founders waged the Revolutionary War to get away from. They’re the powers of a king.

Anyone who loves the United States and believes in the principles and values that it embodies will be opposed to the kinds of theories of power and abuses of power that this Administration is embracing, regardless of political ideology or partisan allegiance. Those are the values that have always defined what America is.

BuzzFlash: Something completely overlooked as a major issue in the press, is that Attorney General Gonzales and the former head of the NSA, now head of the CIA, General Hayden, have been asked if the NSA wire-tapping, eavesdropping or data mining is being used for political purposes? Gonzales in the Senate hearing said I can’t speak to that at this time. I’m paraphrasing him. And Hayden just didn’t answer the question. He ignored it, and said, “Next question.” The fact that these two members of the Executive branch both would not flatly deny that was extremely disturbing to us because it implies that it is being used for political purposes. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they flatly deny it? It was extremely disturbing because, if that is the case, then we basically have a totalitarian government at this point. It would mean they are using illegal activity for political purposes, spying on people for political purposes. This was in essence what Nixon did in Watergate, but now it is being done on a massive scale, if that’s the case. Does that concern you?

Glenn Greenwald: That concerns me greatly. I don’t know how the Administration has been using the wire-tapping powers, because they’ve been doing it without the oversight of a court, in total secrecy, and the Congress has refused to investigate how long they’ve been eavesdropping and in what ways.

But this is what I do know. From the time the government first gained the power to eavesdrop in the 1930s, through the Nixon Administration, for the next forty years, every Administration, Democrat and Republican, has abused the eavesdropping power in some way, meaning to spy on political opponents or political groups, or to gain harmful information on people who were not suspected of engaging in any criminal activities. The Johnson and Kennedy Administration spied on civil rights leaders and anti-war groups. The Nixon Administration spied on essentially everybody. That is what the Church Committee investigation and the Senate in 1976 revealed - that the government has been able to eavesdrop in secret and without oversight, and has abused that power continuously.

That is exactly why the country in 1978 said, with the enactment of FISA, we want our government to be able to eavesdrop, because eavesdropping is an important tool to investigate criminals and engage in surveillance on enemies of the country. But we only trust our government to eavesdrop on Americans if they do it with the oversight of a federal judge on the FISA court and with the approval of that court. That’s the only way we can be sure that this eavesdropping power won’t be abused.

Every administration since then – Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton – eavesdropped only in compliance with the law. It’s precisely that law that the Bush Administration has broken. The only thing that breaking that law has achieved is not to increase their eavesdropping power, because you can eavesdrop on pretty much every terrorist and every suspected criminal by going to the FISA court. The only thing it’s enabled them to do is eavesdrop in secret, so nobody knows on whom they’re eavesdropping. Other than the desire to eavesdrop for political purposes, it’s hard to think of a reason why they would be so eager to be able to eavesdrop without any oversight.

BuzzFlash: What you would advise saying to people who don’t think there’s a big issue? We were listening to the radio the other day, and a Business Week reporter called in about AT&T giving data-mining information over to the NSA and so forth. Business Week has had a few articles on this. The commentator on the radio said, well, this is really an invasion of everyone’s privacy in the United States – how do you feel about that personally? And the reporter for Business Week said, I’ve talked to many of my friends about this, college-educated people with very professional jobs, and most of them say, if it helps catch terrorists, it’s okay with me. I have nothing to hide. I don’t really care. What do you say to someone who has those sort of thoughts – "I've got nothing to hide."

Glenn Greenwald: There’s a political difficulty in trying to convince people to care about rights that they don’t actually have a desire to exercise. For a long time I have debated First Amendment rights and defended people whose First Amendment rights were being assaulted. Those are usually people who express pretty extreme views and very unpopular views. So it’s hard to get people who have very mainstream views, who can’t really envision their own First Amendment rights being abridged, to care about attacks on those people who are on the extremes. They think, well, the government is never going to really attack me for my political views. Either I don’t have political views, or I don't express views that are very controversial, and therefore I don’t care.

That’s the same problem with privacy. A lot of people do think, erroneously, that there’s no harm in allowing the government to know what it is they’re doing because they don’t really do much that the government would be interested in.

I think there’s a couple things to say about that. One is, like a lot of rights, I think privacy is a minority right. It is something that is going to be abridged with a minority of people in the country. There’s only going to be a certain group of people who the government cares enough about to want to abridge their privacy, and to then use it against those people. But still, to be a free country, that zone of privacy has to exist. There is just value in showing that the government can’t collect information about citizens whom the government suspect of being a crime.

But I think there’s also a failure to appreciate just how invasive this information is. I know from litigating – from obtaining phone bills and other documents like that against people in litigation – that if you have a record of every person who someone is calling, and every person who is calling that individual, you’re going to know an enormous amount about them. You’ll know what doctors they talk to, what drug counselors they talk to, if they have girlfriends or boyfriends, or anything else. You will know everything about their professional life, their personal life, and intimate details that compose their life. To allow the government to maintain a database of that information against the public gives the government enormous power against its population and against its citizens. If that case is made to people, enough people will become convinced of the danger to be opposed to it.

BuzzFlash: That collection of information is not very different from what the East German Stasi did. It was about knowing everything about what citizens were doing, what they were up to. And that was a power that the Soviet bloc countries used over their citizens – knowing everything they could about them. Information is power, because you can leverage it if someone is having an affair, if someone is gay and doesn’t want other people to know. You can leverage that in having them turn as an informant for you, for instance. Now, we haven’t reached that point yet, but the government is slowly gathering information. It wouldn’t take much – maybe another terrorist attack – where it might become that.

Glenn Greenwald: When the National Security Agency was created, the first and last principle was that it would never be used to spy on the American public, because we don’t have a country where the government spies on its citizens. That was ingrained into every employee of the National Security Agency.

When the Church Committee investigated intelligence abuses, the Senators on that committee were amazed at the capabilities of the NSA - and that was back in 1976. They basically have the power to listen in on every single private conversation that occurs by telephone, even in homes at this point, by e-mail and in every other way. And Frank Church, after the investigation, said that if these powers were ever turned on the American public, we would essentially have a dictatorship, because there would be no zone to hide from your own government. Although, I think you’re right – these analogies are somewhat inflammatory, and it’s not to suggest that we’ve reached a point or anywhere near a point in our country where we can say that we have a stasi or a KGB spying internally on citizens - these programs provide a foundation for that. You have the NSA now collecting that kind of information on citizens, listening in and doing who-else-knows-what that has not been revealed yet. You have created the foundation for that degree of domestic spying. The danger of that power being abused in very extreme and frightening ways is obvious. And not just for this Administration, but for subsequent presidents as well. We ought not to wait until that happens to take a stand against it.

BuzzFlash: Thank you very much. Great book.

Glenn Greenwald: Thank you.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.
* * *

RESOURCES:

How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok (Paperback), by Glenn Greenwald, a BuzzFlash premium.

Unclaimed Territory, a blog by Glenn Greenwald.



http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06021.html

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~

CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION
What Ashcroft Was Told
By
Murray Waas,
National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, June 8, 2006

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.


In late 2003, the attorney general was told that FBI agents suspected White House aides of trying to conceal their roles in leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

According to people with firsthand knowledge of the briefings, senior Justice Department officials told Ashcroft that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had misled the bureau about his role in the leaking of Plame's identity to the press.

By November, investigators had obtained personal notes of Libby's that indicated he had first learned from Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer. But Libby was insisting in FBI interviews that he had learned Plame's name and identity from journalists. Libby was also telling investigators that when he told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, he was only passing along an unsubstantiated rumor.

Officials also told Ashcroft that investigators did not believe Libby's account, according to sources knowledgeable about the briefings, and that Libby might have lied to the FBI to defend other -- more senior -- administration officials.

Ashcroft was told no later than November 2003 that investigators also doubted the accounts that Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political adviser, had given the FBI as to how he, too, learned that Plame was a CIA officer and how he came to disclose that information to columnist Robert Novak.

It was Novak who, in a July 14, 2003, syndicated column, outed Plame as a CIA employee, relying on Rove as one of his sources.

In a briefing devoted specifically to Rove and Novak, sources said, officials told Ashcroft that investigators believed it was possible that the presidential aide and the columnist had devised a cover story to present to the FBI to make it appear that Rove had not been a source for Novak's column.

Ashcroft's decision to continue overseeing the leak investigation through December of 2003 was a sore point among some federal investigators: Rove and Libby were top aides to the president and vice president at the time, and Rove also had been a political consultant to Ashcroft in his senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns.

Since the Watergate era, attorneys general have traditionally disqualified themselves from politically sensitive investigations that involve their friends and political associates, or those of the presidents they serve. Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, said in an interview that Ashcroft should have recused himself from the Plame probe "once he learned that the people professionally trained to draw these inferences" -- namely, the FBI investigators -- "believed there was substantial reason that Rove and Libby were involved in the leak."

Gillers added: "There is always going to be an interim period during which you decide you will recuse or not recuse. But [Ashcroft] should have had an 'aha!' moment when he learned that someone, figuratively, or in this case literally, next door to the president of the United States -- who was Ashcroft's boss -- was under suspicion."

Ashcroft declined to comment for this article. But in October 2003, Mark Corallo, then a spokesman for Ashcroft, said in an interview with this reporter that Ashcroft maintained an intense interest in the probe because he considered it imperative to determine who leaked Plame's identity. "The attorney general wants this to be investigated thoroughly and promptly, and to that end, he wants to be informed of the progress of the investigators," Corallo said. Corallo now serves as a spokesman for Rove on the CIA leak case.

Current and former Justice officials not directly involved in the case said in interviews for this article, almost without exception, that once senior aides to both the president and vice president came under suspicion, Ashcroft should have recused himself entirely from the case.

Ashcroft's Deep Interest
Although it has been known that Ashcroft was briefed on the Plame investigation in the months before Fitzgerald was appointed, details of those briefings have not emerged until now.

The Justice Department's involvement in the case began with the announcement on September 30, 2003 -- two and a half months after Plame was outed in Novak's column -- that the department was responding to a CIA request to launch an investigation.

Plame, who had a covert agency job working on issues of weapons proliferation, was unmasked at a time when the White House was conducting a broad effort, led by Cheney and his staff, to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

In March 2002, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to look into allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to procure weapons-grade uranium from the African nation. Wilson reported back that he found no factual basis for the allegations. President Bush and other senior administration officials, however, cited the Niger-Iraq connection as one reason for invading Iraq. In the spring of 2003, Wilson was publicly alleging that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make its case to go to war with Iraq. Wilson's best-known account of his findings in Niger appeared in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed.

Looking to undermine Wilson's credibility, Rove, Libby, and at least one other senior administration official told reporters that Plame had arranged for her husband's CIA-sponsored trip, casting it as nepotism.

On September 30, the same day that Justice announced the leak probe, Bush praised the decision: "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person violated [the] law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation."

In a statement that day, Ashcroft, perhaps sensitive to the fact that he was a political appointee of the president, said that prosecutors and FBI agents "who are and will be handling the investigation are career professionals with extensive experience in handling matters involving sensitive national security information."

Ashcroft showed a deep interest in the investigation from its very inception, seeking regular briefings on its progress, according to Corallo, to the congressional testimony of senior Justice officials who briefed the attorney general on the matter, and to interviews with current and former federal law enforcement officials.

The briefings for Ashcroft were conducted by Christopher Wray, then the assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division, and John Dion, a 30-year career prosecutor who was the day-to-day supervisor of the investigation.

On October 16, about two weeks after the investigation had begun, Ashcroft assured the public, "I believe that we have been making progress that's valuable in this matter." Asked about the possible appointment of a special prosecutor, Ashcroft said, "I have not foreclosed any options in this matter."

What the public did not know was that two days earlier, the FBI had interviewed Libby for the first time. It was in that interview that Libby first insisted that in mentioning to reporters -- specifically Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times -- that Plame worked for the CIA, he had been careful to point out that the information was unsubstantiated gossip he had heard from other journalists. Libby also told the FBI that a day or two before he spoke to Cooper and Miller, he was told about Plame by NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.

According to Libby's first FBI interview, which is summarized in the grand jury indictment of Libby that was handed up in October 2005: "During a conversation with Tim Russert on NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked Libby if Libby was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA; Libby responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it." On July 12, 2003, Libby spoke with Miller and Cooper, telling them that Plame worked for the CIA.

In November 2003, the FBI interviewed Libby a second time, and information derived from that briefing was also passed on to Ashcroft, sources said.

Around this same time, FBI agents had obtained Libby's own notes stating that Cheney, not Russert, was the person who told Libby about Plame's CIA connection. Also by then, investigators had obtained other government records and the accounts of other witnesses indicating that Wilson's Niger mission and Plame's possible role in sending her husband to Africa were major preoccupations for the vice president. As the agents interviewed Libby, they showed him his own notes on Cheney's disclosure to him about Plame's CIA job.

According to the FBI report cited in Libby's indictment, when Russert supposedly told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA, "Libby was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, Libby did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the vice president."

Although the FBI had not yet been able to interview any of the journalists -- Russert, Cooper, or Miller -- they were skeptical of Libby's account, sources said. Word of their concern was passed up to Ashcroft in a routine briefing on the status of the leak probe.

Within, at most, 10 days of the interview with Libby, sources said, Ashcroft was briefed not only on what Libby had told the FBI but also on the evidence that had made FBI agents and prosecutors doubt his story. Later, investigators obtained Libby's handwritten notes that showed that Libby had learned about Plame from Cheney.

Wray, the head of the criminal division, and Bruce C. Swartz, a deputy assistant attorney general who oversees criminal investigations involving sensitive national security matters, were later told of the notes' existence and of the investigators' belief that Libby might have been holding back to protect Cheney. It is unclear, however, whether Ashcroft was briefed in detail regarding Cheney before he recused himself from the Plame case.

Other papers that the White House later turned over to federal investigators would show that Cheney had been a driving force in encouraging Libby to discredit Wilson's allegations against the Bush administration.

Both Libby and Cheney have adamantly denied that the vice president ever encouraged Libby to leak Plame's CIA status to the media. But over time, both Fitzgerald and attorneys for Libby have presented new information in court filings that Cheney was personally involved in the broader effort against Wilson.

In papers filed in federal court on May 12, 2006, for example, Fitzgerald noted that Cheney was so upset over Wilson's New York Times op-ed that the vice president made handwritten notes in the margin of a photocopy of the column. Cheney wrote in the margin: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question?" referring to the CIA's decision to send a former ambassador, Wilson, on an intelligence fact-finding mission. Cheney also wrote: "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

In his filing, Fitzgerald wrote: "Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson op-ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant -- his chief of staff -- on Mr. Wilson, on assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions." It is unclear whether investigators reviewed Cheney's annotations while Ashcroft was overseeing the CIA probe, but sources say that investigators had by then already theorized that Libby might be trying to stymie the FBI.

Charles Wolfram, a professor emeritus of legal ethics at Cornell Law School, said the "most distressing" ethical aspect of the case was that Ashcroft continued overseeing the Plame probe even after Cheney's name arose. "This should have been a matter of common sense," Wolfram said. Ashcroft "should have left it to career prosecutors whether or not to go after politically sensitive targets. You can't have Ashcroft investigate the people who appointed him or of his own political party."

Unique Hurdles
Around the same date that Libby was interviewed, the FBI also questioned Rove for the first time. During that interview, and later in his initial appearance before the grand jury, Rove did not disclose that he had spoken about Plame to Time magazine's Cooper. Ashcroft wasn't briefed about the omission because at that time investigators apparently didn't know that Rove and Cooper had talked on July 9, 2003, just before Novak's column appeared.

Rove's failure in the early stages of the CIA leak probe to provide information on his conversation with Cooper about Plame is one of the reasons Rove is still under investigation by Fitzgerald.

Although FBI investigators did not know of the Rove-Cooper phone call, they were skeptical about Rove's account of his July conversation with Novak. Both Rove and Novak have since said that Rove was one of "two senior administration officials" cited as sources in Novak's column.

According to the accounts of their conversation that both Rove and Novak later gave to investigators, the subject of Wilson's trip to Niger and any role played by Plame came up at the very end of a conversation on an entirely different matter.

Rove told the FBI that when Novak mentioned Plame's CIA connection and that she might have played a role in selecting her husband to go to Niger, he (Rove) simply said that he had heard much the same information. According to sources, Novak later told investigators a virtually identical story.

Ashcroft was advised during the fall 2003 briefings that investigators had strong doubts about Novak's and Rove's accounts of their July 9 conversation. The investigators were skeptical that Novak would have relied merely on an offhand comment from Rove as the basis for writing his column about Plame.

Questioned further, Rove told investigators that he originally heard the information about Plame from a person whose name he could not remember. That person, he said, might have been a journalist, although he was not certain. Rove has also said that he could not recall whether the conversation about Plame took place in person or over the telephone.

Rove's version was strikingly similar to the one from Libby, who had also been a source for reporters about Plame. Libby's version to the FBI was that in telling reporters that Plame worked for the CIA and may have played a role in sending Wilson to Niger, he was merely passing on unsubstantiated rumors that he had heard from other reporters. But the indictment of Libby alleges that he lied about this, and instead was told about Plame by Cheney, an undersecretary of State, and at least two other government officials.

As National Journal reported recently, investigators further believed -- based on the timing of phone calls between Rove and Novak, and on other evidence -- that the Bush adviser and the columnist may have devised a cover story to conceal Rove's role in leaking information about Plame to Novak. Investigators were so concerned about this possibility that Ashcroft received a briefing specifically on that one topic, according to people familiar with those briefings.

Corallo, now a spokesman for Rove, said in a statement: "Karl Rove has never urged anyone directly or indirectly to withhold information from the special counsel or testify falsely." James Hamilton, an attorney for Novak, said he could not comment on the ongoing CIA leak probe. And a spokesperson for Fitzgerald said his office would not comment.

As the leak probe progressed through the fall of 2003, Rove's past work as a political adviser to Ashcroft in three of his political campaigns was not the only concern for career Justice Department officials, sources said. Also not lost to some career prosecutors was the fact that a number of Ashcroft's top aides at Justice had come from the Republican National Committee.

During the initial stages of the Plame investigation, the RNC was at the forefront of the Bush administration's effort to stymie demands for the appointment of a special prosecutor and to continue the campaign to discredit Wilson. To some career investigators, the RNC appeared to be acting as a proxy for the White House in attempting to thwart the naming of a special prosecutor.

David Israelite, who was a deputy chief of staff to Ashcroft, had been the RNC's political director. Barbara Comstock, who was Ashcroft's director of public affairs, had been in charge of the RNC's opposition research department. Corallo, who succeeded Comstock at Justice under Ashcroft, had also worked for the RNC. Currently, Comstock is serving as a spokeswoman for Libby and his legal team as he prepares for trial early next year.

In the fall of 2003, senior Justice officials concerned about the investigation faced unique hurdles in seeking Ashcroft's recusal, current and former federal law enforcement officials said in interviews.

Wray, head of the Criminal Division, was supervising the investigation. Ordinarily, if he had sought Ashcroft's recusal, ultimate authority over the investigation would have fallen to the deputy attorney general. But that position was then vacant.

On October 3, President Bush had nominated James B. Comey, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to be deputy attorney general. The leak probe was just getting under way, and Comey was awaiting Senate confirmation.

Meanwhile, the acting deputy attorney general was Robert D. McCallum, a Yale classmate of Bush's and a lifelong friend of the president and first lady Laura Bush. Bush and McCallum were inducted together into the secret Skull and Bones Society at Yale.

If Ashcroft were to recuse himself from the Plame investigation, several current and former officials said in interviews, it was a virtual certainty that McCallum would have had to recuse himself as well, putting Wray in charge of the probe.

By seeking Ashcroft's recusal, Wray would in effect have been placing himself in charge of one of the nation's most politically sensitive investigations, without anyone to oversee or supervise him.

"He was really in a difficult position," said a former Justice Department official. "If Wray had walked into the AG's office and asked that Ashcroft recuse, Wray would have in effect been making himself the de facto attorney general" in the matter. The official went on to say: "But Ashcroft should have known on his own what to do. He didn't need to be asked. He didn't need to be pushed. He should have just done it."

On December 9, 2003, the Senate unanimously confirmed Comey as deputy attorney general. It would not be long before Comey was privately arguing that Ashcroft should step aside and name a special prosecutor.

In announcing Ashcroft's recusal and Fitzgerald's appointment on December 30, Comey said that Ashcroft had made the decision: "The attorney general, in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation," Comey said. "I agree with that judgment."

Asked what might have caused the Fitzgerald appointment, Comey said: "If you were to speculate in print or in the media about particular people, I think that would be unfair to them." Then he added, almost as an afterthought, "We don't want people that we might be interested in to know we're interested in them."

-- Previous coverage of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas.


http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority.": -- Soren Kierkegaard - (1813-1855) Danish philosopher

~

"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone.": - John Quincy Adams - (1767-1848) 6th US President

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
David Sirota's News Letter,
An Interesting One, Concerning Bloggers and the News
FYI - Wanted to pass on this absolutely incredible story by USA Today's Chuck Raasch. It is a watershed, of sorts. In the attached piece, the Democratic Leadership Council is now openly attacking young people and the Netroots, financing/employing a GOP operative to now essentially call for Democratic Party elite to purge the party of the very people and activists who make up the party itself. While the DLC has always been hostile to progressives, the ratcheting up of this hostility to open warfare on the progressive movement is a real landmark showing just how frightened the Washington insiders and the Establishment in general is of change. - David
***************************

USA Today/Gannett News Service - June 8, 2006 Thursday

Bloggers reviving left, but some say they're moving Democrats too far

By
Chuck Raasch
Political iconoclast Marshall Wittmann calls liberal bloggers "McGovernites with modems." But in the age of the Internet, such labels seem as quaint as typewriters.

Liberal bloggers aren't aiming their barbs only at conservatives these days. Democrat or Republican, if you're part of Washington's entrenched power structure, you're a target.

Besides attacking the Bush administration, left-wing bloggers "have now made it OK and not taboo to internally challenge the Democratic Party and the direction of the Democratic Party," said blogger David Sirota, author of "Hostile Takeover," which attacks the influence of corporations on democratic institutions.

Markos Moulitsas, whose dailykos.com is one of the top liberal blogs on the Internet, said the "people power movement" taking hold on the Internet and in political organizations like MoveOn.org eschews old labels.

"We are a lot more sophisticated than traditional movements, and it is because we don't depend on any leader to think things," said Moulitsas, a 34-year-old Army veteran from California. "We were more dependent upon leaders 20 years ago than we are now, because information is at our fingertips."

No group has felt that new sense of empowerment more than liberal bloggers, who are holding a convention in Las Vegas that opened Thursday. It's expected to draw more than 1,000 participants. The event has been dubbed "yearlykos" -- a takeoff on Moulitsas' www.dailykos.com blog.

Several potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates are expected to attend, as is Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean.

A Vegas convention may seem oxymoronic in the lone-wolf blogging community, but Moulitsas describes the event more as a spontaneous political combustion -- and a sign the progressive movement isn't going away.

"There was a time when criticizing this administration and the ruling Republicans was considered akin to treason," he said. "There was a market need for actual progressive voices and we were not getting them, even from our supposed liberals in Washington, D.C. We finally have an outlet."

But that outlet hasn't always been welcomed by moderate Democrats.

They fear liberal bloggers -- by championing left-wing primary candidates running against centrists like Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- are pushing the party to the left just when it needs to capitalize on anger toward Republicans to seize control of Congress.

"The country is reacting to the Republican incompetence but not moving ideologically," said Wittmann, a former Republican who used to work for the Christian Coalition and GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He now works for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

Moulitsas dismissed the DLC -- a think tank that has long backed moderate Democrats like Bill Clinton and Lieberman -- as a "shell" of its former self.

In his Wednesday blog, Moulitsas described himself as a "libertarian Democrat" -- someone who believes government can't solve all problems but is necessary to counter "the power of corporations." And he declared the "liberal Democrats of old times" as "all but extinct."

But Wittmann said some left-wing bloggers are "too young" to understand that "they are the progeny of the McGovernites who took over the party in 1972 and lost 49 states."

"They are an echo chamber that speaks to a hyper-partisan, very liberal slice of even the Democratic Party," he said. "As of yet, they have not produced any political results. Their most celebrated activity was the Dean (2004 presidential) campaign. The last time I checked, there was not a President Dean."

Richard Viguerie, a direct-mail marketing guru and a conservative who pioneered an earlier media-politics revolution, said Internet blogs are the latest in a series of changing-of-the-guard moments that have "empowered everyone out there" over the last 40 years.

"When I started in politics in the 1960s, we didn't have access to the microphones of the country," Viguerie said. "Walter Cronkite would come in to work with a cup of coffee and sit down with his New York Times and decide in an hour what was the important news of the day, Those days are long gone."

[Saundra Hummer]

Big Microsoft Brother

By
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
June 9, 2006 Opinion: Who wouldn't trust a company that hid built-in spyware on every Windows-based PC in the land?


It turns out that Microsoft's Genuine Advantage anti-piracy program is also keeping daily tabs on Windows users. Who knew?

Well, until a few days ago, nobody outside of Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Wash., knew.

According to an Associated Press report, David Lazar, director of the WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) program, Microsoft was doing this as "kind of a safety switch."

A safety switch?

Because, Microsoft told 'top Microsoft reporter in the known-world' Mary Jo Foley that "if Notifications went amok on Microsoft's side, Microsoft wanted a way to terminate the program quickly."

Amok? On Microsoft's side?

Help me out. I'm a little confused here. Microsoft wants my Windows PC to phone home everyday so that if Notifications went 'amok' on their servers, it would turn my local Notifications component off?

How genuine is Windows Genuine Advantage? Click here to read more.

Now, when you use Windows Genuine Advantage for the first time, it gathers up, Microsoft tell us, and it will grab your PC's XP product key, PC manufacturer, operating system version, PC BIOS information and user locale setting and language.

Nothing at all, Microsoft assures us, that could identify us or what programs we use, or anything like that. No siree. No chance of that.

So ... why do we need that daily Notification ping?

Good question. I guess we really don't need it that much because Microsoft has also clarified that, "As a result of customer concerns around performance, we are changing this feature to only check for a new settings file every 14 days. This change will be made in the next release of WGA. Also, this feature will be disabled when WGA Notifications launches worldwide later this year."

I don't mean to be paranoid, but when someone tells me that, oh, by the way, they've been checking on my XP and Windows 2000 PCs every day since July 2005 when Microsoft made WGA mandatory or you couldn't download patches, I get a little concerned.

Still, it's not like Microsoft would actually collect more information and then use it against such competitors as Firefox would they?

Oh wait, come to think of it, didn't Microsoft once cause Windows to produce fake error messages if a user was running DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS?

While they never admitted to it, they did finally end up paying Caldera Systems, one of the ancestors of today's SCO, approximately $60 million to make the resulting lawsuit go away.

No, nothing like that has happened. I mean maybe they're using WGA to report on what applications people are really using for market information, but that's harmless isn't it? I mean lots of spyware, ah, programs do that, right? Of course.


OK, let me be straight for a minute. There's no proof whatsoever that Microsoft is actually doing anything to anyone else's software or tracking information on their users.

Well, except when you try to update a WGA program that's running on Wine, an open-source implementation of the Windows API (applications program interface) that runs on x86 Linux and Unix OSes like Solaris and FreeBSD. Those users won't be able to get patches. Let's leave that aside for now.

Here's the point. For over a year, Microsoft has planted a program on every modern Windows-powered PC that reported home every day. They don't have an intelligent reason, never mind a good one, for this move. And, they never told anyone that they were doing this.

I guess it must do a darn good job of hiding itself from firewalls and network monitoring tools too since we've only now found out this daily checkup call after tens of millions of PCs have been phoning in for almost a year.

Maybe you can trust your computer, your livelihood, your home finances, your kids' games, everything you do online, to a company that would do that, but you can count me out.

I've been using Linux for my main desktop for years, and it's revelations like this one that makes me damn glad that I do.

Ziff Davis Internet's Linux and Open-Source Linux Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been working and writing about technology and business since the late '80s and thinks he may just have learned something about them along the way.

Check out eWEEK.com's Windows Center for Microsoft and Windows news, views and analysis.

RELATED LINKSWhat's Genuine About Windows Genuine Advantage?
Microsoft Bringing 'Genuine Advantage' Authentication to Office
Hackers Claim Crack of Microsoft Genuine Advantage Scan
Microsoft Adds a New Wrinkle to 'Genuine Advantage' Initiative
Just click on the following link to access story and then follow the links once on-site to see more about this issue.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1974911,00.asp

[the magnificent goldberg]

*******
Glenn Greenwald Wants To Save the United States Constitution - Now, That's a Patriot Act!

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
June 8, 2006
I know from litigating – from obtaining phone bills and other documents like that against people in litigation – that if you have a record of every person who someone is calling, and every person who is calling that individual, you’re going to know an enormous amount about them. You’ll know what doctors they talk to, what drug counselors they talk to, if they have girlfriends or boyfriends, or anything else. You will know everything about their professional life, their personal life, and intimate details that compose their life. To allow the government to maintain a database of that information against the public gives the government enormous power against its population and against its citizens.

* * *

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. He recently wrote in his blog, Unclaimed Territory: "I genuinely believe that once Americans are truly aware of how radical this administration is, and how contrary to the most core American values its views and actions are, that will have a meaningful effect on public opinion." His new book details the Bush administration's usurpation of power and mounts a defense of our shredded Constitution. To us, that in itself is an act worthy of an American patriot. Read on for his views on how the power grab has occurred, and how it can be stopped.

* * *

BuzzFlash: In How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, you do an excellent job of stating the case that the executive branch is flaunting our Constitution, and dismantling it in many ways. You state that this extremism is neither conservative nor liberal by nature. What do you mean by that?

Glenn Greenwald: There is room within the American political system for both conservative and liberal political ideology, for differences on issues like tax policy or social spending, or the extent to which the government should regulate private business. Those differences have always existed within the principles of this system of American government that we have. The issues that I’m writing about in my book are issues that go to what system of government we have, what the basic principles are of how we have a government, and how that government operates.

We’ve always been a country that has guaranteed to American citizens the right not to be arrested without a jury trial. We’ve always been a country that requires the President to submit to checks and balances by other branches, and to abide by the rule of law. Those principles are not conservative or liberal, and those are the ones that are under assault by the Administration.

BuzzFlash: You make a point to say that you really weren’t that political of a person per se. You thought our system worked. What specifically caused you to ask and answer the question of your own book, How Would a Patriot Act? You’ve become a patriot to uphold the Constitution.

Glenn Greenwald: I’ve always been comfortable with different political ideologies, because I’ve always believed in the supremacy of the principles of the Founders, and how our government works, and the Constitutional limits that they imposed on what the government can do. What I began to see from the Bush Administration was not just isolated acts of unconstitutional behavior, which most administrations have been guilty of from time to time, but instead an extremist view of Presidential power that simply vested absolute and unconstitutional power in the President.

The first incident that I talk about in my book, that for me really began to be a cause for alarm, was when the Administration arrested Jose Padilla. He was a US citizen on US soil, and they put him in a military prison and refused to charge him with any crime. They refused to allow him to speak to a lawyer or to anyone at all. They insisted upon the right to keep him in a military prison without ever charging him with a crime, and without ever allowing him to contest the accuracy of those accusations. That, to me, is an attack on one of the most basic rights that American citizens have always had - the right not to be imprisoned without charges being brought out by the jury trial. When I saw the Administration doing that, and also claiming the right to do that based on extremist theories of power, I really began to be alarmed.

BuzzFlash: You describe in your book a whole series of attacks on the Constitution. One of the problems which we point out on BuzzFlash is that, in the age of the six-hour news cycle, people forget all but the latest transgression, unless they read a book like yours. That poses a problem in terms of the American public understanding how seriously the Constitution is under attack.

Glenn Greenwald: I think you’re exactly right, and that is why I wrote the book. There’s been reasonably substantial attention paid to each one of these scandals in isolation. The media has talked about the warrantless wire-tapping program, the use of torture as an interrogation tool, the case of Jose Padilla. But they talked about it, as you say, in very short and isolated news cycles.

The reality is is that none of those things is happening in isolation. They all have a common root, and that root is that we have a government in place that literally believes the President has the power to act without restraints of any kind. That is an unprecedented theory of presidential power, and it is extraordinarily significant for what kind of country we’re going to be and the kind of government we’re going to have. Yet you virtually never hear the issues discussed in the context of the views of Presidential power that this government has adopted. More than anything else, that was why I wrote the book – to make as many people as possible become aware of just how extreme this government is in terms of the views it has adopted of its own power.

BuzzFlash: We used to have the term "separation of powers" to mean there’s an Executive branch, a Judicial branch, and a Congressional branch. The Congress was supposed to legislate, the Executive was supposed to implement, and the Judiciary was supposed to interpret and decide disputes between the two. But as the Boston Globe reported, Bush has issued "signing statements" on some 750 pieces of legislation where he basically has said I’m not going to abide by the laws as Congress passed them. I’m going to abide by them as we see fit. This practice actually goes back to the Reagan Administration, with Samuel Alito working in the Justice Department, claiming that the Executive branch could, through a signing statement, for the record, interpret a law differently than how it was passed by Congress. Bush is not implementing the laws enacted by Congress – he is legislating through the signing statement.

Glenn Greenwald: The Boston Globe articles by Charlie Savage, which really detailed the extent of the Administration’s law-breaking through the use of these signing statements, were the only time that I had seen any discussion in the mainstream media of the fact that this administration is using these tactics to evade the obligations of law that the American people enact through their Congress. It's amazing that it wasn’t until February of this year that it was even discussed. As you say, the discussion began and ended with the Boston Globe.

BuzzFlash: Why do you think that is? We have a President who, prima facie, is admitting to violating the law and flaunting it, and there are no repercussions. It’s right there in the signing statements.

Glenn Greenwald: The signing statement has always been controversial, but the way that it began was simply as a tool for the Executive branch to go on record saying this is how we understand this law. Then, if there was a dispute about what a law meant, and it went to the Supreme Court, the Executive branch had a way, like Congress does, of saying this is what we understand the law to mean. It has been completely distorted by this Administration. It isn’t used to say, this is what we understand the law to mean. It’s used to say, we do not have to abide by these parts of the law because we have the power to break these parts of the law.

Why hasn’t the press informed American citizens of the fact that the government is doing that? I actually believe the real reason is that what the Bush Administration is doing is so extreme, so radical, that people in the media don’t really believe they’re seriously claiming the right to break the law. That’s the only thing I can think of as to why this story isn’t getting more attention.

They’ve made the same argument in Supreme Court cases and other court cases, claiming the right of the President to act in violation of the law. This ought to be the first and most significant controversy discussed by the media, and yet it’s barely discussed at all. I think the reporters simply don’t realize how serious of a crisis it is. They just don’t believe that it’s really happening.

BuzzFlash: This happens again and again. If we look at the NSA scandal, Bush admitted to breaking the law - he didn’t go to the FISA court to get approval for NSA eavesdropping - and then misled the public because he keeps implying this is just overseas calls, but apparently it’s also domestic calls. You point out that, when the Patriot Act was passed, Bush said, well, I have everything I need, basically. We’re all set. I have the powers I need. But then he went on to break the law. And not only did he break the law, but to this day, no one in Congress is telling him to stop breaking the law. We don’t see much in the press on the fact that they vowed to continue breaking the law.

Glenn Greenwald: They’re breaking the law as we speak. The law has said for 28 years that it’s a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Not only are they doing that, but they’re overtly vowing to continue to do it in the future. Some legislation finally was introduced a couple weeks ago by Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein proposing to cut off funding for any eavesdropping program in violation of FISA, and reiterating that all eavesdropping has to be in compliance with the law. But that’s not going to go anywhere. The President’s allies control both houses of Congress. And just as the media has failed to provide any check or balance whatsoever on the Administration by not even informing people about what it is they’re doing, the Congress has simply relinquished what was supposed to be its institutional objective of preserving its own power. It’s relinquished that power to the President, and has all but said that we don’t care if the laws we pass are ignored by the President. It is amazing.

In October of 2001, when FISA was amended at the President’s request, he could have had any amendments he wanted made to that law, because it was a month after September 11th. Democrats and Republicans were ready to give the President anything he wanted. He did make requests that Congress change FISA, and they did change the law the way that he wanted. Yet, he still ordered eavesdropping to be conducted without complying with the law. The reason for that, clearly, is because he wanted to establish the principle that he didn’t need to comply with any law or get anyone’s permission to eavesdrop on whomever he wanted. He wanted to act outside the law. He wanted to establish the legitimacy of that principle.

For the next four years, he lied about it repeatedly, telling Americans that the government only eavesdropped with warrants, and with court approval – which we now know is not true. Despite the overt law-breaking, neither Congress nor the media, and therefore the public, has reacted very much to some extraordinary revelations.

BuzzFlash: Over the years, as these reports have come up, we’ve covered them on BuzzFlash. Basically the Executive branch is breaking the law with impunity at this point. It is openly violating the law and probing incrementally to see what they can get away with. Now, with the NSA revelations, they've simply said, yeah, we’re going to continue to break the law. What are you going to do about it?

You mentioned the Feinstein and Specter bill, which is a feeble attempt to cut off the funding. They didn’t say, what’s a guy who’s breaking the law doing in the White House? They said, since we can’t stop him, we’ll cut off the funding. Usually someone who's breaking the law is brought to court, or in this case, impeached, which no one seems to think likely with a Republican Congress. What do you do with a President who openly breaks the laws, and basically says, try and stop me?

Glenn Greenwald: The Founders were aware of that problem, because neither Congress nor the courts have at their disposal an army or any law enforcement mechanism. Impeachment is the tool that they gave to the Congress. The problem is, the Congress hasn’t even been willing to investigate what has happened. The Democrats tried, in the Intelligence Committee, to get an investigation into what the President has done, and the Republicans voted by party line against that investigation. Senator Feingold proposed a censure resolution, to at least have the Senate debate what the President is doing, and members of his own party refused to go anywhere near it. That’s why I end the book with this discussion, which I think is the real point. When you have a Congress that’s controlled by the President’s own party, impeachment is not a realistic option. But the true check on abuses of power by the president always will be the American people. When enough Americans realize that the President is acting outside of our system of government in a radical and illegal way - which he is - then there will be checks automatically placed on what this government can do.

That’s why a public discussion of these issues is so critical. I think Americans have instilled within them a certain set of political values. And the reason they aren’t reacting more isn’t because they think the behavior is okay. It’s because they don’t realize yet what this behavior really is about, and what the Administration is really doing.

BuzzFlash: You point out that the Administration uses fear of terrorism to chip away at the Constitution. In fact, Senator Pat Roberts, who is constantly working to make sure that whatever law-breaking is going on by the Bush Administration stays covered up and doesn’t in any way get condemned by the Senate Intelligence Committee – essentially said that sometimes you have to sacrifice your liberty to prevent your death and ensure your security. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying the opposite - that he who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither.

Whenever they want to break a law or push a little further, they use fear. They say we have to protect you. They’re very paternalistic. What they’re really doing is chipping away at the Constitution. Why do you think they are doing this? Is it merely to become all-powerful, to vest all powers in the unitary executive and become almost a de facto dictatorship? Is it arrogance? What is it that’s driving them to undermine the basic Constitutional structure of America?

Glenn Greenwald: That's an interesting and complicated question. I think, first, that it’s a natural human tendency to try and increase one’s own power. Ultimately that really is the foundation of our government. Three coequal branches of government would fight over what power divisions ought to apply, so there would be a balance by each of the branches trying to gain more power. The problem is that we have two branches of government that have refused to engage in that effort.The Executive branch is the only one trying to consolidate more and more power, and they've encountered none of the impediments that the Founders envisioned.

I also think that there are a lot of ideologues in the Executive Branch who have long resented the conflicts that go back to the Nixon Administration and the fallout from it. Rumsfeld and Cheney were all part of the Ford Administration that really came to believe that there were too many limitations placed on the Executive, after the Church Committee findings and the Watergate abuses. I think the ideologues who are in the Administration believe they know what’s best for the government, and they want to be able to act without restraint. Everything that places any limits on what they can do, whether that be Congress or the press or the law or whistle-blowers, becomes the enemy in a way that I think is unprecedented.

So it’s a combination of a natural personal desire for more power and an ideological belief that the country will run best when all power is consolidated in one strong executive ruler.

BuzzFlash: Now we have a Supreme Court decision, with Justice Alito playing his role for the Bush Administration in being the deciding vote, that whistle-blowers cannot sue the government. It’s basically going to make anyone in the government think twice before they blow the whistle, because if they suffer repercussions, if they’re demoted or their pension’s cut off, they won’t have any recourse. It’s interesting to see that, on the first key decision concerning the powers of the Executive branch, Alito upheld the Executive branch.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but it’s always struck me that the Constitution is the document that holds this country together. It’s a country of people of diverse origins, religions, backgrounds, but the Constitution is the great leveling system. It’s what protects our freedom and equality. The law is the glue that holds society together. If the Constitution is the most significant and sacred document of democracy, what happens when you have an Executive branch that basically says that document doesn’t really matter to me?

That’s what Bush says. You need to trust in me as an individual. I know what I’m doing. He doesn’t say trust the Constitution. So there’s a transference. Bush is saying, transfer our faith in the Constitution to protect us, to him, the great father figure, and he will protect us. Suddenly we’re investing our faith in an individual rather than in this document which has guided the country since its inception.

Glenn Greenwald: The reason I referred to patriotism in the title of my book is because, to me, that lies at the heart of all of these issues. I consider myself a patriot. I love the values and principles that have defined our country and distinguished our country from other countries. I believe in the supremacy of our system of government.

That’s not to say that we’ve been perfect, but I believe our system of government really is a unique achievement in modern political history. That’s because of the values created by the Constitution that the Founders, after a lot of debate, came to embrace. The Founders talk about this in the Federalist Papers - and part of their debates were in the Constitutional Convention. They knew that no system of government would be invulnerable to some future tyranny. Their principle challenge when creating a system of government was to figure out how all these rights would really be protected in the future. It’s one thing to say you have the right to free speech and to freedom of religion, and the right not to be punished without due process. But the question then becomes, how do you really protect against tyrannical leaders in the future?

The government that they created was designed, first and foremost, to prevent any one individual or political group from consolidating unchecked power, and from insisting that the country’s prosperity and its freedom lay in putting the trust in a single individual, rather than distrusting our political leaders and insisting on their compliance under the law in a transparent way. That is really the centerpiece of what our government is – insistence that political leaders always remain limited in their power and subject to the law – precisely because we don’t trust government officials to exercise power properly. That really is how the Founders wanted our liberties to be protected.

What we have now is the very opposite of that. We have a President who is claiming the right to exercise power without any limitations. To me, what a patriot does is take a stand in defense of the principles that have made our country great.

Those principles are all under assault by this Administration. The powers they’re insisting on are exactly the powers that the Founders waged the Revolutionary War to get away from. They’re the powers of a king.

Anyone who loves the United States and believes in the principles and values that it embodies will be opposed to the kinds of theories of power and abuses of power that this Administration is embracing, regardless of political ideology or partisan allegiance. Those are the values that have always defined what America is.

BuzzFlash: Something completely overlooked as a major issue in the press, is that Attorney General Gonzales and the former head of the NSA, now head of the CIA, General Hayden, have been asked if the NSA wire-tapping, eavesdropping or data mining is being used for political purposes? Gonzales in the Senate hearing said I can’t speak to that at this time. I’m paraphrasing him. And Hayden just didn’t answer the question. He ignored it, and said, “Next question.” The fact that these two members of the Executive branch both would not flatly deny that was extremely disturbing to us because it implies that it is being used for political purposes. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they flatly deny it? It was extremely disturbing because, if that is the case, then we basically have a totalitarian government at this point. It would mean they are using illegal activity for political purposes, spying on people for political purposes. This was in essence what Nixon did in Watergate, but now it is being done on a massive scale, if that’s the case. Does that concern you?

Glenn Greenwald: That concerns me greatly. I don’t know how the Administration has been using the wire-tapping powers, because they’ve been doing it without the oversight of a court, in total secrecy, and the Congress has refused to investigate how long they’ve been eavesdropping and in what ways.

But this is what I do know. From the time the government first gained the power to eavesdrop in the 1930s, through the Nixon Administration, for the next forty years, every Administration, Democrat and Republican, has abused the eavesdropping power in some way, meaning to spy on political opponents or political groups, or to gain harmful information on people who were not suspected of engaging in any criminal activities. The Johnson and Kennedy Administration spied on civil rights leaders and anti-war groups. The Nixon Administration spied on essentially everybody. That is what the Church Committee investigation and the Senate in 1976 revealed - that the government has been able to eavesdrop in secret and without oversight, and has abused that power continuously.

That is exactly why the country in 1978 said, with the enactment of FISA, we want our government to be able to eavesdrop, because eavesdropping is an important tool to investigate criminals and engage in surveillance on enemies of the country. But we only trust our government to eavesdrop on Americans if they do it with the oversight of a federal judge on the FISA court and with the approval of that court. That’s the only way we can be sure that this eavesdropping power won’t be abused.

Every administration since then – Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton – eavesdropped only in compliance with the law. It’s precisely that law that the Bush Administration has broken. The only thing that breaking that law has achieved is not to increase their eavesdropping power, because you can eavesdrop on pretty much every terrorist and every suspected criminal by going to the FISA court. The only thing it’s enabled them to do is eavesdrop in secret, so nobody knows on whom they’re eavesdropping. Other than the desire to eavesdrop for political purposes, it’s hard to think of a reason why they would be so eager to be able to eavesdrop without any oversight.

BuzzFlash: What you would advise saying to people who don’t think there’s a big issue? We were listening to the radio the other day, and a Business Week reporter called in about AT&T giving data-mining information over to the NSA and so forth. Business Week has had a few articles on this. The commentator on the radio said, well, this is really an invasion of everyone’s privacy in the United States – how do you feel about that personally? And the reporter for Business Week said, I’ve talked to many of my friends about this, college-educated people with very professional jobs, and most of them say, if it helps catch terrorists, it’s okay with me. I have nothing to hide. I don’t really care. What do you say to someone who has those sort of thoughts – "I've got nothing to hide."

Glenn Greenwald: There’s a political difficulty in trying to convince people to care about rights that they don’t actually have a desire to exercise. For a long time I have debated First Amendment rights and defended people whose First Amendment rights were being assaulted. Those are usually people who express pretty extreme views and very unpopular views. So it’s hard to get people who have very mainstream views, who can’t really envision their own First Amendment rights being abridged, to care about attacks on those people who are on the extremes. They think, well, the government is never going to really attack me for my political views. Either I don’t have political views, or I don't express views that are very controversial, and therefore I don’t care.

That’s the same problem with privacy. A lot of people do think, erroneously, that there’s no harm in allowing the government to know what it is they’re doing because they don’t really do much that the government would be interested in.

I think there’s a couple things to say about that. One is, like a lot of rights, I think privacy is a minority right. It is something that is going to be abridged with a minority of people in the country. There’s only going to be a certain group of people who the government cares enough about to want to abridge their privacy, and to then use it against those people. But still, to be a free country, that zone of privacy has to exist. There is just value in showing that the government can’t collect information about citizens whom the government suspect of being a crime.

But I think there’s also a failure to appreciate just how invasive this information is. I know from litigating – from obtaining phone bills and other documents like that against people in litigation – that if you have a record of every person who someone is calling, and every person who is calling that individual, you’re going to know an enormous amount about them. You’ll know what doctors they talk to, what drug counselors they talk to, if they have girlfriends or boyfriends, or anything else. You will know everything about their professional life, their personal life, and intimate details that compose their life. To allow the government to maintain a database of that information against the public gives the government enormous power against its population and against its citizens. If that case is made to people, enough people will become convinced of the danger to be opposed to it.

BuzzFlash: That collection of information is not very different from what the East German Stasi did. It was about knowing everything about what citizens were doing, what they were up to. And that was a power that the Soviet bloc countries used over their citizens – knowing everything they could about them. Information is power, because you can leverage it if someone is having an affair, if someone is gay and doesn’t want other people to know. You can leverage that in having them turn as an informant for you, for instance. Now, we haven’t reached that point yet, but the government is slowly gathering information. It wouldn’t take much – maybe another terrorist attack – where it might become that.

Glenn Greenwald: When the National Security Agency was created, the first and last principle was that it would never be used to spy on the American public, because we don’t have a country where the government spies on its citizens. That was ingrained into every employee of the National Security Agency.

When the Church Committee investigated intelligence abuses, the Senators on that committee were amazed at the capabilities of the NSA - and that was back in 1976. They basically have the power to listen in on every single private conversation that occurs by telephone, even in homes at this point, by e-mail and in every other way. And Frank Church, after the investigation, said that if these powers were ever turned on the American public, we would essentially have a dictatorship, because there would be no zone to hide from your own government. Although, I think you’re right – these analogies are somewhat inflammatory, and it’s not to suggest that we’ve reached a point or anywhere near a point in our country where we can say that we have a stasi or a KGB spying internally on citizens - these programs provide a foundation for that. You have the NSA now collecting that kind of information on citizens, listening in and doing who-else-knows-what that has not been revealed yet. You have created the foundation for that degree of domestic spying. The danger of that power being abused in very extreme and frightening ways is obvious. And not just for this Administration, but for subsequent presidents as well. We ought not to wait until that happens to take a stand against it.

BuzzFlash: Thank you very much. Great book.

Glenn Greenwald: Thank you.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.
* * *

RESOURCES:

How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok (Paperback), by Glenn Greenwald, a BuzzFlash premium.

Unclaimed Territory, a blog by Glenn Greenwald.



http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06021.html

While Greenwald's explanation of the motives for this is plausible, it's at least as plausible that it stems from incompetence. It's as if the owner of a firm were caught with his hand in the till (when he was reaching for the honey jar)and says, "Well, you know, ah, that I'm SUPPOSED to be able to do this."

Well, no, he's not suposed to do that. He's supposed to keep proper books of account with all transactions properly recorded so that he can understand what's happening to the firm and amend his trading practices or his prices accordingly; which at the same time provides job security for the employees.

Everything that's happened could easily be explained as incompetence being (temporarily) rescued by an outrageous grasping at straws. Don't forget, we have a bunch of people here who REALLY think it's OK to torture "bad people". I'll admit there are people I'd like to torture, I'm sure we all would, under the right stimulus. But politicians are supposed to be restrained by officials who provide advice that such and such is illegal or would be inffective or sub-optimal in some other way. A "can do" culture among officials is easily, willingly, subverted to providing only "acceptable" advice and thus to lower its normal standards of competence.

This is probably exacerbated in the US by having so many elected officials; the deeper the attachment to party goes in the hierarchy (instead of being confined to the top), the more a "can do" culture may be expected to flourish. The subsequent post, on John Ashcroft, is almost incomprehensible to a Briton; no Lord Chancellor (our equivalent of the A-G) would ever have anything to do with any investigation, nor any of the junior Ministers. Nor would the Home Secretary (in charge of the police). Everything would be done by what you call career officials. And there would be a huge hierarchy of career officials between the politicians and the investigating officers, to protect them from political interference.

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Competitive Enterprise Institute's Category 5 Gore bashing
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange

06.08.06 - If former Vice President Al Gore eventually decides to mount another run for presidency, it may be that the bashing he received from the right during the run-up to and premiere of "An Inconvenient Truth," his new highly-acclaimed documentary film warning of the dangers of global warming, was a motivating factor.

According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Gore's movie "suggests that there are three reasons it's hard to get action on global warming. The first is boiled-frog syndrome: Because the effects of greenhouse gases build up gradually, at any given moment it's easier to do nothing. The second is the perception, nurtured by a careful disinformation campaign, that there's still a lot of uncertainty about whether man-made global warming is a serious problem. The third is the belief, again fostered by disinformation, that trying to curb global warming would have devastating economic effects."

The release of the film has been accompanied by disinfomania from conservatives; an onslaught of anti-Gore and global warming denial commentary. The National Review ran a cover story with the self-explanatory title, "Scare of the Century." And on the May 23 edition of the Fox News Channel's "Dayside," Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis cranked up the volume, calling the film "propaganda." Burnett added: "You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming."

Another longtime, and leading, purveyor of disinformation about global warming is the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which is attempting to discredit Gore's film, while continuing its campaign aimed at convincing the public that the jury "is still out" on the issue and there is no global warming crisis.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, CEI's commentators and commentaries frequently appear in a broad assortment of media venues including ABC's 20/20, the American Spectator, Christian Science Monitor, Consumers' Research, CNN'S Crossfire, Forbes, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, PBS' The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Moneyline, New York Times, PBS, Reader's Digest, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the Washington Times.

CEI has apparently established a special relationship with John Stossel, a correspondent on ABC's 20/20, SourceWatch reported:

When Stossel came under fire in August 2000 for citing nonexistent scientific studies on a 20/20 segment bashing organic foods, CEI set up a "Save John Stossel" Web site to help him keep his job.

Stossel returned the favor the following year by working with Michael Sanera [the head of the Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy Research, a small Arizona-based conservative think tank] to put together a program titled "Tampering With Nature" that focused on attacking environmental education. In March 2001, a pesticide industry front group known as Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) sent out an action alert memorandum to its members. "Mr. Sanera has been contacted by ABC News," the memo stated." A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism in the classroom. ... He has some examples, but needs more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples. Then contact Mr. Sanera ... Let's try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs."

Apparently neither Stossel nor CEI applied similar standards of fairness toward the schoolteachers and students they interviewed. Prior to the program's air date in July, several California parents of children interviewed by Stossel filed a complaint with ABC, stating that they had been misled about the nature of the program and the types of leading questions their kids would be asked. Seattle teacher John Borowski also being approached by ABC producer Ted Balaker, who attempted to trick him into appearing on camera by claiming that he was making a documentary about Earth Day, while denying that he was working with Stossel and Sanera.

On May 24, PBS' The News Hour with Jim Lehrer ran a segment on Gore's documentary. Anchor Gwen Ifill, who pointed out that "critics have called Gore 'alarmist,'" then ran a clip from a recent television advertisement produced by the CEI which she identified as a "Washington think tank."

According to Media Matters for America, Ifill neglected to "inform viewers that CEI is a conservative institution largely funded by the energy industry, which has a financial stake in opposing policies that seek to combat climate change. Moreover, Ifill ignored that, in the ads, which downplay the threat of global warming, CEI misrepresents several scientific studies."

Founded in 1984, CEI is a well-funded corporate- sponsored think tank that receives "substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry, including more than $2 million" from the Exxon Mobil Corporation between 1998 and 2005, Media Matters for America pointed out. On March 19, the Washington Post reported that CEI, "which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil," acknowledged that Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely due to the think tank's "effort to push that position."

A profile of CEI, posted at ExxonSecrets.org -- a Web site devoted to "documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics" -- pointed out that over the years, the think tank "has tackled" a number of "tough and contentious scientific issues" including "global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, [and has] most recently expanding into the politics of food." To CEI supporters, the think tank is a leader in the "fight against excessive federal government regulations." According to ExxxonSecrets, CEI is more than a low-profile dispenser of documents espousing free-market/anti-regulatory/anti-environmental positions; it "does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process."

On its Web site CEI states that it "serves as both a think tank--creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets--and an advocacy organization--putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."

Despite its other corporate-driven interests, "denying the seriousness of global warming" has become its bread and butter issue over the past several years. CEI "has argued that climate change would create a 'milder, greener, more prosperous world' and that 'Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear.'"

While CEI would prefer that policy makers and the public pay little or no attention to global warming, it aims to "convince the public that global warming is uncertain." And Gore's film, represents a real threat to its institutional credibility. In a mid-May counter - strike to the film, CEI released two 60-second television advertisements -- as part of a $50,000 ad buy in 14 cities scheduled to take place from May 18th to May 28th -- that "focus[ed] on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use," Media Matters for America reported.

The first ad, titled "Energy," "suggests that environmentalists have falsely labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant when, in fact, it is 'essential to life.' But, the ad ignores that it is not C02 itself that is inherently harmful, but it is excessive discharges of the gas that scientists argue is harmful to the atmosphere."

The second ad is called "Glaciers," and it "claims that recent scientific studies have proven that 'Greenland's glaciers are growing' and that the 'Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.' But as the blog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers."

On May 26, 2006, FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania issued an analysis of the ads titled, "Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To 'Confuse and Mislead.'" "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," said Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia and author of the research in a May 19 news release. "They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

FactCheck describes itself as "nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." (See here for the FactCheck critque, and to watch both ads.)

According to a ExxonSecrets fact sheet, over the years "CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which CEI claims pose no threat to human health"; it "supports [the] eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of 'demand,' based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation." CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition, and was "a sponsor" of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 -- it had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group.

Between 1985 and 2004, CEI received nearly $4.3 million in grants from conservative foundations. Heavy contributors include the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.

ExxonSecrets also noted that "With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is [also] supported by ... corporate fund[ers including] ... ExxonMobil ... the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM."

In his column, Paul Krugman pointed out that many people see Gore's film as being just as much about Gore as it is about global warming. And for some reason, from the outset of the 2000 presidential election campaign -- an election which saw Gore win the popular vote -- "some journalists" were dead set on playing up his stiffness, seeming lack of charisma and repeated gaffes, and "mak[ing[ him a figure of ridicule." Krugman asks, "Why were those journalists so determined to jeer Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the importance of global warming, many years before any other major political figure: his earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious analysis."

While Krugman refuses to partake in "the sudden surge of speculation about whether 'An Inconvenient Truth' will make Gore a presidential contender ... the film does make a powerful case that Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the country."

"...But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are we -- by which I mean both the public and the press -- ready for political leaders who don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call for responsible policies?"

The misleading ads produced by the CEI are not only being criticized for their lack of useful content, but some have called them satire worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit or a piece in The Onion. If Gore does decide to run for the presidency and manages to win the nomination, the man once dubbed "Ozone Man" by George H. W. Bush, should send a thank you note to the CEI for making him this century's first "Comeback Kid."


(c) 2006 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20926

[Saundra Hummer]

***********

John Zogby
By David T. Cook
It is clear that President Bush and Republican members of Congress are hurting politically. What is not clear is whether Democrats can convert Republican woes into major gains in the 2006 election.

A new nationwide survey by John Zogby, the guest at Friday's Monitor breakfast, found 67 percent of voters give President Bush a negative job rating. Some 62 percent of voters in the telephone survey conducted June 2-6 say the country is on the wrong track.

But when asked if Republicans deserve to retain control of Congress, only 49 percent say it is time for a Democratic takeover. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

"The Democrats have not closed the deal and it is breathtaking the degree to which the president and the Republicans in Congress have lost so much of their winning base," Zogby said. "Why am I still not ready to concede a landslide? Because there is very little in here to suggest the Democrats have closed the deal. Broadly speaking, they have made some inroads into all of these previously Republican held groups but not enough..."

In Zogby's new survey of 1028 respondents, 46 percent of self-identified conservatives gave the president a negative job rating. "Among conservatives, these are the lowest numbers we have ever seen," Zogby said. "It is privacy and it is the budget deficit and it is a war without end," conservative voters cite in explaining their stance on Mr. Bush, Zogby said.

A key event in this week of political ambiguity was Tuesday's election in California to replace imprisoned Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Republican Brian Bilbray won, but with only 49 percent of the vote in a traditionally Republican district. And only after national Republicans pumped some $5 million into the race.

Still, the Republican candidate won. Democrat Francine Busby's 45 percent share of the vote was only slightly better than the 44 percent of the electorate John Kerry won in the 2004 election.

On a national level, the problem for Democrats is they, "don't have anything to say to anybody that matters much about anything," Zogby said.

"Democrats still are the party of the big funnel, meaning you pour it in and filter it through gay rights groups, civil rights groups, women's rights groups, unions, environmental groups, all important issues. But who in the party is talking to middle America about what middle America cares about? What does middle America care about? Number one is the war, the war is still the top issue and ...over 90 percent of those who say the war is the top issue are opposed to the war and the Democrats are tongue-tied on the war....Democrats are going to have to come up with remedies that matter to middle America, and if they don't do that you can have a reprise of '02 and '04 [elections]," Zogby said.

Zogby argues that voters are not so tired of Republican control of Congress that they will vote the party out regardless of the Democratic message. "Democrats are tongue-tied on the war. And that is a problem. They are tongue-tied in fighting the war on terrorism. It is not a great bumper sticker, we care about terrorism, too...there is nothing in [the latest survey] that tells me that "had enough" is going to be enough," the pollster said.

Zogby, who has polled for candidates of both parties and a variety of news organizations including Fox and NBC News says the president will not get a significant political boost from the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The events of yesterday [are] weighed against what voters are seeing as a no-exit strategy, catastrophic war. You are starting to hear people say I don't understand why we are there. I don't understand how we bring the troops home, the same sorts of things you heard in Vietnam. Views of the war are hardened and are not likely to change. And this president and his administration for the most part are [all] about Iraq."

Zogby argued that, for liberal voters, global warming is as energizing a moral issue as the gay marriage ban is for conservatives. "Not only is there a national consensus developed on global warming but the intensity is on the global warming side. It is not any more on the anti- global warming side. So Democrats have to play to those strengths...."

A focus on the environment could help former Vice President Al Gore's political fortunes, Zogby said. " This could be Nixon redux-1968-for Al Gore. This could be his moment."



Posted June 09, 2006 - http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/earlyUS0609a.html
***************
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
A new Bio Warfare Arms Race begins in Maryland
6/5/2006 3:00:00 PM GMT
Expansion of bio-weapons activity will make America, and the world, less safe

By: Kevin Zeese
"You will do well to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blanketts, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race..."

- Approval by Lord Gen. Jeffrey Amherst, British Commander-in-Chief of America, for Col. H. Bouquet's suppression of Pontiac's Rebellion with smallpox laced-blankets, July 1763. The attack partially backfired when Bouquet infected his own troops.

The United States has come along way since our British ancestors used small pox poisoned blankets as a biological weapon against Indians. But, sadly, biological weapons are still with us – indeed they are becoming a major thrust of the U.S. military and a threat to humanity.

Ft. Detrick in Frederick, MD, just 45 miles away from the nation’s capitol, is going through a massive expansion into the largest bio-weapons facility in the world. The federal government is installing a 220 acre campus that will bring together numerous federal agencies anchored by a massive U.S. Army building – 22 acres in size. The National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC) is likely to ignite a bio-weapons arms race.

Expansion of Bio-Weapons Activity Will Make America, and the World, Less Safe

Not only is this a multi-billion dollar misuse of federal funds, but it will encourage our adversaries to develop similar programs, lead to the invention of new, infectious agents and increase the risk of diversion of U.S. made bio-weapons to our adversaries. If the government really want to increase the safety of Americans the U.S. would invest in the public health system, strengthen international controls and work to remove pathogens from the face of the earth, rather than creating new ones.



The only modern bio-weapons attack was the use of anthrax in letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy at the time the Patriot Act was being considered. There is no question the anthrax used in this attack was produced in the United States and came through Ft. Detrick. The type of anthrax used was the “Ames strain,” with a concentration and dispersability of one trillion spores per gram – a technology that is only capable of production by U.S. scientists.

It is not surprising that the only bio-weapons attack originated in U.S. laboratories. As advocates Barry Kissin and Richard Ochs point out:

“University of Michigan science historian Susan Wright calls the extent of fear of terrorism with biological weapons ‘completely unrealistic.’ ‘Heaven only knows how they think a terrorist is going to put up a lab and do this stuff without being caught,’ she said. ‘Labs with ventilation and good scientists leave huge footprints.’ Milton Leitenberg of the University of Maryland demonstrates in his recently published ‘Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat’ that billions of federal expenditures have been appropriated in the absence of virtually any threat analysis, and that the risk and imminence of the use of biological agents by non-state actors/terrorist organizations has been systematically and deliberately exaggerated. It is critical to recognize that the only bio-attack in American history, namely the anthrax letters of October 2001, almost certainly was generated by our own bio-weapons establishment.”

Now, the U.S. is expanding the number of laboratories involved in bio-weapons development by the hundreds, the number of individuals involved by the thousands thereby increasing exponentially the number of people who have access to these weapons and the risk of diversion of the material. The U.S. may end up spending billions of dollars and provide those who oppose the United States with weapons they could not produce themselves.

The U.S. is also developing new methods of using bio-weapons. Attorney and Congressional candidate Barry Kissin testified recently that “In May of 2003, it was reported that the United States Army has developed and patented a new grenade that it says can be used to wage bio-warfare. This is in explicit violation of the BTWC, which explicitly prohibits all development of bio-weapons delivery devices. U.S. Patent #6,523,478, granted on February 25th 2003, covers a ‘rifle launched non lethal cargo dispenser’ that is designed to deliver aerosols, including, according to the patent’s claims, ‘crowd control agents, biological agents, [and] chemical agents...’”

International Controls Weakened By the Bush Administration

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) bans the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition and retention of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, in types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.

The Convention also bans weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. The actual use of biological weapons is prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Article VIII of the BTWC recognizes that nothing contained in the Convention shall be construed as a derogation from the obligations contained in the Geneva Protocol.

The investment in bio-weapons that is likely to spur a bio-weapons arms race is occurring at a time when the Bush administration is blocking the strengthening of international controls of such weapons. In 2001, the U.S. rejected an effort to conclude an inspections protocol for the BTWC. The United States was the only country to favor terminating efforts to create a legally binding inspection and verification mechanism.

Further, on October 23, 2002, when the UN Disarmament Committee adopted a resolution reaffirming the 1925 Geneva Protocol “prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare,” the resolution passed unanimously, with two abstentions: the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. abstention amounts to a veto: banning the resolution from being reported.

The combination of massive new investment in bio-weapons facilities and the blockage of international controls on such weapons could be a deadly one for the world.

History of Fort Detrick

Fort Detrick actually began in 1943 as Camp Detrick and worked with the British in creating an anthrax bomb. It became a permanent Army installation, Fort Detrick in 1956 and developed offensive bio-weapons. But, in 1969 during the Vietnam War, when the U.S. was criticized for using gas, napalm and herbicides in Vietnam, President Nixon unilaterally ended the nation’s offensive biological warfare program and ordered pathogens and toxins destroyed. This also led to the signing of the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention in 1972 which became law in 1975. It was discovered in 1975 that the CIA had disobeyed the order to destroy all bio-weapons stocks, and had retained pathogens and toxins for its own use. In the 1980’s, the Reagan and Bush Administrations revived the dormant budget for “defensive” biowarfare research. It was also in the 1980’s that the U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein with basis for Iraq’s biowarfare capability.



After 9/11 the Bush administration dramatically increased funding for bio-weapons activity. Ft. Detrick will become the National Interagency Biodedefense Campus (NIBC) bringing together the U.S Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture. The campus will cost billions of dollars, cover hundreds of acres, include millions of square feet of buildings and thousands of square feet of BSL-4 (Level 4) laboratory space – laboratories used for experimentation with infectious agents which there exists neither a vaccine nor a cure. All of this in the now heavily populated Frederick County with more than 200,000 residents.

As part of their efforts of “defending” the United States from bio-weapons, Ft. Detrick will be creating new weapons, as well as the means to mass-produce and disseminate them. The rationale is that to defend against the weapons we have to understand them. In the Frederick News Post, Barry Kissin, a lawyer activist who is running for Congress in Frederick, asked Col. Mary Deutsch, Fort Detrick’s Commander, about the work at the base and she acknowledged that among the technology used will be “genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technology” along with many other “advanced methods.” Follow up questions by Kissin’s colleagues about allowing international inspections and potential violations of international treaties went unanswered. The former chief American negotiator of the Biological Weapons Convention, James Leonard, has warned that the administration’s initiative could be interpreted as “development” of biological weapons in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention.

Of course, there are endless variations of pathogens so this is a never ending task – a constant drain of billions of U.S. tax dollars on a strategy that will never lead to safety. According to Dr. Milton Leitenberg, a veteran arms control advocate and senior scholar at the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies, germ warfare agents can be genetically modified and each modification may require a different vaccine or countermeasure.

History of Problems with Security at Ft. Detrick Continue to This Day

Ft. Detrick has had significant problems over the years. Before 1969 a seven story tower was used to house anthrax bacteria. When Nixon stopped production the tower was off limits. There were repeated efforts to clean the tower. A 1993 Ft. Detrick publication noted that the tower had been used to grow anthrax “a dangerous organism which can lie dormant for thousands of years in a spore state [and then become reactivated].” The Tower was demolished in 2003 and all indications are that the rubble was deposited in the Frederick County landfill.

In addition, in the 1991 it was discovered that water supplies surrounding Ft. Detrick contained high levels of cancer causing agents, TCE and PCE. The Washington Post reported: “The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Frederick County Health Department tested 33 wells at homes near Area B. Half were contaminated with the two agents, six so badly that the water was unfit to drink. In a few wells, concentrations of the two chemicals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency limits many times over. In an Army monitoring well nearest the dump, the chemicals were so concentrated, "you could smell it," said Joseph Gortva, an engineer who is managing the cleanup.”

In 2003, The Guardian headlined “U.S. Finds Evidence of WMD – at last – Buried in Maryland.” They reported:

“The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.

“The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.

“Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the U.S. bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick.

“The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of hazardous waste.

“The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of pneumonia.”

The Washington Post report noted that deer jump through the fields and cattle roam where the poisons were found. And, in addition traces of Agent Orange.

This year, the Frederick News Post, received responses to Freedom of Information Act requests that documented anthrax being found in unprotected areas outside of carefully guarded suites. They also found documentation of workers’ potential exposures to biological agents between April 1, 2002, and Dec. 1, 2005. The reports also documented that adherence to and enforcement of safety and security procedures was lax. Further, 161 biological defense mishap reports were filed between April 1, 2002 and Dec. 1, 2005. Between 1989 and 2002, Ft. Detrick’s clinic evaluated 234 individuals for potential exposure to agents of bioterrorism and nonbioterrorism -- 162 cases were assessed as minimal, negligible or no risk; 67 were assessed as moderate or high risk. These reports are consistent with whistleblowers who have reported sloppy procedures and missing bio-agents over the years.

Neighbors have also been affected. For example in May of 2005, residents downwind of Fort Detrick woke up one morning to find their residential properties coated with flakes of a soot-like substance. And in August 2005, there was a “suspicious odor” at the Fort’s wastewater treatment plant. According to the Fort’s spokesperson an “unknown source” dumped an “unknown substance” into the sewer line at the steam plant.

How to Really Protect America and the World from Bio-Weapons

At a time when the U.S. public health care system is unprepared for epidemics – natural flu’s for example, massive funds are being spent chasing an endless variety of pathogens, of unpredictable genetic make-up, a chase the U.S. can never win.

Dr. Muin Khoury, Director of the Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention at the CDC stated in February 2003: “Public health is in disarray, and this emphasis on terrorism is eroding the public health infrastructure even more.”

In March, 2005, more than 750 U.S. biologists including two Nobel laureates and seven past presidents of the American Society for Microbiology, signed an open letter to NIH protesting at the excessive use of bacteriology funds for the study of bio-terror threats. "The diversion of research funds from projects of high public-health importance to projects of high biodefence relevance represents a misdirection of NIH priorities and a crisis for NIH-supported microbiological research.” They conludeed:

Essentially, misdirection of funds is making America less safe, not more.

The direction of the United States is misplaced. It is time for transparent monitoring under the Bioweapons Convention, investment in the public health system and making sure pathogens are no longer produced.

Kevin Zeese is Director of DemocracyRising (www.DemocracyRising.US) and a candidate for U.S. Senate (www.ZeeseForSenate.org).

For more information:
Free From Terror: http://www.freefromterror.net/
The Sunshine Project: http://www.sunshine-project.org/
The Bioweapons and Biodefense Freedom of Information Fund: http://www.cbwtransparency.org/

Go onsite to view the map, photo's and links

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11686

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~

Brown: E-Mail Shows Bush Glad FEMA Took Katrina Flak
CNN News

Friday 09 June 2006

Washington - The former emergency management chief who quit amid widespread criticism over his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina said he received an e-mail before his resignation stating President Bush was glad to see the Oval Office had dodged most of the criticism.

Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Friday that he received the e-mail five days before his resignation from a high-level White House official whom he declined to identify.

The e-mail stated that Bush was relieved that Brown - and not Bush or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff - was bearing the brunt of the flak over the government's handling of Katrina.

The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "

The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."

CNN has been unable to verify the authenticity of the e-mail, but the White House designation "eop.gov" is part of the sender's e-mail address, indicating it came from the Executive Office of the President.

A White House spokesperson said in an e-mail to CNN: "This is an old rumor that surfaced months ago and we're not commenting on it. This story has already been reported and I have heard nothing at all that would substantiate it."

The e-mail was provided to CNN on the condition that the sender's name be redacted. Brown said only that the sender was a "good friend of the president," who has been with the president "a long time."

Brown said did he, too, considers the sender a friend.

While acknowledging that part of a political appointee's job is to "take the sword" for the president, Brown said he has grown weary of Chertoff making him a scapegoat for FEMA's failures in the wake of Katrina.

"I'm not willing to take that sword for Michael Chertoff," Brown said.

"I'm frankly getting tired of Chertoff out there, every time he testifies, talking about how Brown didn't do this or that," Brown said. "As long as Chertoff continues to criticize me, I think we need to recognize that I was doing everything I needed to do down there."

Brown also reiterated an earlier call for the resignation of Chertoff, whom he said suffers from "political tone deafness." Brown suggested that despite announcements to the contrary, FEMA is not prepared for the 2006 hurricane season, which began June 1.

"I want the White House in general, in particular Michael Chertoff, to stop dragging me through the mud every time the issue of FEMA comes up," he said. "There's a lot of things that need to be done to fix FEMA and continuing to throw that at me is not going to solve anything."

Brown's attorney, Andy Lester, who first wrote about the e-mail in the conservative weekly publication Human Events, said the White House was handling the situation in "a cowardly way."

"What the White House was actually doing was taking some stories that got started in the media and pushing them and pushing them until everything got diverted to Mike," Lester said. "Mike Brown was being made the scapegoat."
********************
GO ON-SITE TO VIEW COPY OF EMAIL (pdf file....Adobe Reader)

http://www.truthout.com

[Saundra Hummer]

************
Associate Publisher: Public Interest in News Topics Beyond Control of Mainstream Media
By
Kenneth F. Bunting
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday 09 June 2006

The blogosphere has been abuzz. But in the days since Rolling Stone magazine published a long piece that accused Republicans of widespread and intentional cheating that affected the outcome of the last presidential election, the silence in America's establishment media has been deafening.

In terms of bad news judgment, this could turn out to be the 2006 equivalent of the infamous "Downing Street memo," the London Times story that was initially greeted by the U.S. media with a collective yawn.

Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone mega-essay is titled "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" It focuses on widespread voting irregularities, questionable tallies and disenfranchising practices, particularly in Ohio, which President Bush won by more than 100,000 votes.

Singling out Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell for much of the blame, Kennedy writes persuasively that enough was awry in that state alone to raise serious questions as to whether Bush really defeated John Kerry in 2004. Blackwell, now a Republican candidate for governor, headed Bush's state re-election campaign at the same time he was constitutionally in charge of the state's voting machinery.

While Kennedy's article perhaps gives far too much weight to suspicious discrepancies between exit polls and the final election outcome, it meticulously asserts and documents questionable methods of purging voter rolls, intentionally created long lines at Democratic polling places, court-defying practices regarding registrations and provisional ballots, a phony terrorist alert on Election Day and final tallies in some counties and precincts that, to Kennedy's way of seeing it, simply don't make sense. Already, it notes, three Cleveland-area election officials have been indicted for illegally rigging the recount.

Kennedy's 11,000-word article was Rolling Stone's cover story, published on Thursday of last week.

But if you were looking in the five or six days afterward for follow-up stories, investigations or even a mention in the P-I, its cross-town competitor or just about any other major U.S. newspaper, you were almost certainly disappointed.

To his credit, CNN's Wolf Blitzer aired a brief and not-very-illuminating interview with Kennedy late the next day after the Rolling Stone issue hit the newsstands. There was a brief mention on the Lou Dobbs report later that same evening and MSNBC got around to mentioning the article's assertions several days later.

But for the most part, national and regional newspapers, the major networks and news services have behaved as if the article was never published, that it broke no new ground and there was nothing of interest or significance in it.

Understandably, some readers are asking why. One Whidbey Island resident e-mailed the news editors of the P-I and The Seattle Times simultaneously, asking "Which one of you has the honesty and guts to investigate and report about the charges that Robert Kennedy Jr. has written about in regards to stolen 2004 presidential election?"

"That someone could claim that our American electoral process was criminally thwarted should be BIG news."

P-I News Editor Gil Aegerter answered courteously, telling the reader he would pass his concerns along to our political coverage team. "In the meantime," Aegerter wrote, "I'll direct you to online coverage that the P-I has been doing on this issue, about the original Rolling Stone report and about reaction to it."

Despite the critical tone in his note to Aegerter and his Times counterpart, our reader, and others who have similarly complained, are right.

Aegerter and other P-I editors who have taken time to respond to complaining readers are to be commended. While there is no pretense here that it is adequate, I'm also proud that, having seen no wire-service accounts, political team Assigning Editor Chris Grygiel was smart enough to write and start a blog about it on our Web site.

It is news. It certainly deserves mention, at the very least in stories about the story, reaction to it or even ones debunking it. Any of those choices would be better judgment than simply ignoring it.

Those of us in what bloggers and Internet journalists derisively call "mainstream media" should have learned that lesson last year, when Internet-fueled curiosity about the "Downing Street memo" made us pay attention to a story we were too quick to dismiss as old news. Badly undervaluing the significance and the public's interest in the new disclosures, we thought former Bush administration officials, including ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke, had told us a year earlier that the administration had a predisposition for war with Iraq long before the attack, and long before diplomatic pressures had been exhausted. On hindsight, some of us realize now we should have recognized the newsworthiness of the secret memo and the 2002 meeting it chronicled, even if the report only provided corroboration of something we'd already heard.

The P-I's editorial pages noted the secret British memo in columns before news of it was finally published on the news pages of ours and most other U.S. newspapers. But even so, that was nearly two weeks after Times of London's initial report.

The parallels to the Kennedy article are hard to escape.

Like most newspapers our size, the P-I relies on news services for most of its national and international news. Managing Editor David McCumber did what good editors at regional and midsized newspapers often do. He called The Associated Press and asked if a report would be forthcoming. He got back the predictable and disappointing response that the news cooperative's Washington and national editors had looked at Kennedy's report and determined there was "nothing new."

It is true that there have been reports about voting problems in Ohio since election night. But Kennedy's article is not just old news rehashed. Its 11,000 words, not counting the 208 footnotes, most of which contain Web addresses for links to source information, are certainly overreaching at times. For those with mistrust or partisan fervor against Bush, Kennedy's reporting will sound like evidence of fraud and election tampering that rivals the shenanigans of the worst Third World dictators.

For those who read it with a more balanced view, there is plenty to fuel outrage about imperfections and potential for manipulation of the electoral system.

It's too early to tell whether it will become big news in the same delayed manner the British intelligence memo did. But the titans of the news industry still have things to learn about how news becomes news in the present-day media landscape. Editors will always have responsibility for filtering, and helping readers understand the importance and credibility of news reports.

But nowadays, the American discourse is rightfully in hands other than ours. Kenneth F. Bunting is associate publisher.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_061106C.shtml

[Saundra Hummer]

***********
Also see below:
Practices That Matter Little in the United States •
Go to Original (on-site: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_060806H.shtml)
Caution By Antoine de Gaudemar
Libération

Thursday 08 June 2006
While it contains a striking synthesis of known but difficult to prove information, the Council of Europe's report on the CIA's anti-terrorist activities assumes a particular symbolic importance. In the name of that struggle, many serious human rights breaches have been tolerated since September 11, of which the most flagrant are the existence of the Guantanamo camp, as well as the kidnappings and transfers of suspects by a sophisticated and clandestine system of special planes, compliant airports and "outsourced" prisons. A system that has long benefited from the more or less passive complicity of numerous European states and against which weigh the heavy accusations of torture. That Europe should finally officially react against this arbitrariness and abuse is a strong signal to the American government and public opinion. Even as US public opinion rises up against the Iraq war because it counts its death every day, it seems to close its eyes to the consequences of the war against terrorism in the matter of human rights. Since the cascade of revelations about this scandal, a slow dawning of awareness is taking place in the United States that strengthens the growing opposition to the Iraq war. The Dick Marty report also has the merit of forcing those European states that have been singled out to provide an explanation for their behavior as well as forcing the whole continent to denounce the illegal, but up to now tolerated, practices of the CIA. For such are the stakes: does the fight against terrorism justify the violation of the basis and the legitimacy of a state of laws? No, answers the Council of Europe, and the caution is salutary.
***********
Go to Original
Practices That Matter Little in the United States
By Laurent Mauriac
Libération

Thursday 08 June 2006
Since September 11, 2001, human rights come after the country's security.
Several mentions on CNN yesterday morning, but to insist on the absence of "direct proof"; a dispatch from the Associated Press agency on the New York Times' site ... Yesterday's publication of the Council of Europe's report on the CIA's secret prisons aroused only a calculated treatment in the American media.

For Nancy Snow, a professor of communication at California State University, the media are in unison with the American population, which has not been characterized by a sustained interest in human rights since the September 11 attacks. "The polls and the research shows that those preoccupations take a back seat to questions of national security," she explains. "It's as though we had returned to the Cold War period, and that risks lasting for years still."

A little more optimistic, Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of the association for the defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch, observes some progress: "After the attacks, people didn't pay any attention to it; all that counted was self-protection. Now, there are several debates on these questions." He cites notably the amendment prohibiting torture voted in by the Senate in October under pressure from Republican John McCain against the will of the President. According to him, the CIA profits from a certain indulgence with respect to its activities, by their very nature secret, on the part of public opinion. Nonetheless, he notes that even on that question a Senate committee asked the government at the end of May to reveal the existence and location of the secret prisons. "The Council of Europe's report is a summary of what has already been discovered," assures Tom Malinowski. "The fact that it comes from the Council is especially important for European opinion."

The thin American media coverage is also an artifact of the lack of available information. "The government has done a good job of keeping everything secret," deems Steven Watt, a lawyer for the association that defends public freedoms, the American Civil Liberties Union. "The judiciary system has allowed no information to be divulged out of fear of compromising national security."

Nancy Snow considers that the government is implementing a propaganda strategy to limit the impact of worries over human rights on public opinion. The researcher has notably analyzed Bush's many speeches on the fight against terrorism. "He only speaks in generalities. It's a war, the president explains, between democracy and tyranny, between light and darkness, a war that the United States is sure to win because it represents the good. You will look in vain for any complexity in Bush's speeches. The simpler it is, the better it works."

For her, the growing disapproval of the war in Iraq is due above all to the human and financial losses. Public opinion does not question "the war against terror" or the idea that "we are not, all the same, going to accord human rights to our enemies."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_060806H.shtml

***

[Saundra Hummer]

*.*.*.*.*.*
The Post-Zarqawi "Years"
Commentary: How many more turning points in Iraq can the American people take?
By
Tom Engelhardt
June 12, 2006


The press tells us that our "thrilled" President was "conservative" or "carefully guarded," or expressed "cautious optimism" in responding to the death of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, the small-time thug, beheader, fomenter of Sunni/Shia civil war, and all-around violent extremist who became an American poster boy for terrorism in Iraq. Who had even heard of him until, as British journalist Patrick Cockburn points out, "he was denounced in 2003, by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the UN Security Council as the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Zarqawi was the most minor of minor figures, used by the Bush administration mainly as bogus "evidence" of the Saddam/al-Qaeda connection until he made himself conveniently available to step into the explanation gap left open after Saddam had been captured and things in Iraq only got worse.

His face filled the screen in life and death malevolently and photogenically. He looked the villain -- particularly useful for an administration focused on a Manichaean world of good and evil, governing a country that tends to like its enemies straight-up and, if at all possible, personified in a single face. So it didn't take long before Zarqawi was America's most-wanted man in Iraq.

As far as we can tell, he never actually controlled more than a few hundred to a thousand Iraqis and foreign jihadis (though he may have trained others in Iraq, which in the wake of the American invasion has indeed become the President's "central theater in the war on terror," for mayhem elsewhere). He was, as Megan Stack of the Los Angeles Times wrote, more "looming image" than military commander. But his great skill, like that of his al-Qaeda betters, lay in creating his own outsized image and in imagining the brutal attack or slaughter of civilians that would, by its nature, draw the camera and magnify his importance.

The Bush administration helped inordinately, putting a $25 million dollar reward on his head, crowning him the "prince" of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Karen de Young and Walter Pincus put it this way in the Sunday Washington Post: "[Administration] magnification of his role and of the threat he posed grew to the point that some senior intelligence officers believed it was counterproductive."

Now, he's dead and, in death, he's gotten the kind of news attention once devoted to Saddam (who was, at least, a significant regional figure to be reckoned with). On the night his death was announced, CBS prime-time news was typical in devoting almost every moment of a half-hour newscast scoured of actual news to his death alone, as it otherwise might have done only for a major world figure. The full "news" to be gleaned from that half hour was evident in the first fifteen seconds: Zarqawi is dead.

Our papers are filled with discussions of whether or not, after so many Iraqi "turning points" that weren't, this one is. Our "cautious" President nonetheless hailed Zarqawi's death as "a victory in the global war on terror" and spoke -- in one of those plagiarized Churchillian phrases his speechwriters favor (perhaps because they transport us out of the ugly present and back into a version of World War II once seen in movie theaters) -- of how this might represent "an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle." This is "cautious" only compared to a President who, as late as November 2005, used "victory" fifteen times in a single speech on Iraq. One "victory" to a speech is indeed something of a victory deficit for him.

But haven't we been through all this before? Haven't we had our turning points, turned our many "corners," passed all those "milestones" again and again? When Saddam's sons were killed in a shootout at their safe house, when Saddam was plucked from his "spiderhole," when endless "key lieutenants" of Zarqawi were reported rounded up or killed, when several elections took place? Now, Zarqawi has been plucked from his "spiderhole" too… well, whatever it was, under whatever circumstances those were.

As is typical of absolutely any story out of this Pentagon, the details of the first version of the Zarqawi death are already beginning to blur and shift. Did a child die in the rubble? Was Zarqawi really alive in that devastation? Did American soldiers find him and try to administer first aid, as a military spokesman reported? Or did American soldiers beat the wounded terrorist to death, as CBS reported a witness saying Saturday? Or could our troops have kicked him repeatedly in the chest while shouting for him to reveal his name, as Hala Jaber, Sarah Baxter, and Michael Smith report in the London Sunday Times? Did he mumble a few unintelligible words and quickly expire, as the first U.S. military reports had it? Or did it take him, as other witnesses reported, an hour and fifteen minutes to die after Iraqis living near the house in which he was hiding pulled him from the rubble? Was he really turned in by someone in his own organization, as some American reports have had it, or is that just a nice little piece of U.S. disinformation meant for whatever is left of his movement? Was he tracked down by Jordanian intelligence or turned in by some part of the Sunni resistance which loathed his tactics? We don't know, but stay tuned.

In the meantime, "cautious" administration officials, hardly capable of containing their glee, sensing an approval-rating bump in the polls (however brief), are trying to manage a situation that may prove especially dangerously for them. They may soon find themselves caught in the tangles of, to coin a phrase, their own self-fulfilling propaganda.

Let me, on this, be neither conservative, nor cautious. Every now and then, you have to rely on history as your guide. And hasn't this happened to us enough? Don't we know that, in every turning-of-the-tide moment in Iraq, it soon turns out that, despite the hoopla, our tide was ebbing and someone else's invariably rising? A number of experts are already suggesting that Zarqawi's death will have "minimal impact" on the Iraqi resistance and may, in fact, serve to strengthen it by removing the most divisive and detested oppositional figure in the country; or perhaps, as the superb independent journalist Nir Rosen suggests in a thoughtful obit at the Truthdig website, Zarqawi's death "was the greatest advertisement for his cause" and the path he blazed into sectarian warfare is now unstaunchable.

Paul Woodward of the War in Context website sums matters up this way:


"Zarqawi's death fits on a trend line. Unfortunately for the Bush administration and the Iraqi government this isn't a trend of increasing success in quelling the insurgency. On the contrary, it seems to reflect a growing hostility between native and non-native Sunni insurgents. Zarqawi's loss may be a blow to foreign jihadists, but many Iraqi Sunni insurgents may now be quite comfortable seeing him ‘promoted' yet operationally sidelined as a jihadi emeritus."

Already we know that, in the wake of Zarqawi's death, our President and his military advisors no longer believe a simple announcement of a draw-down of American forces in Iraq to the 100,000 level by year's end is possible, not even to help Republican candidates in the midterm elections. (In fact, the numbers on American troops in Iraq, while murky, are actually on the rise.) According to David E. Sanger and James Glanz of the New York Times in a piece headlined, U.S. Seeking New Strategy for Buttressing Iraq's Government, the President is convening a "two-day strategy session" at Camp David this Monday "to revive highly tangible efforts to shore up Iraq's new government."

The report cites "several" of the unnamed "American officials" who invariably swarm through such stories as reviving one of the oldest and most patronizing images from the early days of the Bush administration's Iraq fiasco: "It is also an effort to hand off leadership to Mr. Maliki's government and, in an analogy used by several American officials, to begin to let go of the bicycle seat and find out if the Iraq government can stay upright with less American support." Okay, it used to be "taking the training wheels off." The President's men are, the journalists report, looking "at the costs of maintaining a[n American military] force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come." Nonetheless, "one of the senior officials involved in the strategy session" characterized this moment in Iraq as a "last best chance to get this right." Last? Best?

I wonder what they'll be saying in November 2006? February 2007? Or in any of those post-Zarqawi "years to come"? The real question is: How many more turning points and ebbing tides can the American people (and the American media) take?


Tom Engelhardt writes and edits Tomdispatch.com, where this article first appeared as an introduction to "The President Addresses the Good American People about Total Victory, Evil WMD, and VNTME" by John Brown.

Copyright 2006 Tom Engelhardt

MORE ON IRAQ

Iraq Air War: Where's the Coverage?
Don't expect to find it in the US media.

P L U S :
Dahr Jamail on the Zarqawi Phenomenon

No Bar Code
An evangelical Virginia farmer says a revolution against industrial agriculture is just down the road.


Head in the Sand

Americans want change, but can progressives make the sale?

Extreme Home Makeover--Corruption Editon

Can Wal-Mart Do Fair Trade?

Darfur: Harder Than It Seems

Guantanamo has driven Rear Admiral Harry Harris insane

Yearly Kos: "This isn't about the Democratic Party; it's about the United States of America."

Why are the comics tougher on Bush than the Democrats?

Yearly Kos: Do blogs matter, anyway?

Go on-site to view the other articles up above - just click on the following link:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/06/turning_points.html

I, for one, am glad he's a played out chapter, that he's gone, that he's no more. I now only hope he isn't some sort of "Hydra" that will inspire other sicko's to follow his example. Let's hope that where there was one, that many don't pop up in his stead to wreak more havoc. There's been enough suffering and nightmarish hells on both sides.

If he were beaten to death after being captured, then I find it hard to place any blame on whomever did such as that to him; if indeed it happened as they are saying, as the Iraqi witnesses's are saying, then who could blame any of those involved? After all, it was their having witnessed his bloody and inhumane ways which percipitated such an event. If it did indeed happen like is being said, then it isn't right. Basically it isn't right, however, I can't help but feel the world is a better place without the likes of him. At least this is how I see it. Good riddence, and, I only wish it had happened much, much earlier. If he was being used as a propaganda tool, it worked with me. He was a menance to all that is good, all that is decent. An insurgent? Not hardly. He was a stone cold killer, he didn't deserve to make his footprints on this earth known. SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
How to Watch the World Cup Commentary: On a game that often amounts to politics by other means.
By
Tony Karon
June 8, 2006
From the Archives

How Soccer Explains the WorldAn interview with Franklin Foer

Introduction by Tom Engelhardt.
Starting today, the message of much of the world will be: Don't call us; we'll call you in a month. The World Cup begins and, outside the U.S., much else stops.

To mention a small desire of mine -- I've long wanted to cover some sports at Tomdispatch. (After all, like so many of us, I obsessively watch enough of it.) Now, Tony Karon has made reality of my passing dream with this "how to" which should catch the attention of World Cup fans and non-fans alike.

With the dexterity of an on-line Pelé, Karon is a man everywhere at once: He writes for Time.com, puts together the always interesting website Global Beat for journalists, and in his all-too-spare spare time, periodically writes riveting little essays at his website, Rootless Cosmopolitan (where he will also be blogging the World Cup).

Those of you who have mastered the necessary art of doing at least two things at once and can read with the TV running (and little figures running on it) might consider picking up Eduardo Galeano's singularly wonderful book, Soccer in Sun and Shadow, or try C. L. R. James' classic book on cricket and politics, Beyond a Boundary, which Karon mentions and which is worth it, even if you don't know a thing about the sport. (Or just skip them both and, for a special treat, read Galeano's inspiring newest book, Voices of Time: A Life in Stories.)

Now, whether you call it soccer or football, do your stretches and wind sprints, then relax, and, with Karon, consider the World Cup as the world itself.


How to Watch the World Cup: Politics and War by Other Means
By Tony Karon

I have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden will be on June 14 -- and June 19, and again on June 23. Not his exact location, but it's a safe bet he'll be in front of a TV tuned in to Saudi Arabia's World Cup soccer matches with, respectively, Tunisia, Ukraine, and Spain. Legend has it that soccer is one of bin Laden's guilty pleasures. He's unlikely to miss the spectacle of the men from the land of the Prophet taking on the infidels of al-Andalus. He probably has a soft spot for Tunisia too, that country being the only one on record thus far to see one of its professional soccer players attempt to join al Qaeda's martyrs.

Nor will bin Laden be alone among America's enemies in spending June engrossed in the quadrennial spectacle of the World Cup, staged this time in Germany. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has even threatened to show up if Iran progresses beyond the first round. Seeking to burnish his populist credentials at home, Ahmedinajad recently allowed himself to be photographed in sweats kicking a ball around with the Iranian team during a training session. You can bet Kim Jong-il will watch, too, even though it is South Korea that represents his nation's hopes this year.

President Bush may give the event a miss -- one can only wonder what he would make of a game in which the U.S. has a negligible chance of being world champion; for Americans with qualms about their country's imperial role, by contrast, supporting the plucky and rather well-liked outsiders of Team USA is an opportunity for guilt-free patriotic fervor. But you can be sure that Bush allies like Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Junichiro Koizumi, and Silvio Berlusconi (who actually owns AC Milan, one of Italy's top teams) will watch their countries' every game.

No global event commands anything close to the attention paid the World Cup on all five continents. As many as 3 billion people are expected to watch some of it on TV, while 250 million more will cluster around radios to follow every play. Having caught the 1974 and 1978 tournaments by radio from a South Africa without TV coverage, I can sympathize with the TV-less Angolans, Togoans, Ghanaians, and Ivoirians of today. (I took in the live drama via the BBC on short-wave, then waited two weeks for the visuals, courtesy of the White House Hotel, a Cape Town brothel that was diversifying its revenue stream by showing imported pirate videos of the games.)

The billions who tune into the World Cup are watching a game that, at the highest level, largely negates all advantages of social class or even physical stature -- the combination of speed, skill, imagination and organization required to prevail is a great leveler. But at the World Cup, soccer is far more than a game.

"What do they of cricket know who only cricket know," wrote the legendary Trinidadian historian and socialist CLR James, insisting that the spectacle of men in white flannels on a grassy oval engaged in a five-day contest of bat and ball, with strictly observed breaks for lunch and afternoon tea, could only be properly understood in the context of the political and cultural conflicts of the British Empire. If James had lived long enough to see the national team of his beloved Trinidad qualify for the elite 32 teams that will contest the 2006 World Cup, he'd surely have made the same point about soccer (even if, like most of humanity, he'd have called it "football").

James recognized sport as a ritualized combat, matching only war in its ability to channel national passions. Those passions are tied, for better or worse, to an almost mythic connection fans make between their team and their national narrative -- when facing Germany, English fans routinely chant lines like: "Two World Wars and one World Cup" (linking their defeats of Germany on the battlefield and the soccer field).

As James saw it, playing cricket matches against England offered its former colonial subjects, at least ritually, a chance to demolish the claims of cultural superiority through which the British had for so long rationalized imperial rule. So, too, soccer: The roar heard across the Irish Diaspora when the Republic of Ireland team scores against England expresses a passion that long predates the game of soccer -- the more jingoistic among the English fans respond with bloodcurdling anti-IRA songs. Millions of Africans walked a little taller that summer's day four years ago when Senegal beat its former colonial master, France, then the reigning world champion.

James also noted the tendency of colonized peoples to develop their own idiom of play, evolving styles based on their skills and patterns of social organization that tended to confound the colonizer even while playing within his rules.

The last World Cup final pitted Brazil against Germany, teams that represent global North-South polar opposites in the way the game is played. As Muhammad Ali was celebrated not just for his unique skills in the ring but for his iconic resistance to the racial order, so the universal popularity of Brazil is based not only on its exquisitely poetic style -- the "Joga Bonito" (beautiful game) -- but also on its role as a proxy representative of the Global South.

The German game epitomizes the industrialized West: physical power, relentless drive, unshakable organization and a machine-like efficiency in punishing opponents' mistakes. It's a kind of Blitzkrieg -- the modern German game, as Simon Kuper has noted, had its roots in Nazi sports culture and the militaristic virtues it lionized -- that overwhelms opponents with physical power on the ground and in the air, often winning "ugly" by a single goal. The best-known German players of the past half century have been goalkeepers, field commanders in defense and midfield, as well as clinical if artless goal-poaching forwards. There has never been a Pelé on the German team; in Brazil, by contrast, each year brings a new crop of awesomely talented teenagers from the favelas whose audacious skill and flair inevitably anoints them as "the next Pelé."

Brazil's style is more akin to advanced guerrilla warfare in which the insurgents have the momentum and the confidence. They combine impossible skill with breathtaking audacity and guile, an ability to shoot from great distances and apply boot to ball in a manner that improbably "bends" its trajectory. The telepathy with which they are able to anticipate each other's movements allows them to dazzle both the opposition and the crowd with the fluidity of their passing movements and their propensity for doing the unexpected. The adversary literally never knows where the next attack will come from, or what it will be. And the smiles of the Brazilians, even in crucial games, tell you that they're enjoying themselves. On the field, you'll rarely see a German player smile.

When Ronaldinho, currently rated the greatest player in the world, spotted the English goalkeeper David Seaman two yards off the goal line in their 2002 World Cup clash, he unleashed a 40-yard free kick that looped over Seaman's outstretched gloves, wickedly dipping and curling into the top corner of England's goal. So thunderstruck were the English TV commentators that they insisted the strike was a fluke, a pass that went fortuitously awry. It's for such moments that the soccer fans of the Global South live.

Globalizing the Local Game

National idioms of play may, however, be on the wane, as Europe's professional club leagues -- housing almost all of the world's leading players -- create nearly year-round the sort of spectacle for a global-satellite TV audience once restricted to the World Cup. In many developing countries today (including Brazil), ever fewer people attend domestic league games, reserving their soccer time religiously for TV broadcasts of the top European leagues where they're more likely to see the best players from their own countries.

Today, a match in London between Arsenal and Manchester United involves players from Latin America, much of West Africa, the Arab world, northern, southern, and eastern Europe, and Asia. The global TV audience it attracts is good news for the marketers of players' jerseys and other soccer paraphernalia, even if it's a tad bizarre for a British army squaddie patrolling Basra in southern Iraq to encounter a Mehdi Army militiaman sporting the shirt of Arsenal, the soldier's "local" London team – a jersey that he and his mates might wear on a night out back home to signify a kind of tribal identity. But there's nothing "local" about Arsenal anymore: When it played Real Madrid earlier this year in the Champion's League, there were only two Englishmen on the field, both playing for the Spanish side.

With this rapid globalization of the "local" game comes a homogenization of styles: England, today, has one or two players who like to run at the defense with the ball at their feet and can bend a shot from 40 yards; Brazil now plays with one or two "holding" midfielders, that traditional European demolition man whose job is simply to break up opposition attacks and win the ball for his more creative teammates.

By some estimates, there are now more than 4,000 Brazilians playing professional soccer abroad, which is why Brazil's starting lineup in Germany will consist entirely of European-based players. (Indeed, Brazil could probably field two teams for the tournament, each of which would feature many of Europe's leading club players.) Germany's squad, by contrast, is almost entirely home grown, although even in the German league, many of the leading lights are Brazilian imports.

This fusing of different styles has been accelerated by the migration of coaches as well as players. Last season, the coaches of the top five clubs in England's Premier League were Portuguese, Scottish, Spanish, French, and Dutch. Three Dutch coaches are bringing non-Dutch teams to the World Cup; most African teams are coached by Frenchmen and Germans, the English team by a Swede, and Portugal by a Brazilian.

Kicking People, not Balls

Despite the urge of fans to invoke national mythologies from a distant past, many European national teams now reflect the continent's increasingly cosmopolitan makeup. Thanks to postwar economic migrations into Europe from former colonies, many of the best players available to a European national team are second- and even third-generation immigrants. France fields a team in which all but one, sometimes two, players are of African or Arab origin. The racist politician Jean Marie Le Pen actually complained in 1998 that the World Cup winners were "not a real French team." Some English fans are more accepting of their cosmopolitan fate, as reflected in one of their chants that extols Britain's new national cuisine: "And we all love vindaloo..."

The world soccer authority FIFA allows players to play for the country of their citizenship or the one of their origins. This creates oddities: Dakar-born Patrick Vieira marshals France's midfield, while Paris-born Khalilou Fadiga stars for Senegal. In addition, the ability of emerging players to make professional migrations seeking fame and fortune sometimes tempts soccer federations to recruit for the national team by fast-tracking the citizenship of promising players. In recent weeks, a Dutch effort to expedite the citizenship process for Ivoirian striker Salomon Kalou fell afoul of that country's new chill on immigration.

If it had succeeded, Kalou would have been in the bizarre position of playing against an Ivory Coast team that happens to include his brother, Bonaventure. Meanwhile, the luckiest Brazilian going to Germany is surely Francileudo Dos Santos, a France-based striker who wouldn't even come in tenth among contenders for his position on the Brazilian team; but fast-tracked into instant citizenship by Tunisia, he is now that country's leading goal-scorer. (Hopefully he will have learned to avoid offending the fans of his adopted country, as he did two years ago by draping himself in the Brazilian flag to celebrate victory.)

Although many of the stars of almost every domestic league from Russia westward are from the African Diaspora (which includes Brazil), an astonishing level of racism persists among fans and even coaches at the highest levels of the game. Ukraine coach Oleg Blokhin, for example, bemoaned the globalization of his domestic league thus: "The more Ukrainians there are playing in the national league, the more examples there are for the young generation. Let them learn from [our players] and not some zumba-bumba whom they took off a tree, gave two bananas and now he plays in the Ukrainian league.''

Then there was the Spanish team's coach, Luis Aragones, caught on TV telling striker Jose Antonio Reyes that he was better than his French Arsenal teammate Thierry Henry. Except Aragones didn't say Henry's name, he said, "that black shit." A few days later, he insisted that there was nothing racist about the remark: "Reyes is ethnically a gypsy," said Aragones. "I have got a lot of gypsy and black friends. All I did was to motivate the gypsy by telling him he was better than the black."

In many European stadiums, today, black players are targeted for racial abuse in the form of ape noises and bananas thrown from the stands. In fact, the World Cup offers a range of opportunities for the racist xenophobes in the ranks of many countries' "ultra" football fans -- those who go to games not only to support their side in a ritual of combat, but to seek actual combat against the ultras of the other side. For years, England's games were a rallying and brawling point for the racist far right. They nonetheless looked positively tame when compared with the Serbian ultras originally grouped around the fan club of Red Star Belgrade. Under their leader Arkan, they became the core of the notorious "Tiger" militia accused by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal of some of the most brutal "ethnic cleansing" violence in Bosnia from 1991 to 1993.

As Europe confronts the challenge of integrating millions of immigrants on whose labor the survival of their welfare economies depend, soccer matches increasingly become the avenue for a political ritual of a different type -- channeling rampant racism. Not without reason do German authorities fear that the country's resurgent neo-Nazis will use the World Cup as an opportunity to announce their presence to a watching world. If they do, they will have plenty of allies in the "ultras" of Serbia, Poland, Italy and even England.

Branding the Game

Although the "national narrative" that binds fans to their teams is open to progressive or reactionary appropriation, it's not the game's driving force any more. Soccer, today, is a multibillion-dollar global industry whose power centers are transnational corporations -- the moneyed clubs of Europe whose financial well-being depends on the ability of their "brand" to sell merchandise from Baghdad to Beijing. Manchester United may be based in a city whose prosperity has declined with that of the British textile industry, but most of the young men sporting its jersey from Gaza to Guangdong would undoubtedly struggle to locate the home of "their" team on a map. And it's a safe bet that the Ecuadorian busboy and the Bangkok cab driver wearing the blue and red jersey of Barcelona are blissfully unaware of "their" team's centrality to Catalan nationalism.

Local icons have become global brands. Mancunians might put away their Manchester United jerseys and don England's colors during the World Cup, but most of their team's stars will actually be playing against England in the shirts of Holland, Portugal, Argentina, Serbia, and France. For Manchester United's management, however, having their stars represent any nation's team is a problem. Wayne Rooney, United's star striker, for example, is being raced back to fitness from a broken foot because England's hopes depend on him. Should he aggravate the injury playing in the World Cup, Manchester United -- which paid close to $40 million to sign Rooney -- could suffer potentially huge financial losses once the league season resumes in September.

That's why Manchester United and 17 other top clubs in Europe are agitating to be given a share of the revenues generated by the World Cup. They argue that it is their "assets" who are generating the revenue, at great risk to the clubs that hold their contracts. As the employers of most of the world's best players, soccer's collective corporate management has considerable leverage in challenging the sovereignty of national federations in the organization of the game.

No such problem exists for the other major corporate interest in the game, the makers of equipment and apparel. Their sponsorship of the World Cup and its teams stands to make them billions of dollars in revenues. Nike has an advantage, sponsoring Team Brazil as it does, as well as Holland, Portugal, Mexico, South Korea, and the USA among others. Adidas holds its own with Germany, France, Spain, Argentina, Japan and Trinidad (whose shirts will no doubt become a nightclub standard, and have already been adopted as the fetish of choice by Scottish fans whose own team failed to qualify). Puma sponsors mostly outsiders like Cote d'Ivoire and Iran, although Italy remains a credible contender.

Adidas could, however, be said to have the killer advantage. It supplies the tournament ball, whose appeal crosses all affiliations. Having already sold 10 million World Cup balls, and expecting another 5 million to bounce out of the stores by year's end, they could rack up close to a billion dollars in sales simply by catering to the desire of the rest of us to kick the "same" ball the stars do.

From contemporary geopolitical and cultural conflicts (or their historic echoes) to the impact of globalization, the World Cup offers a real-time snapshot of the state of our world. This summer, when Portugal plays Angola or England meets Trinidad, colonial history won't be forgotten among the fans of the formerly colonized. Whenever England has played Argentina in the past 24 years, the fans of both countries have been asked to relive the Falklands/Malvinas War -- and I'd be surprised if World War II memories escape a mention when Australia plays Japan. Yet, the game will also be infused with contemporary political drama, should fate decree that the USA meets Iran.

Sometimes more than just a game, the World Cup nonetheless remains a contest whose outcome is never certain. Winners are still determined by an alchemy of balletics and poetics, skill and cooperation, athleticism and sheer luck. Orchestrating the movement of a ball and eleven players across the field with such rapidity would be hard enough, even without eleven other players trying to disrupt them. The power relations that prevail in the real world count for little in those 90 minutes of play -- and, no matter how fierce the "combat," at game's end, in a time-honored World Cup ritual, players from both sides exchange shirts in a mark of respect and friendship. A snapshot, then, not only of a world in conflict, but also of the possibilities of resolution by means other than war.
*******


Tony Karon is a senior editor at TIME.com where he analyzes the Middle East and other international conflicts. South African-born and raised, yet a lifelong fan of Liverpool, he offers comment and analysis -- as well as a World Cup blog -- on his own web site Rootless Cosmopolitan. He also edits Global Beat, an annotated weekly digest of international conflict coverage.

Copyright 2006 Tony Karon

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/06/world_cup.html

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

We allow the most atrocious lies uttered by political and moral prostitutes to go unchallenged. These lies are endlessly recycled in the commercial media until they become ingrained in the public conscience as truth. Worse than burying our heads in the sand, we bury them up our collective ass. How do you like the view?: Charles Sullivan

~

Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible 'noble purpose', but to plain, naked, human evil.: Ayn Rand

~

"Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to think, and this they consider freedom.": Oswald Spengler - (1880-1936) Source: The Decline of the West, 1926
~~~

[LAL]

The Arabs have been sowing the seeds of **** in Asia, Africa, Europe and the U.S these past 3 decades, and these seeds are sprouting very nicely indeed...


Follow the (Saudi) Money
Can a small Muslim community in Cambodia resist being pulled toward Wahhabism?

By Noy Thrupkaew

Head north out of Phnom Penh, and within a few miles the cacophonous traffic of Cambodia’s capital gives way to herds of oxen and water buffalo, their shoulder blades rolling underneath their hides. As you travel, the riverside restaurants -- frequented by well-off Khmers and thick with neon lights and the sound of karaoke -- grow fewer and farther. Soon there is nothing but rice fields, the great brown swath of the Mekong River; and then, rising out of the flat landscape with surprising suddenness, an onion-shaped dome.
The dome crowns the al-Mukara Islamic School, home to more than 500 Cambodian Muslim students before a police raid in May 2003 sent the children streaming out of the gates with their hastily packed luggage. Three foreign-born men affiliated with the school and the Saudi charity that ran the institution were arrested; a Cambodian teacher at another Islamic school was detained a few weeks later. All were charged with “international terrorism with links to Jemaah Islamiyah,” the Southeast Asian arm of al-Qaeda that was behind the October 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, which killed more than 200. Shortly after the raid, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen told the public that the arrests were “like taking a bomb out of our house. [Jemaah Islamiyah] are too dangerous.”
The case has put an uncomfortable spotlight on the predominantly Buddhist country’s Cham community, which makes up about 6 percent of Cambodia’s population and has its own language and culture, plus a religion -- Islam -- distinct from the rest of Cambodia. Many Cham dispute the claim that the school had links to international terrorism. “The Cambodian government wanted to have credit with Americans, that they are fighting terrorists,” said Ahmed Yahya, a parliamentarian and one of the country’s most senior Muslim politicians. “The whole thing became very dark. … It made the people here very unhappy.”
Nonetheless, there may be reasons to believe that the raid on the school was more than pandering to America. There is a significant flow of aid from the Persian Gulf states and Malaysia to Cambodia’s Muslim population. U.S. and Cambodian officials have alleged that some of the aid -- ostensibly designed to help fellow Muslims recover from the decimation of the Khmer Rouge years in the 1970s -- is accompanied by radical proselytizing and recruiting drives that have brought unsuspecting Cambodians to training camps in Afghanistan. Officials and scholars have also expressed alarm at an influx of alleged international terrorists posing as aid workers who are eager to exploit the country as a back office for their operations. According to Zachary Abuza, professor of international politics at Simmons College, with its porous borders, a thriving money-laundering and drug trade, and poor law enforcement, Cambodia would make an ideal place to set up terrorist shop.
How did poverty-stricken Cambodia and its Muslim population of 700,000 find itself enmeshed in the international war on terrorism? Some scholars point back to the Khmer Rouge years, which left the devastated country reliant on outside aid, Islamic and otherwise.
In 1975, dictator Pol Pot’s ultra-Maoist movement seized control of the country and attempted to transform it into an agrarian utopia. Some 1.7 million Cambodians died from disease, overwork, starvation, and execution during the regime’s rule -- among them at least half of the country’s Cham population. Some historians have argued that the Cham faced especially harsh policies because their strong religious and ethnic affiliations were threatening to the regime and because they had staged several bloody rebellions against the movement. According to some accounts, the regime had deliberate plans to exterminate the Cham. The Khmer Rouge cadres desecrated mosques by turning them into pigsties or prisons, forced Chams to eat pork, and forbade prayer and the use of the Cham language. Historical documents were destroyed, and elders and religious figures killed. Ysa Osman, the Cham author of Oukoubah, a book about the treatment of Cambodian Muslims during the Khmer Rouge years, learned the fate of his village’s older and infirm inhabitants only after he and other survivors returned in 1979 and looked in the well. “It was full of bones,” said Ysa. Among them were the remains of Ysa’s grandparents. “It is hard to tell you what I lost,” he says. “Everything that I had before, I lost.”
Shortly after the Khmer Rouge was deposed in 1979, some Cham began to make connections with the outside Islamic community. The largest influx of aid began during the United Nations’ nation-building efforts in 1992 and 1993. A number of those peacekeepers and aid workers were from Muslim countries, and after Cambodia held its first elections in 1993, money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Malaysia began flowing into Cham communities to sponsor pilgrimages to Mecca, build mosques and Islamic schools, and provide other religious and social services. According to Bjørn Blengsli, a Norwegian anthropologist who specializes in Cham issues, Cambodia had 122 mosques and 300 Islamic schools in 1970. After the Khmer Rouge period, the number of mosques dropped to five. Now the country is home to at least 269 mosques and 400 Koranic schools.
This Islamic giving wasn’t unique to Cambodia. Oil revenues had given the Persian Gulf states the means to fund projects around the world. Saudi Arabia gave particularly generously, seeking to counterbalance the success of Iran’s Shia revolution, according to experts at the conservative Center for Security Policy. Between 1975 and 2002, Saudi Arabia spent $70 billion in overseas aid, building 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges, and almost 2,000 schools in non-Islamic countries.
While the majority of that aid goes toward providing legitimate, no-strings-attached social services, experts say that a number of Saudi Arabia’s quasi-state-run charities bring in clerics that preach Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia’s austere, fundamentalist form of Islam. Even more disturbing, some of the projects serve as support networks and cash conduits for global terrorist jihadist movements. In 1994, Saudi nationals gave some $150 million to Islamic charities in Bosnia, many of which were implicated in terrorism, according to a cia document; in September 2002, Canadian intelligence indicated that Saudi charities were still supplying al-Qaeda with between $1 million and $2 million a month. U.S. Department of Treasury general counsel David Aufhauser later testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security that Saudi Arabia is “in many cases … the epicenter” of terrorist financing.
Among the Saudi charities was one that showed up in Cambodia: the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which allegedly has laundered money to al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia and whose offices in at least 11 countries have been designated by the U.S. Treasury and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as supporters of terrorism. According to a former U.S. official who spoke under the condition of anonymity, al-Haramain operated in Cambodia under a “dual agenda” -- along with financial aid and humanitarian services, the organization brought in “personnel who did not seem to have connections to established humanitarian organizations, but who were instead linked to political Islam … associated with terrorist or political activities.” U.S. and Cambodian intelligence found that some of the aid workers had spent time in Afghan training camps or had been affiliated with extremist movements in Arab countries, according to the official. In 2000, the U.S. Embassy detected some surveillance of the compound by several of the individuals and found that staff of the Saudi-based Om al-Qura Foundation, which headed the now-shuttered al-Mukara Islamic School, had begun recruiting Cambodians. These Cambodians were told that they were being sent on pilgrimages to Mecca or to schools in Pakistan or Egypt, “but once they left Cambodia, they were put into training camps,” the official said.
The alleged terrorists may also have been drawn to the country as an attractive theater of logistical operations, according to the official and other scholars. One of the poorest countries in the world, Cambodia serves as a transit nation for amphetamines and heroin, has a cash-based, heavily dollarized economy, and “suffers from widespread corruption, including among officials at the highest levels of government,” as the State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 2003 notes. Cambodia also runs a brisk trade in small arms left over from the Khmer Rouge period, sending them to international conflict zones including Sri Lanka. These conditions make Cambodia a convenient base from which to launder money, buy arms, forge documents, and perform any number of other tasks crucial to the smooth running of illegal activities, be they drug trafficking or planning terrorist attacks.
In addition, Cambodia’s erratic control over its land and sea borders benefits potential terrorists who have used the country as a possible hideout. The porous borders also mean that Cambodian Muslims can easily be drawn into their neighbors’ ongoing battles with Islamic insurgency and fundamentalism. This year, southern Thailand erupted with attacks on government schools and army outposts, allegedly led by Muslim separatists; in late April, more than 100 suspected Islamic insurgents died in bloody shootouts with Thai forces. The Thai media have implied that Cambodian students at Thai madrassas may have been involved in the attacks; other analysts connect the uprisings to Malaysian militants, who have a strong connection to the rising numbers of Cambodian adherents to Dakwah, an Islamic fundamentalist evangelical movement started in Malaysia.
But the most dangerous thing to pass through those porous borders may be fundamentalist ideology. As the U.S. official noted, al-Haramain and other “aid personnel” came to spread their own “very extreme and anti-modern form of Islam.” That is particularly threatening to the Cham community, whose Islamic practices have traditionally been moderate and syncretic, reflecting their origins in the ancient, Hindu-influenced kingdom of Champa, located in what is now central Vietnam. Today, as the Cham struggle to rebuild their communities, fundamentalists and jihadists may have found a ripe target: an impoverished minority population in need of aid and a reconnection to Islam.
And the Islamists are not afraid to use their copious money as leverage. The Kuwaiti Committee of Association of Development of Islamic Culture in Southeast Asia operates with a clear “religious agenda” and is “particularly zealous in rooting out … beliefs and practices which are regarded as non-Islamic,” notes anthropologist William Collins in a report for the Phnom Penh–based Center for Advanced Study. He says it “will only give aid to communities, which, in its view, have achieved an acceptable level of religious punctiliousness.”
The foreign clerics have clashed most often with members of the Jahed, a minority traditionalist Cham sect, whose faith reflects Shia and Sufi influences from early contact with Persians and Indians and who base more of their identity in preserving traditional Cham language, culture, and history than the majority of Chams. Their community is among the poorest of the Cham, at least in part because, in resisting Islamist pressures, they make themselves ineligible for much of the foreign aid coming in from the Muslim world. One Jahed leader named Ongman told Collins that he was denied aid to rebuild a community mosque by a Kuwaiti Arab worker in Orussei because of his supposedly incorrect Jahedi beliefs; Ongman was also told by “Malaysian police” that Jahedis should pray five times each day, instead of only on Friday, as is their custom. “They are trying to get us to buy someone else’s history, and they take ours. That is buying a person,” Ongman told Collins. “It is not in accord with the law of the Prophet. If we abandon our history for money, it is not right, and to do so shows a lack of self-worth.”
Still, not everyone is resisting. According to Blengsli, the majority of Chams belong to the Shafi’iyah branch of Sunni Islam, but Wahhabi is now the next largest and most rapidly growing sect, comprising about 20 percent of the Cham population. Dakwah, a fundamentalist Islamic movement, has also made significant inroads in Cambodia. Blengsli estimates that a little less than 20 percent of the country’s Muslims have converted to the orthodox Malaysian sect. Also known as al-Arqam, the evangelizing group was banned from Malaysia in 1994, where it was a key supporter of the Parti Islam SeMalayasia, an Islamic party that wants to institute Sharia law there. According to Muslim officials, nearly 80 Cham students a year study in Pakistani and Middle Eastern madrassas and approximately 400 a year go to Islamic schools in Malaysia. These students return home “filled with fire,” Cham respondents told Blengsli.
There is one other element that may help push the Cham toward their fundamentalist brethren: the very government crackdown that was intended to protect them from terrorist infiltration. Back at the al-Mukara school, more than a year after the raid, villagers are still upset. Many find the government’s claims against the school hard to believe. They point to the fact that the four suspects have been detained for longer than the six months allowed under Cambodia’s constitution, and the fact that the government is now calling for assistance from U.S. intelligence to help make a case against the men. According to Hassan Kasem, a Cambodian Cham who immigrated to the United States, these local disturbances and the news of ongoing bloodshed in Iraq have raised doubts among Muslims in Cambodia about whether the war on terrorism is being fought justly in Cambodia and abroad.
The government account of the arrests goes like this: For more than a year beforehand, the Cambodian government had been working with the FBI on tracking the Cambodian office of the Saudi-based Om al-Qura Foundation, which headed the school, according to General Sok Phal, chief of Cambodia’s intelligence and security agencies. Sok argues that the evidence was irrefutable: Money sent from Saudi Arabia to sustain the school was being used to conduct Jemaah Islamiyah support activities, like buying false passports and documents for suspected terrorists. Other intelligence sources indicated that the money was being disbursed to Jemaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda through Om al-Qura channels -- $10,000 wire transfers would appear in the school’s Cambodian bank account on a monthly basis, only to disappear shortly thereafter.
Acting on this information, on May 28, 2003, Cambodian forces arrested an Egyptian and two Thai Muslims affiliated with al-Mukara. They then deported 28 al-Mukara teachers -- from countries including Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, Yemen, and Egypt -- along with their 22 dependents. On June 12, authorities apprehended a Cambodian, Sman Ismael, who had studied for three years at an Islamic school in southern Thailand, where he allegedly fell under the sway of the Dakwah sect. A fifth suspect remained at large, but was added to the list to be tried in absentia. They were accused of shuttling money from a Saudi-based foundation to Jemaah Islamiyah, procuring $50,000 to launch strikes against U.S. interests in Cambodia, and planning a major offensive in advance of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in June 2003, when 23 heads of state, including Colin Powell, gathered in Phnom Penh.
What happened next seemed to confirm the Cambodian government’s suspicions, according to Sok. Information gleaned from detainees’ interrogation sessions led to the August 11 arrest of Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, Osama bin Laden’s chief operative in Southeast Asia. Hambali had lived in Cambodia from September 2002 to March 2003, and after his arrest in Thailand, he revealed Jemaah Islamiyah’s intention to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh along with other Western targets throughout Southeast Asia, according to Sok. Also damning was the discovery that Sman Ismael had arranged for his sister to marry a man named Ibrahim, identified as one of Hambali’s steadfast companions during Hambali’s time in Cambodia. This move is in keeping with Jemaah Islamiyah tactics, according to an International Crisis Group report titled “Jemaah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia,” which argues that educational systems and strategic marriages have become key tools in bolstering the group’s membership and transmitting its jihadist ideology.
Still, Ahmed Yahya scoffs at the allegations. “They are 100-percent innocent,” the opposition-party politician declares over the phone. The only thing they were guilty of was running an influential organization that drew the envy of the prime minister’s party, Yahya says, and their carefully timed pre–ASEAN arrests were nothing more than politically expedient gestures of goodwill toward the U.S. war on terrorism. Yahya claims that only one of the detainees, a staff member at the al-Mukara school, ever knew of Hambali’s terrorist intentions in Cambodia -- and only accidentally. He says Hambali asked the al-Mukara staff member, named Azi, to hold on to a bag for him. When the Jemaah Islamiyah chief later asked Azi, a Thai, to send him money from the bag, Azi opened the luggage to discover several thousand dollars in cash along with three computer disks, one of which was labeled “Thai football.” An avid sports fan, Azi ran the program on his computer and discovered that the disk contained diagrams and plans for explosives. Some time later, Hambali had a courier pick up the bag; Azi maintained his silence, says Yahya, out of fear.
Adding fuel to the Chams’ doubts are international human-rights activists’ concerns about the case’s “irregularities,” says Amnesty International’s Daniel Alberman. “It’s not clear that the Cambodian judiciary had done their homework and found out that there were charges to be laid against these people.” In August, Bunna Oun, a Phnom Penh municipal judge, admitted, “We are lacking a lot of evidence. We are requesting the Cambodian authorities and the U.S. to provide us with further documents on the motives that this group has a terrorist network in Cambodia.” And the longer they sit in jail untried, the more agitated the local population is likely to become. “If these people are left to linger in detention, it effectively undermines the whole case,” says David Wright-Neville, an Australian expert on Southeast Asian terrorism and a former Australian intelligence officer. “It raises doubts, quite legitimately, if [the arrests] are simply politically or religiously motivated.”
The fact that a much-needed resource was closed down in the process doesn’t help, either. “They shouldn’t have shut down the whole school,” Kob Saleh, the chief of the Muslim Chrouy Metrey village across the street from al-Mukara, told me when I visited the school in October 2003. “There’s a lack of human resources in Cambodia, and that hurt a lot of children.”
Playing into the anger, too, is ongoing distrust of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s controversial government. “Cambodia is a place where surveillance groups are involved in doing the regime’s bidding,” says Wright-Neville. Rumors flew around Chruoy Metrey, the Muslim village across the street from the school, and among other Chams that the prime minister’s party had only shut down the school in order to gain control over it later, or to seize the school’s valuable land. The United States and Hun Sen, remarked a number of Cham interviewees, perhaps amount to just one strongman helping another.
The U.S. Embassy has embarked upon projects to counterbalance these perceptions. In 2003, it worked with Cham nonprofits to extend educational campaigns on “democracy and human rights” to Muslim communities, according to an embassy spokeswoman. The United States Agency for International Development also started programs to increase community participation in shaping local education systems, which will hopefully give Chams and other minorities a greater voice in shaping curricula and schools to suit their needs.
While the assistance has been met with enthusiasm among Cham communities, there is still a long way to go to convince Muslims of the righteousness of the war on terrorism. “In the last 10 or 20 years, the embassy ignored our people. But now they want to help us,” says Yahya, wryly. “A war to win the hearts and minds.”
In a way, the Americans are in a footrace with internationalist Islamist groups, and officials wonder how long Cham communities can resist fundamentalist advances. “I can guarantee 100 percent that Cambodian Chams are not involved in terrorism now,” Yahya told me by phone. But can he guarantee that Chams won’t be drawn into fundamentalism in the future, with the temptations of aid and a worldwide brotherhood of Islam after years of isolation? Yahya pauses for a long time before answering. “No,” he says finally. “I cannot.”

Noy Thrupkaew is a Prospect senior correspondent. She reported this article while on a Pew International Journalism Fellowship.

[Saundra Hummer]

*******A Buzz Flash Newsletter
(Excerpts)TOP FIVE HEADLINES

June 14, 2006
Ah. what's a few million when we've already spent well over $300 billion dollars of OUR tax dollars on Bush's bloody folly?

There's a connection between Bush's craven Green Zone Iraqi photo-op and the news that Karl Rove won't be indicted.

Here it is.
Rove's purpose is to get through each election cycle by sweeping under the rug any bad news that might swing the election to the Democrats (not counting the votes that the Republicans suppress or steal). As the publication Editor and Publisher pointed out, the media -- including the New York Times, the Washington Post and Time Magazine -- knew about Rove's role in PlameGate, but protected him under the guise of "journalistic principles" [gag us with a spoon] through the 2004 election.

If Rove had been fingered prior to the 2004 elections, Bush probably wouldn't have been able to even steal it.

In 2000, Rove swept under the rug things too numerous to mention -- with the complicity of the corporately owned mainstream media. These included Bush's checkered National Guard record, his cocaine use, his Harken Oil insider trading, etc., etc. In the end, a last minute release of information about a Bush drunk driving conviction helped Bush lose the election. [Yes, he did lose, remember? Scalia gave him the White House; the American people elected Al Gore.]

In 2006, Rove squirmed out of an indictment (as to how, no one is quite yet sure -- he may be cooperating with Fitzgerald because Scooter Libby's trial won't come until after the 2006 elections, so whatever Rove might reveal won't impact the midterms, but that is conjecture). He also is using the lapdog media to once again resurrect the preposterous image of "Conan" Bush "daring" to make a "brave" trip to the Iraq Green Zone!

After three years of being promised the mission was accomplished and the "throes of the insugency" are in its last days, we are once again resurrecting the mythic [faux] image of Bush the valiant hero, at a time when the war continues to get even worse!

Why, because Rove doesn't care about long-term impact, just about winning each election cycle.

Meanwhile, most of the Democrats on the Hill are afraid to, once again, take Bush on regarding his abysmal failure on National Security. The Dems don't understand that what people value the most is their own lives -- and the lives of their family members. They won't trust the Dems until the Dems stand up to Bush and reveal that he is hurting America's national security more than he is helping us.

BuzzFlash has said this since shortly after 9/11. This isn't about politics; it's about our lives -- and Bush is a threat to all of our lives. You just can't sit on Capitol Hill and take the calculated risk that it's better to go along with Bush's disastrous foreign policy misadventures when he is putting us more at risk everyday.

But Rove, speaking to a New Hampshire gathering of the faithful the other day (to help raise more money to cover the costs of defending illegal RNC-related actions to suppress the Democratic vote in the Granite State), started revving up the GOP "fear" machine again. That's why Bush went to Baghdad. Because it's all part of the 2006 midterm plan to keep control of Congress.

Because Rove knows better than anyone that if the Republicans lose either the House or the Senate, it's subpoena time for the White House.

Rove is counting on the Democrats to mount their usual lackluster "issues" campaign, while the Republicans hotwire into the primal fear of Americans for personal safety, even while the ship of fools in the White House is making us less safe. Karl's depending on Dems not to challenge Bush on "national security," and, with few exceptions, Rove will probably win the bet.

The Democrats can't win by default. They have to start showing strength, courage and a resolute defense of the Constitution -- speaking out with vigor and valor.

Then they will break Rove's cycle of puddle jumping from election to election, sweeping the sleazy realities of the GOP under the rug until after the vote is cast.

Michael Berg is This Week's BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice" Award Honoree

"Syriana" (on DVD) from BuzzFlash.com: It is About the Oil, Stupid. (Advance Order, Will Ship On or About June 20)

The NRA Has Already Given 13 People in Florida a "License to Murder," And That's Just Beginning. Won't You Help Stop This Madness?

No democracy without trust -- The Last Chance Democracy Cafe by Steven C. Day

As the war in Iraq continues for a fourth year, the global image of America has slipped further, even among publics in countries closely allied with the United States, a new global opinion poll has found.

For More Than 180 Headlines and Stories visit http://www.buzzflash.com.

FEATURED BUZZFLASH PREMIUM

Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War (Hardcover)
by Greg Palast

Read BuzzFlash.com's Review >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/237

(Excerpt)

Before we saw Al Gore's brilliant power point presentation on global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth," we had the privilege of viewing Greg Palast's laptop slide show on the theft of the 2000 election. That was in early 2002 -- and Palast had single-handedly exposed the nefarious ChoicePoint GOP-affiliated data mining firm. You see, ChoicePoint was used by the Bush Campaign -- through Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris -- to purge minority voters from the voting rolls prior to the crucial Florida election.

The story behind ChoicePoint's role was, of course, largely ignored by the mainstream press. But Palast had them nailed, down to an analysis of how they were given permission to recklessly remove not just former felons from the roles, but even non-felons with the same names (and we are talking about thousands and thousands of people being wrongfully denied the right to vote). It was a masterful piece of investigative work, and not a single member of the corporately owned media would seriously follow-up on Palast's damning revelations.

As a result of big media's negligence, ChoicePoint is today perhaps the largest data mining collection firm in the nation. The data that they have culled is sub-contracted by the Bush Administration. Although it cannot be confirmed, it is quite possible that ChoicePoint is being sub-contracted by the NSA to assist with their illegal data mining. Yet, the mainstream press still isn't connecting the dots; fortunately for us, Greg Palast is.

We'd recommend "Armed Madhouse"� just for Palast's discussion of "The Scheme to Steal '08." In interviewing Palast recently, he discussed with us that each election cycle the Republicans are becoming more sophisticated in how they steal and suppress votes, with electronic voting machines, minority voter purging, and uncounted ballots being at the top of the list. So, watch out for the theft of the Congressional elections in '06 first.

SUBSCRIBE to the BuzzFlash Alerts!
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/subscribe.php

Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com

Send These Headlines To A Friend!

[Saundra Hummer]

...........

Ads Censored: Fight Back

A TV station in Virginia run by Republican donors has refused our new ad on Iraq. We can create a disincentive for playing dirty like this if we can put more ads on the air on other stations in the district. (I edited out controbution requests. SRH)


Dear MoveOn member,
As part of our big plan to win the election we've been running TV ads in key districts around the country. Yesterday I got news that a TV station in Virginia has refused us the right to air our newest ad that focuses on Iraq. They won't even return our phone calls.

It smelled fishy so we looked into it. Sure enough, the Republican Party has been threatening to sue TV stations that run our ads. That's not all. Two of the senior executives at the station—including one of the guys who makes the decision about running ads—actually donated to the Republican's campaign!

We want to show that playing dirty doesn't pay. Our plan is to INCREASE the size and length of the ad buy on other stations in the district. (I edited out funding request. SRH)

If we create a disincentive for playing dirty it can help make sure the playing field is fair across the country. We can do that when we raise $500,000 and keep the ads on TV for two weeks longer. And, we have a special new TV ad about Iraq.

The new ad uses the "Caught Red Handed" theme that has worked so well. It talks about how much money members of Congress are taking from defense contractors in Iraq at the same time our troops don't have enough body armor.

Some people say that Democrats should avoid the Iraq debate during the election. We think that's dead wrong but we need your help to show that's true.

We've tested these ads, and we know they produce a punch with voters—even among people who don't yet support leaving Iraq. (You can view the whole ad on the contribution page.)

To prove that Iraq is important to focus on during the election we hired a top political polling firm to investigate the opinions of voters in the top 68 "swing" districts—two-thirds of these districts are represented by Republicans.

Here is what we found:

The war is by far the most important issue to voters in these districts right now.
By wide margins these voters think the war was a mistake and not worth it. People are angry about the war.
A discussion about Iraq during the campaign increases support for the Democrat.
A Democrat who takes a firm stand for getting out of Iraq does better than a Democrat who takes a wishy-washy position—even in the face of Republican attacks like, "cut and run."
Republicans are vulnerable to all sorts of attacks—including their blind support for Bush's policy of never-ending war.
Voters are universally angry about how defense contractors have been put ahead of our troops and how priorities here at home have been neglected.
These results are paradigm-shifting news but not surprising. Every poll out there shows anger about the war. Voters are ready to hold Republicans accountable for letting Bush get away with everything—especially Iraq. (Edited again. SRH)

To win in November we need to put Iraq in front of the voters. So far MoveOn is the only organization that will do that in these elections. That's why we can't leave these elections in the hands of the Democrats alone.

With your support we can do what the Democrats won't yet: make 2006 a year of accountability for Republicans on Iraq. If we can show this works then Democrats and others will follow in our footsteps—boldly speaking out about the mess in Iraq.

The best way to bring our troops home is to show consequences for politicians who want to follow Bush on Iraq. This ad plays double duty by helping bring the troops home and win the election. We can do good and do well.

Help us keep going. (Edited again)Can we count you in? We're going to need thousands of MoveOn members to step forward and make this commitment.

Thanks for all you do.

–Tom, Wes, Justin, Rosalyn and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://political.moveon.org/?id=8038-4054703-LMYMx3qMMtafev0ORS.yAg&t=6
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

.......

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Let's hold a grudge on Iraq
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
06.13.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Iraq and the media, the media and Iraq -- over and over. Last week was supposed to be a good media week for Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was dead. Taken out, we said, by a combination of American and Iraqi troops with Jordanian intelligence.

The churlish might note this was the second time the American military had announced Zarqawi's death -- but, hey, we've announced the capture of Osama's No. 2 guy at least seven or eight times. Others claimed Zarqawi was never that important to begin with, indeed had been built up by our side. Still, that's a goal for our side, as they say in World Cup play.

Then reality got a bit bumpy. Zarqawi wasn't exactly dead when we found him. We put him on a stretcher and cleaned him up -- the fog of war intervened.

I distinctly remember people predicting the first time we killed Zarqawi that it wouldn't make much difference, so I presume they did it again. Thus, we get to revisit the old cackle over whether we are fighting international terrorists who have flocked to Iraq or a native uprising against our occupation of the country. Can't even agree on what's going on.

I'm so used to one side saying this and the other side saying the opposite that I didn't even blink over the differences.

I did, however, come to a screeching halt over the right's reaction to news of a triple suicide at Guantanamo. A great chorus of, "How dare they?" seemed to follow this dismal news. My local paper said, "Detainees hid their plans to die ... Guantanamo officials were fooled ... Inquiry looks at how to prevent other deaths."

Now it seems to me one might have any number of reactions to news of suicides at Guantanamo, but righteous indignation is not one of them. Most of these prisoners have been held for four years now without possibility of charge, trial or parole. I should think they would be suicidal. I'm sorry we failed to prevent it, but I'm not sure that's possible. "They hid their plans to die?" Gee, the sneaks.

You know what? This is getting silly. The debate over this war is unrealistic and even ludicrous. A) It is not going well. B) It keeps getting worse. C) Yes, it is possible that if we stay there long enough, it will get better eventually. D) There is no evidence suggesting that beyond hope.

A particularly acrid growth from this fruitless debate is the contempt for and dismissal of public opinion in other countries. "So what if we have alienated public opinion in nations throughout the Middle East?" seems to be the attitude. "Who cares what they think?" If I wanted to win a global war on terror, I'd sure be concerned about what they think.

I would hope the right would at least be concerned over the damage being done to the American military by this war. Morale, my ass. Excuse me, but our government doesn't even seem to be able to pay these people on time. Not to mention stretching them past the breaking point in Iraq, leaving them without adequate mental care when they come home, endlessly extending their tours, bribing them to re-up, and so forth and so on. Then, of course, something like Haditha happens, and they all get a black eye out of it.

I think it's time the antiwar side in this country started using a few threats of its own -- specifically, about who's going to take the blame for this when it's over. Forget the liberal tradition of forgiveness. I say, hold this grudge.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20947

[Saundra Hummer]

.............

A shameful silence on Coulter's spewing
Joe Conason - The New York Observer

06.14.06 - With the predictable regularity of a locust plague, Ann Coulter and her enablers at the once-reputable firm of Random House have issued yet another volume of fascistic entertainment. Now the hard-drinking, trash-talking, fortysomething bachelorette bills herself as a Christian moralist, in holy battle against the liberal heathens.

That whiff of brimstone in the air may only be the match she is striking for her next cigarette.

But her version of "Christianity" turns out to be a strangely modern and convenient faith, which encourages heaping scorn on bereaved widows, bearing false witness against them on television and publicly gloating over the ill-gotten profits thus attained. Leaving behind the golden rule of the Gospels to "do unto others as you would have them do to you," she embodies a new rule of gold: You can never be too rich, too thin or too vicious.

Too vicious, however, is the only way to categorize Ms. Coulter's attempted assassination of the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls, whom she accuses of "enjoying" the horrific deaths of their husbands in the World Trade Center inferno. She harangues them as "broads," "witches" and "millionaires," guilty of being "self-obsessed" and "reveling in their status as celebrities" while they are "lionized on TV and in articles about them."

Coming from an energetic publicity seeker like Ms. Coulter, who still whines bitterly about her elongated cover shot in Time magazine, those insults are an exercise in self-parody.

She goes on to complain that the widows, by telling their personal stories of loss, were able to shut down their critics with sentimentality. But that charge too is obviously false, since she is now reaping profits and publicity by savaging them. She is also a hypocrite, having freely brandished the name of her late friend Barbara Olson, tragically killed on 9/11, to lend impact to her own arguments.

The truth about the Jersey Girls -- Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken -- is that they loved their husbands deeply, of course. They and their children continue to suffer from the loss that Ms. Coulter so heartlessly mocks. The truth is that in their suffering, these courageous women joined with other widows and family members to demand a serious investigation of 9/11. Together, they organized, researched and lobbied for thousands of hours to win the appointment of an independent commission, against the determined political opposition of the White House. The truth is that their success was an important victory for every American, without regard to party or ideology, and a vindication of grassroots democracy. The nation owes them all a debt of gratitude.

What is most disturbing about this episode is not that these women can be victimized by a brutal bully like Ms. Coulter, nor even that the mainstream media, which abandoned traditional standards of fairness and decency years ago, would eagerly assist her. That is our hideous political culture. What is most disappointing is the abject dereliction of the prominent politicians who worked so closely with the Jersey Girls.

John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, the Senate sponsors of the bill that created the 9/11 Commission, both believed that an independent investigation was essential for reasons of honor and national security. They both know that they could not have prevailed against the White House -- and the Republican Congressional leadership -- without the help of the widows.

In the fall of 2002, when their bill passed the Senate and the House, Mr. McCain acknowledged the efforts of the widows and their comrades. "I also want to put in a special word for the families," he said after thanking his fellow statesmen. "Without their unstinting support and efforts, we would not be where we are today."

In the summer of 2004, when the commission's reform recommendations were debated, Mr. Lieberman praised all of the 9/11 families, including a special acknowledgment for the Jersey Girls. "I continue to be awed and inspired by your ability to turn your personal tragedies into better public safety for this nation," said the Connecticut Senator.

And in the fall of 2005, when Mr. McCain needed citizen support for his worthy amendment to ban torture in the war against terrorism, the Jersey Girls rallied to his cause. He was glad enough of their support then.

But that was then, and this is now -- and these two pious politicians remain silent in the face of a malevolent attack visited on their erstwhile friends. Both men know that it is a lie to call these women partisans or profiteers. Both know that these women -- and the families they helped to lead -- brought honor and purpose to a legislative process that is often petty and corrupt.

Shame on the silent Senators. And please, let's hear no more from either of them for a while about tolerance, respect and decency.

COPYRIGHT (c) 2006 THE NEW YORK OBSERVER


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20954

[Saundra Hummer]

I can't help but wonder just how it will be on the Tonight show tonight, with George Carlin and Ann Coulter as guests, it might be pretty entertaining, or it could be anti-climatic. It could get out there, but who knows? Depends how on top of his game George is, and what his thoughts of her are - that is if he has ever bothered to keep up with her strange career. She and Bill Bennet! Such opportunists; such users; so it could be that she will step in it once again, or she will have crammed and prepared so much that there will be nothing of her spontanteous gaffs. SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

<<<<<<<<<O>>>>>>>>>
Karl Rove Won't Be Frog-Marched Across White House Lawn
Wednesday, June 14, 2006

By John Gibson


Karl Rove won't be frog-marched across the White House lawn, much to the disappointment of Ambassador Joe Wilson.

One supposes his wife, former secret agent Valerie Plame, might have something to say about this in her forthcoming book for which she was to receive a $2.5 million advance.

Oops, that deal with Crown Publishers evidently fell apart.

Well somebody will buy the book, one supposes, especially if she is to renew her husband's demand for Rove to be frog-marched or his head on a stick or whatever chest-thumping overstatement he has made over the last couple years of this drama.

But it begs the original question: When Joe Wilson went public that he had been sent to clear up the matter of Niger possibly selling yellowcake to Saddam and it was the vice president's office which sent him, was the vice president entitled to say: I didn't send that guy to Niger. It was his wife, and she is in that group of CIA people who are opposed to the president's policy in Iraq?

I think the vice president was entitled to do precisely that. I think we — the public — were entitled to know how Wilson got that mission to Niger, and whatever his secret agent wife had to do with sending him ought to have been out in the open.

If that required revealing that Wilson had a secret agent wife, well then, so be it. She had to be revealed.

But that notion incensed the ambassador. He raged that his wife, the mother of his children, had been targeted in political retribution and that Rove was at the bottom of it, so Rove had to be marched off to jail.

Joe Wilson was against regime changing Saddam. Had been since '91. Once his wife maneuvered to have him sent off to investigate a key reason for the war, the public had a right to know who sent him and why.

She had become a political operator by helping to arrange her anti-war husband for the mission.

Would I be wrong to suspect the people who hate Bush and Rove won't let this die? The idea of jailing anybody so close to Bush is just too precious to let it just go away.

That's My Word.

Don't forget my radio show. Check it out here!

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com

Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,199571,00.html

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Al-Qaeda in Iraq sought war between United States, Iran
Updated 6/15/2006 10:31 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AP) — A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday.
The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaeda policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.

'TREASURE OF INFO': Read the document found in Zarqawi's safe house: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-zarqawi-text_x.htm

The al-Qaeda in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaeda.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

"We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

The document also said al-Zarqawi planned to try to destroy the relationship between the United States and its Shiite allies in Iraq.

While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said, as quoted by al-Maliki's office.

According to the summary, insurgents were being weakened by operations against them and by their failure to attract recruits. To give new impetus to the insurgency, they would have to change tactics, it added.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

They included "opening a new front" for the U.S. military and releasing some of the "pressure exerted on the resistance."

It pointed to clashes in 2004 between U.S. forces and followers of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army militia as evidence of the benefits of such a strategy. Al-Sadr and his growing followers are among the fiercest advocates of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It said the "results obtained during the struggle between U.S. army and al-Mahdi army is an example of the benefits to be gained by such struggle."

Al-Maliki's office said the document provides "the broad guidelines of the program of the Saddamists and the takfiris inside al-Zarqawi's group."

"Takfiri" is a reference to an extremist ideology that urges Muslims to kill anyone they consider an infidel, even fellow Muslims. It is the ideology that many Iraqis, especially in the Shiite community, use to describe al-Zarqawi and his followers.

The language contained in the document was different from the vocabulary used by al-Qaeda statements posted on the Web. For example, it does not refer to the Americans as "Crusaders" nor use the term "rejectionists" to allude to Shiites.

Much of what is in the statement from al-Rubaie echoes results that the U.S. military and the Iraqi government say they are seeking. It also appears to reinforce American and Iraqi arguments that al-Qaeda in Iraq and its operatives are a group of imported extremists bent on killing innocent civilians.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been blamed for thousands of deaths, hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations in the past three years. al-Qaeda in Iraq's own hatred of the Shiites is well-documented and al-Zarqawi has repeatedly called on Sunnis to rise up and kill them.Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-raid-blueprint_x.htm

Go on-site to check out links and related articles.

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Text of a document found in Zarqawi's safe house
Updated 6/15/2006 10:31 AM ET
The Associated PressText of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hide-out. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie: The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.

5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30%) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-zarqawi-text_x.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." : Thomas Jefferson

~

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." : Thomas Paine

~

What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?

In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. : James Madison - Memorial and Remonstrance -1785

~

We allow the most atrocious lies uttered by political and moral prostitutes to go unchallenged. These lies are endlessly recycled in the commercial media until they become ingrained in the public conscience as truth. Worse than burying our heads in the sand, we bury them up our collective ass. How do you like the view?: Charles Sullivan

~

Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible 'noble purpose', but to plain, naked, human evil.: Ayn Rand

~

"Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to think, and this they consider freedom.": Oswald Spengler - (1880-1936) Source: The Decline of the West, 1926

~

"The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance, as knowing so many things that ain't so.": - Josh Billings - [Henry Wheeler Shaw] (1818-1885) American humorist and lecturer


~

"Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal -- that there is no human relation between master and slave.": Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi - (1828-1910) Russian writer

~

"Most Americans aren't the sort of citizens the Founding Fathers expected; they are contented serfs. Far from being active critics of government,
they assume that its might makes it right.": Joseph Sobran - (1946- ) Columnist

~

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!": Alexander Hamilton

~

The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance: Benjamin Franklin

~

The greatest of fault, I should say, is to be conscious of none: Robert Carlyle (1795 - 1881).

~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

I was right, Ann Coulter and George Carlin on the same show was, as expected, anti climatic. And, as expected - just another one way love fest with Ann loving Ann. Nothing new or shocking there. Jay Leno did say she was being viscious, and such, but for the most part it was A.C. talking about her book being in the Number 1 spot on the best seller list, and how no one complained about her name calling, especially in how she described the "Liberals". She was, she said, amazed that they, us "Liberals", weren't sticking up for themselves, for ourselves. That they (us), were a bunch of wuse's - or however one spells that word. She went on and on, talking at breakneck speed, letting us know there were "no complaints" from anyone about what she was saying, and how she was saying it. Not even from her publishers. She went on about how right she was about the Jersey Wives, so, after listening to her, she leaves this impression, she evidently doesn't read much other than Fox or Bill Crystal's words as she kept telling us she had received no complaints. Not a word.

A canned act all in all. Nothing new there.

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
TOP FIVE HEADLINES


June 16, 2006

Now that the Busheviks on the Supreme Court, including his two latest right wing nominees, have ruled it's okay for police to conduct themselves in KGB fashion, we suggest that the first post-Supreme Court No-Knock search be of the White House, including Cheney's office across the way.

They have nothing to fear, right?

They are law-abiding, right?

No, wrong.

In the Kafkaesque world of the Busheviks, we must all be transparent victims of a police state, while the Busheviks are subject to no accountability.

Isn't that tyranny?

Isn't that what we revolted against in 1776?

It's time for a new American revolution to throw off the chains of oppression and the monarchal rule of King George.

Bring the troops home. Before trying to export democracy and liberty to Iraq, we need to restore it in the United States of America.



Everyday the Media Wipes His Slate Clean of Blood, Lies and Greed. Who Cares if a Fool is Upbeat After Setting Fire to a Town? George W. Bush is the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week, Yet Again.

Eugene Robinson: Stay the Course? What Course?

"You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now?" Murtha said. "Al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there. Stay and we'll pay, not only pay in dollars. . . . I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the Vietnam War."

Get Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the large-format paperback on BuzzFlash.com. Read the book, THEN see the movie!
What's It Like Moving from the Broadcasting Booth as a Progressive Radio Broadcaster to a Candidate for Congress? -- A BuzzFlash Interview with Nancy Skinner



For More Than 180 Headlines and Stories visit http://www.buzzflash.com.FEATURED

BUZZFLASH PREMIUM

Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War (Hardcover)
by Greg Palast

Read BuzzFlash.com's Review >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/237
(Excerpt)

Before we saw Al Gore's brilliant power point presentation on global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth," we had the privilege of viewing Greg Palast's laptop slide show on the theft of the 2000 election. That was in early 2002 -- and Palast had single-handedly exposed the nefarious ChoicePoint GOP-affiliated data mining firm. You see, ChoicePoint was used by the Bush Campaign -- through Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris -- to purge minority voters from the voting rolls prior to the crucial Florida election.

The story behind ChoicePoint's role was, of course, largely ignored by the mainstream press. But Palast had them nailed, down to an analysis of how they were given permission to recklessly remove not just former felons from the roles, but even non-felons with the same names (and we are talking about thousands and thousands of people being wrongfully denied the right to vote). It was a masterful piece of investigative work, and not a single member of the corporately owned media would seriously follow-up on Palast's damning revelations.

As a result of big media's negligence, ChoicePoint is today perhaps the largest data mining collection firm in the nation. The data that they have culled is sub-contracted by the Bush Administration. Although it cannot be confirmed, it is quite possible that ChoicePoint is being sub-contracted by the NSA to assist with their illegal data mining. Yet, the mainstream press still isn't connecting the dots; fortunately for us, Greg Palast is.

We'd recommend "Armed Madhouse"� just for Palast's discussion of "The Scheme to Steal '08." In interviewing Palast recently, he discussed with us that each election cycle the Republicans are becoming more sophisticated in how they steal and suppress votes, with electronic voting machines, minority voter purging, and uncounted ballots being at the top of the list. So, watch out for the theft of the Congressional elections in '06 first.

This is part of a newsletter. To see more about these issues and other topical news of the day, go on-site by clicking on the following link:

http://www.workingforchange.com

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
GREG PALAST NEWSLETTER
June 16, 2004

African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List
by Greg Palast
As reported for Democracy Now!
Palast, who first reported this story for BBC Television Newsnight (UK) and Democracy Now! (USA), is author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse.

The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.

A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.
Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.

One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.

*******
For Greg Palast's discussion with broadcaster Amy Goodman on the Black soldier purge of 2004, go to http://gregpalast.com/armedmadhouse/palastDN6-14-06.mp3

*******

Here's how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, “Do not forward”, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as "undeliverable."

The lists of soldiers of "undeliverable" letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters' registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballot being counted.

One target list was comprised exclusively of voters registered at the Jacksonville, Florida, Naval Air Station. Jacksonville is third largest naval installation in the US, best known as home of the Blue Angels fighting squandron.



[See this scrub sheet at http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=160156893&context=set-72157594155273706&size=o ]

Our team contacted the homes of several on the caging list, such as Randall Prausa, a serviceman, whose wife said he had been ordered overseas.

A soldier returning home in time to vote in November 2004 could also be challenged on the basis of the returned envelope. Soldiers challenged would be required to vote by "provisional" ballot.

Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. The operation, of which the purge of Black soldiers was a small part, was the first mass challenge to voting America had seen in two decades.

The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican's national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, "Caging.xls." Each of these contained several hundred to a few thousand voters and their addresses.

A check of the demographics of the addresses on the "caging lists," as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes.

Ion Sanco, the non-partisan elections supervisor of Leon County (Tallahassee) when shown the lists by this reporter said: “The only thing I can think of - African American voters listed like this – these might be individuals that will be challenged if they attempted to vote on Election Day.”

These GOP caging lists were obtained by the same BBC team that first exposed the wrongful purge of African-American "felon" voters in 2000 by then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Eliminating the voting rights of those voters -- 94,000 were targeted -- likely caused Al Gore's defeat in that race.


The Republican National Committee in Washington refused our several requests to respond to the BBC discovery. However, in Tallahassee, the Florida Bush campaign's spokespeople offered several explanations for the list.

Joseph Agostini, speaking for the GOP, suggested the lists were of potential donors to the Bush campaign. Oddly, the supposed donor list included residents of the Sulzbacher Center a shelter for homeless families.

Another spokesperson for the Bush campaign, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, ultimately changed the official response, acknowledging that these were voters, "we mailed to, where the letter came back – bad addresses.”

The party has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having "bad addresses" subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad.

The apparent challenge campaign was not inexpensive. The GOP mailed the letters first class, at a total cost likely exceeding millions of dollars, so that the addresses would be returned to "cage" workers.

“This is not a challenge list," insisted the Republican spokesmistress. However, she modified that assertion by adding, “That’s not what it’s set up to be.”
Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws mass challenges of voters where race is a factor in choosing the targeted group.

While the party insisted the lists were not created for the purpose to challenge Black voters, the GOP ultimately offered no other explanation for the mailings. However, Tucker Fletcher asserted Republicans could still employ the list to deny ballots to those they considered suspect voters. When asked if Republicans would use the list to block voters, Tucker Fletcher replied, “Where it’s stated in the law, yeah.”

It is not possible at this time to determine how many on the potential blacklist were ultimately challenged and lost their vote. Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a challenge.


__________________________________
For the full story of caging lists and voter purges of 2004, plus the documents, read Greg Palast's New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
AP Enterprise: 9/11 thefts not prosecuted
By
MARGARET EBRAHIM and PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writers
58 minutes ago


Once-secret documents obtained by The Associated Press show a disaster supply management company went unpunished for Sept. 11 thefts after the government discovered FBI agents and other government officials had stolen artifacts from New York's ground zero.

Kieger Enterprises of Lino Lakes, Minn., dispatched trucks to a Long Island warehouse and loaded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donated bottled water, clothes, tools and generators to be moved to Minnesota in a plot to sell some for profit, according to government records and interviews.

Dan L'Allier said he witnessed 45 tons of the New York loot being unloaded in Minnesota at his company's headquarters. He and disaster specialist Chris Christopherson complained to a company executive, but were ordered to keep quiet. They persisted, going instead to the FBI.

The two whistleblowers eventually lost their jobs, received death threats and were blackballed in the disaster relief industry. But they remained convinced their sacrifice was worth seeing justice done.

They were wrong.

As a result, most Americans were kept in the dark about a major fraud involving their donated goods even as new requests for charity emerged with disasters like Hurricane Katrina. And Christopherson and L'Allier were left disillusioned.

"I wouldn't open my mouth again for all the tea in China," L'Allier said. Added Christopherson, a 34-year-old father of two: "I paid a big price."

As firefighters searched for survivors after the Sept. 11 attacks, heat from the World Trade Center's smoldering ruins burned the soles off their boots. They needed new ones every few hours, and Christopherson made sure they got them. The moment that crushed Christopherson's faith was when his employer dispatched the trucks to the warehouse for those supplies, donated by Americans.

The government ultimately gave the whistleblowers $30,000 each after expenses, their share in a civil settlement against KEI. They say the sum was hardly worth their trouble.

Federal prosecutors eventually charged KEI and some executives with fraud, including overbilling the government in several disasters, but excluded the Sept. 11 thefts. Officially, the government can't fully explain why.

KEI had worked for years for the government, providing disaster relief services during tornadoes, floods and other catastrophes. It was picked to manage the New York warehouse for the government's main Sept. 11 relief contractor.

Thomas Heffelfinger, the former U.S. attorney in Minnesota who prosecuted KEI, said he never intended to charge the company for the ground zero theft, and instead referred that part of the case to prosecutors in New York.

"At the heart of the KEI case was financial fraud," Heffelfinger said. "It was so bad we didn't need the theft."

Heather Tasker, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in New York, declined to discuss the KEI case. The whistleblowers, however, said they've never been contacted by New York prosecutors.

FBI documents indicate the government, in fact, was preparing to charge KEI with Sept. 11 thefts.

A March 2002 entry in the FBI's "prosecutive status" report states the U.S. Attorney's office in Minnesota intended "to prosecute individuals who were alleged to be involved in the transportation of stolen goods from New York City after the terrorist attack." A followup entry from Sept. 6, 2002 lists the specific evidence supporting such a charge.

The lead investigators for the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency told AP that the plan to prosecute KEI for those thefts stopped as soon as it became clear in late summer 2002 that an FBI agent in Minnesota had stolen a crystal globe from ground zero.

That prompted a broader review that ultimately found 16 government employees, including a top FBI executive and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had such artifacts from New York or the Pentagon.

"How could you secure an indictment?" FEMA investigator Kirk Beauchamp asked. "It would be a conflict."

While the globe's discovery had been widely reported, its impact on the Sept. 11 thefts had remained mostly unknown.

Prosecutors "and the FBI were very conscious of the fact that if they proceeded in one direction, they would have to proceed in the other, which meant prosecuting FBI agents," said Jane Turner, the lead FBI agent. She too became a whistleblower alleging the bureau tried to fire her for bringing the stolen artifacts to light. Turner retired in 2003.

The FBI declined to discuss Turner's allegation, saying it involved a personnel matter.

"It's illogical" not to prosecute KEI because of the agents' stolen artifacts, said E. Lawrence Barcella, former chief of major crimes in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. "The fact that FBI agents stole trinkets is an order of magnitude different than a company selling things they steal."

Nick Gess, another former federal prosecutor, said the agents' actions shouldn't have precluded prosecuting the company.

"DEA agents have been found to smoke pot occasionally," Gess said. "That doesn't mean they (the Drug Enforcement Administration) can't still work on drug cases."

The government also didn't prosecute any of its employees for taking souvenirs, claiming it lacked a policy prohibiting such thefts.

Ultimately, the FBI donated the stolen goods found at KEI's warehouse to the Salvation Army.

Joe Friedberg, a lawyer who represented a KEI executive, dismissed the Sept. 11 thefts as "much ado about nothing." Friedberg said KEI took a few pallets of water and T-shirts because they had authorization from a FEMA official to take surplus items.

But that FEMA official, Kathy McCoy, said she never gave Kieger such permission.

Those who work near ground zero today are shocked to learn such thefts went unpunished.

"To take advantage of people at a time of despair, it's probably one of the worst things human beings can do to another person," said Gregory Broms, Sr., a firefighter with Engine Company 10 at the foot of the former World Trade Center site. "It was morally wrong."

Christopherson recalled receiving boxes of white T-shirts stolen from the Long Island warehouse sent back to him after KEI had embossed a Sept. 11 logo on the front. He was instructed by his boss to sell them to firefighters, police and volunteers for $12 a piece. Disgusted, he threw them in the corner and never sold them.

Christopherson and L'Allier went to the FBI in fall 2001. On April 16, 2002, agents raided KEI, recovering at least 15,000 T-shirts and 18,000 bottles of bottled water. Because months had passed, the seized items were a fraction of the total the company had taken, the whistleblowers said.

Both men were threatened and harassed, reporting it to the FBI's Turner. "We all experienced the death threats," L'Allier said. "We all experienced the phone ringing at three in the morning and no one being there. I'd come home and the house would be wide open."

A few months after the raid, prosecutors drafted charges accusing the company of stealing the ground zero relief supplies, seeking an indictment on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Turner said.

But Turner discovered in late August 2002 a cracked Tiffany & Co. globe — lifted from the World Trade Center ruins — on the desk of a colleague. The theft case against KEI sputtered.

Eventually, KEI executives Edward Kieger Jr., Patrick Iwan and Joseph Dreshar were indicted in 2004 by a federal grand jury on charges of scheming to defraud the government. The former executives pleaded guilty, and Kieger and Iwan are serving prison terms. KEI has gone out of business.

Christopherson and L'Allier were stunned when the indictment excluded the ground zero thefts. They spent two years unsuccessfully trying to find new work in disaster relief. Christopherson now runs a landscaping business; L'Allier works as a paramedic.

For years, the two couldn't speak publicly because their whistleblower case remained under seal. They worried similar fraud might have occurred during Katrina.

"If you donated, at your local supermarket, water or canned goods or cleaning supplies and a truck goes down there (to New Orleans), who knows where it is ending up," L'Allier.

Today, the whistleblowers worry their fate might chill others from exposing wrongdoing.

"They felt they had to come forward about the theft because it was so wrong," Turner said. "I've lost my career. They've lost their jobs. The price is so high for telling the truth."
___
On the Net: The National Whistleblower Center:
http://www.whistleblowers.org[/url]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sept11_thefts&printer=1;_ylt=AusK9YjYZ9vF_Q6syGgEPjBH2ocA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
AP Enterprise: 9/11 thefts not prosecuted
By
MARGARET EBRAHIM and PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writers
58 minutes ago


Once-secret documents obtained by The Associated Press show a disaster supply management company went unpunished for Sept. 11 thefts after the government discovered FBI agents and other government officials had stolen artifacts from New York's ground zero.

Kieger Enterprises of Lino Lakes, Minn., dispatched trucks to a Long Island warehouse and loaded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donated bottled water, clothes, tools and generators to be moved to Minnesota in a plot to sell some for profit, according to government records and interviews.

Dan L'Allier said he witnessed 45 tons of the New York loot being unloaded in Minnesota at his company's headquarters. He and disaster specialist Chris Christopherson complained to a company executive, but were ordered to keep quiet. They persisted, going instead to the FBI.

The two whistleblowers eventually lost their jobs, received death threats and were blackballed in the disaster relief industry. But they remained convinced their sacrifice was worth seeing justice done.

They were wrong.

As a result, most Americans were kept in the dark about a major fraud involving their donated goods even as new requests for charity emerged with disasters like Hurricane Katrina. And Christopherson and L'Allier were left disillusioned.

"I wouldn't open my mouth again for all the tea in China," L'Allier said. Added Christopherson, a 34-year-old father of two: "I paid a big price."

As firefighters searched for survivors after the Sept. 11 attacks, heat from the World Trade Center's smoldering ruins burned the soles off their boots. They needed new ones every few hours, and Christopherson made sure they got them. The moment that crushed Christopherson's faith was when his employer dispatched the trucks to the warehouse for those supplies, donated by Americans.

The government ultimately gave the whistleblowers $30,000 each after expenses, their share in a civil settlement against KEI. They say the sum was hardly worth their trouble.

Federal prosecutors eventually charged KEI and some executives with fraud, including overbilling the government in several disasters, but excluded the Sept. 11 thefts. Officially, the government can't fully explain why.

KEI had worked for years for the government, providing disaster relief services during tornadoes, floods and other catastrophes. It was picked to manage the New York warehouse for the government's main Sept. 11 relief contractor.

Thomas Heffelfinger, the former U.S. attorney in Minnesota who prosecuted KEI, said he never intended to charge the company for the ground zero theft, and instead referred that part of the case to prosecutors in New York.

"At the heart of the KEI case was financial fraud," Heffelfinger said. "It was so bad we didn't need the theft."

Heather Tasker, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in New York, declined to discuss the KEI case. The whistleblowers, however, said they've never been contacted by New York prosecutors.

FBI documents indicate the government, in fact, was preparing to charge KEI with Sept. 11 thefts.

A March 2002 entry in the FBI's "prosecutive status" report states the U.S. Attorney's office in Minnesota intended "to prosecute individuals who were alleged to be involved in the transportation of stolen goods from New York City after the terrorist attack." A followup entry from Sept. 6, 2002 lists the specific evidence supporting such a charge.

The lead investigators for the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency told AP that the plan to prosecute KEI for those thefts stopped as soon as it became clear in late summer 2002 that an FBI agent in Minnesota had stolen a crystal globe from ground zero.

That prompted a broader review that ultimately found 16 government employees, including a top FBI executive and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had such artifacts from New York or the Pentagon.

"How could you secure an indictment?" FEMA investigator Kirk Beauchamp asked. "It would be a conflict."

While the globe's discovery had been widely reported, its impact on the Sept. 11 thefts had remained mostly unknown.

Prosecutors "and the FBI were very conscious of the fact that if they proceeded in one direction, they would have to proceed in the other, which meant prosecuting FBI agents," said Jane Turner, the lead FBI agent. She too became a whistleblower alleging the bureau tried to fire her for bringing the stolen artifacts to light. Turner retired in 2003.

The FBI declined to discuss Turner's allegation, saying it involved a personnel matter.

"It's illogical" not to prosecute KEI because of the agents' stolen artifacts, said E. Lawrence Barcella, former chief of major crimes in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. "The fact that FBI agents stole trinkets is an order of magnitude different than a company selling things they steal."

Nick Gess, another former federal prosecutor, said the agents' actions shouldn't have precluded prosecuting the company.

"DEA agents have been found to smoke pot occasionally," Gess said. "That doesn't mean they (the Drug Enforcement Administration) can't still work on drug cases."

The government also didn't prosecute any of its employees for taking souvenirs, claiming it lacked a policy prohibiting such thefts.

Ultimately, the FBI donated the stolen goods found at KEI's warehouse to the Salvation Army.

Joe Friedberg, a lawyer who represented a KEI executive, dismissed the Sept. 11 thefts as "much ado about nothing." Friedberg said KEI took a few pallets of water and T-shirts because they had authorization from a FEMA official to take surplus items.

But that FEMA official, Kathy McCoy, said she never gave Kieger such permission.

Those who work near ground zero today are shocked to learn such thefts went unpunished.

"To take advantage of people at a time of despair, it's probably one of the worst things human beings can do to another person," said Gregory Broms, Sr., a firefighter with Engine Company 10 at the foot of the former World Trade Center site. "It was morally wrong."

Christopherson recalled receiving boxes of white T-shirts stolen from the Long Island warehouse sent back to him after KEI had embossed a Sept. 11 logo on the front. He was instructed by his boss to sell them to firefighters, police and volunteers for $12 a piece. Disgusted, he threw them in the corner and never sold them.

Christopherson and L'Allier went to the FBI in fall 2001. On April 16, 2002, agents raided KEI, recovering at least 15,000 T-shirts and 18,000 bottles of bottled water. Because months had passed, the seized items were a fraction of the total the company had taken, the whistleblowers said.

Both men were threatened and harassed, reporting it to the FBI's Turner. "We all experienced the death threats," L'Allier said. "We all experienced the phone ringing at three in the morning and no one being there. I'd come home and the house would be wide open."

A few months after the raid, prosecutors drafted charges accusing the company of stealing the ground zero relief supplies, seeking an indictment on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Turner said.

But Turner discovered in late August 2002 a cracked Tiffany & Co. globe — lifted from the World Trade Center ruins — on the desk of a colleague. The theft case against KEI sputtered.

Eventually, KEI executives Edward Kieger Jr., Patrick Iwan and Joseph Dreshar were indicted in 2004 by a federal grand jury on charges of scheming to defraud the government. The former executives pleaded guilty, and Kieger and Iwan are serving prison terms. KEI has gone out of business.

Christopherson and L'Allier were stunned when the indictment excluded the ground zero thefts. They spent two years unsuccessfully trying to find new work in disaster relief. Christopherson now runs a landscaping business; L'Allier works as a paramedic.

For years, the two couldn't speak publicly because their whistleblower case remained under seal. They worried similar fraud might have occurred during Katrina.

"If you donated, at your local supermarket, water or canned goods or cleaning supplies and a truck goes down there (to New Orleans), who knows where it is ending up," L'Allier.

Today, the whistleblowers worry their fate might chill others from exposing wrongdoing.

"They felt they had to come forward about the theft because it was so wrong," Turner said. "I've lost my career. They've lost their jobs. The price is so high for telling the truth."

___

On the Net:
The National Whistleblower Center:

http://www.whistleblowers.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sept11_thefts&printer=1;_ylt=AusK9YjYZ9vF_Q6syGgEPjBH2ocA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

FYI - In advance of Hostile Takeover being profiled on PBS Now tonight (6/16), the show's producers asked me to write a piece for PBS's website about corruption and how it relates to America's
current political debate and the 2006 election. It is attached. -
David
***********************http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/money-democracy.html
{http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/money-democracy.html}PBS - 6/16/06

Trivializing Corruption

By David Sirota

Ninety thousand dollars in a Democratic Congressman's freezer. A Republican House Majority Leader indicted for money laundering, and a senior Republican thrown in jail for accepting bribes. Washington's biggest lobbyist thrown in jail for trying to buy off lawmakers. This is what the Washington Establishment and the media want America to believe is the worst form of corruption: a few dirty political hacks who had the nerve to violate our supposedly pristine democracy.

Certainly, these examples are egregious. But the intense focus on them by political leaders and the media to the exclusion of the real corruption destroying our democracy trivializes what corruption really is. That's not by accident -- it is a deliberate tactic of distraction, and shows just how bought off our political system really is.

Today, the lifeblood of American politics is money. Candidates must raise enormous sums of private cash to run for office -- sums that the wealthy and corporate interests are only too happy to provide in exchange for legislative favors. We are told by politicians that this system is "the greatest democracy in the world" when, in fact, it is very clearly the same form of bribery that has marked every corrupt regime looked down on by history books.

Money, of course, does not just buy favors -- it makes sure that the
concept of corruption is only presented to the public by political leaders as anecdotes about a few bad apples, not a narrative about a broken system. Why? Because an indictment of the pay-to-play system that produced the bad apples could mean structural campaign finance reforms that challenge the power of the Big Money interests that underwrite our politicians. Thus, in the aftermath of recent congressional scandals, all we get is a pathetical discussion about weak lobbying "reform" proposals and even weaker sanctions against individual lawmakers.

Such narrowing of our political discourse is the most nefarious form of corruption of all. It shows how we now live in a country where the very boundaries of public policy debates are designed to ensure outcomes that never challenge Big Money interests. The truly corrupt interests that own American politics long ago realized that they do not have to pervasively violate our weak anti-corruption laws to get what they want. All they have to do is shower cash on as many lawmakers as possible. These lawmakers, uninterested in biting the hand that feeds them, consequently make sure the overall debate is rigged.

So, for instance, as America faces an impending energy crisis, the political debate emanating from Washington has been largely limited to a discussion of which new tax breaks to give to which major oil companies -- all of whom have doled out millions in campaign contributions to politicians.

Any serious discussion of a windfall profits tax on oil companies has been marginalized, even though polls show the public strongly supports the concept. Proposals to improve anti-trust enforcement as a way of slowing down oil industry consolidation -- that's not even talked about. And any consideration of a tough federal price gouging law has been met with propaganda claiming it is not needed. Just last week, the Federal Trade Commission -- headed by a former ChevronTexaco lawyer -- claimed there is no evidence of oil industry price gouging. This is occurring as Americans are paying more than $3-per-gallon for gas at the very same time ExxonMobil made more money than any corporation in history and gave its outgoing CEO a $400 million retirement bonus.

The same is true when it comes to health care. As health insurance premiums skyrocket and more Americans are forced to go with no insurance at all, polls consistently show that Americans want a universal health care system -- and are willing to make sacrifices to get one. Yet, almost no politicians in Washington are willing to support a government-sponsored, single-payer system like the one the rest of the industrialized world has. The reason? Because such a proposal could threaten the bottom line of the private health
insurance industry, which makes massive donations to political candidates. Instead, the debate is limited either to proposals like Massachusetts' that simply forces citizens to pay high health premiums, or to proposals in Congress that would just hand over billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry to minimally expand coverage.

Even on hot button issues like immigration, the debate is narrowed to fit Big Money's agenda. Think about it -- the political Establishment is having a supposedly intense debate over illegal immigration without even mentioning the corporate-written North American Free Trade Agreement. This is the pact that, more than a decade ago, was sold to Americans by President Clinton and Republicans in Congress as a way to improve the Mexican economy and drive down illegal immigration, but which actually drove millions more Mexicans into poverty and increased pressure at our southern border. Almost no politicians have even raised the concept of adding wage or workplace
protections to the pact as a way to improve the Mexican economy and give Mexicans a better incentive to remain in their country -- because to raise that concept would be to challenge politicians' corporate campaign donors who want access to Mexico's impoverished, exploitable workforce.

To be sure -- politicians will continue their efforts to focus attention exclusively on the bad apples within their midst. They will then cite their own outrage as proof they are true "reformers." Just as they feed us false storylines about supposedly working for us when they are working for Big Money, they will tell us they are serious about fixing our broken political system, when they really are not. Because, as we see, when the cameras shut off, Washington's bipartisan establishment still refuses to embrace systemic reforms like public financing of elections that would actually end the
pay-to-pay political culture.

We, the public, can hope and pray for change, and we can delude ourselves into thinking that a simple change in party control will fix our problems. But the simple truth is that until we go to the ballot box and punish representatives from both parties who are part of this consensus, we will continue to live not in a democracy -- but in a system of legalized bribery that makes our problems worse.

A Newsletter from David Sirota, to read more by him go on-site by clicking on the following link:

http://www.workingforchange.com

[Saundra Hummer]

*****...*****


Polar Bear Review Draws 140,000 Comments
Polar Bear Protection Review Draws 140,000 Public Comments
By DAN JOLING
The Associated Press
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in Alaska face some 140,000 submitted comments on whether to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but said they have no feel yet for how public sentiment is divided. The last day for the public to comment on the petition was Friday.

Rosa Meehan, chief of the agency's marine mammal management program, said the comment period was intended to seek biological, environmental or technical information, but the agency would not discount comments that simply advocate or oppose more protection for polar bears.


"Someone took the initiative to do that," she said. "It's good to have a sense of the level of public interest."


The Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group, petitioned in February 2005 to list polar bears. Classified as a marine mammal because they spend much of their lives on sea ice, polar bears are threatened because of drastic declines in ocean ice due to global warming, according to the petition.


When the Fish and Wildlife Service did not meet deadlines in the law for action, the center and two other conservation groups sued. A settlement calls for the agency to make a decision by December 2006.


The agency sought comments on polar bear population, distribution, habitat, plus threats from development, contaminants and poaching. The 140,000 or so comments submitted as of Friday afternoon had not been tallied by content, Meehan said.


Environmentalists hope a listing tied to global warming will force a recovery plan that includes provisions to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.


"The debate on global warming is over," said Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It is now evident in the Arctic, and across the globe, that warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions is under way. The ... polar bear, if not protected, may become one of its first victims."


Some opponents, however, while conceding global warming was a fact, said forecasts of its effects and how quickly they may occur were far too tenuous to support listing.


"Climate change will affect all species to some extent, including humans," said Mitchell K. Taylor, manager of wildlife for the government of Nunavut in Canada, in one comment among samples released by the agency. "If the likelihood of change is regarded as sufficient cause to designate a species or population as 'threatened,' then all species around the world are 'threatened.'"

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet

Go on-site to view photo's and links by clicking on the following:

Ventureshttp://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2086773

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference” : Bess Myerson

~

“Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.” : Joseph P. Kennedy

~

“Each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election. However, this system was disastrous when the city had become corrupt. For then it was not the most virtuous but the most powerful who stood for election, and the weak, even if virtuous, were too frightened to run for office.” : Fyrefly1985 Niccolo Machiavelli

~

“Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today” : Mahatma Gandhi

~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Condi and the isolationists

By Patrick Buchanan

06/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- To buttress crumbling support for his interventionist policy, President Bush played his ace of trumps, sending his most popular champion, Condi Rice, to the Southern Baptist Convention.

If seven standing ovations and 20,000 Christians bursting forth into a spontaneous signing of "God Bless America" at the close is any measure, the secretary succeeded splendidly in her speech.

Yet in carrying forward the faux-Churchillian, stand-up-to-the-isolationists theme of the State of the Union, Condi employed a device readily recognizable to any student of rhetoric.

She presented the good Baptist folks with the false alternative.

America has a choice, she said: to stand by a courageous president, or to conduct a cowardly retreat from the challenges of our time:

"Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the choice before our country, before us as Americans. Will we lead in the world, or will we withdraw? Will we rise to the challenges of our time, or will we shrink from them?"

Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler seems to have been well-briefed on whom Condi was targeting.

"Rice did not specifically refer to isolationists, but her inference was clear. ...

"President Bush first raised concerns about isolationism in his State of the Union Address this year. Since then, the outrage over the potential sale of U.S. port operations to a Dubai-based company and the drive to build a wall along the border with Mexico have added to the worries of administration officials. They fear that it could result in demands even from the president's strongest traditional supporters to pull out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Why, one wonders, do President Bush and Rice not tell us who these dreaded isolationists are and how they could conceivably seduce the Southern Baptists into questioning Bush policy?

The truth: If Southern Baptists are peeling off from the Bush coalition for moral imperialism and democracy crusades, the reason may not be that they wish to flee the world, but that they see the Bush-Rice policy as failing. At a great cost in blood and treasure, we seem to be reaping a rising harvest of hatred.

The same day the report on Rice's speech appeared in the Post, the Washington Times reported on a remarkable rise of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. In a wide-ranging survey of opinion on Iran's nuclear program and Islamic attitudes toward the United States, a group called Terror Free Tomorrow, which boasts John McCain among others on its board, reported that:

Seven in 10 Pakistanis favor Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons.

Two of three Pakistanis have a negative opinion of the United States, a figure that rises to 71 percent among citizens of NATO ally Turkey and an astonishing 89 percent in Saudi Arabia.

Two-thirds of all Saudis, Turks and Pakistanis believe those mocking cartoons of Muhammad printed in the Danish newspaper and reprinted across Europe reflect Western hostility toward their faith.
Did isolationists create such animosity toward America among our closest allies in the Muslim world? How? And who are they?

Answer: No such beasts exist. The people who have produced such results for America are the decision-makers themselves – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice – and their advisers, the neoconservatives.

To understand who is truly responsible for a situation where a U.S. secretary of state has to go before a convention of religious conservatives to try to hold their support for a president they put in office, Rice might ask herself some questions.

Is it the isolationists who cannot end a column or commentary without howling for new pre-emptive strikes on "Islamofascists"? Was it isolationists who reveled in those Danish cartoons, reprinting them and declaring them to be a fine expression of Western values?

Was it isolationists who sent an army storming into Baghdad in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, resulting in tens of thousands of Iraqi army and civilian dead, three bloody years of "collateral damage" to Iraqi women and children, and the inevitable horrors of guerrilla war, such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha?

Is it isolationists who are supporting Israel's strangulation of aid-dependent Palestinians, the purpose of which was wittily described by Sharon sidekick Dov Weisglass: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger"?

Presumably, the hungry Palestinian children are to pressure Hamas to recognize Israel. One wonders. Do the good Christian folks gathered at Greensboro, N.C., think what we are doing to these people is a godly thing to do?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are making a comeback. In Iraq, the new democratic government Bush celebrated in his surprise visit is considering amnesty for Sunni insurgents who only killed Americans.

Why did Condi rip into isolationism at the Baptist convention?

Because it is a less daunting task than defending the fruits of a foolish interventionism that are now lying right in front of us.

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

[Saundra Hummer]

The View From The Peak

Multimedia Books News/Updates

Introduction

Peak oil is the maximum rate at which oil can be produced. Oil production typically follows the shape of a bell curve. When a new oil field is brought into production for the first time, the production starts at a certain level and steadily increase until half the oil that could be extracted from the field is already produced. From around that time onwards, the production enters a steady and irreversible decline. This is true for individual fields, oil producing nations and entire world oil production.

For example the oil production in the lower 48 states of the US reached its peak in 1970 and has been in a terminal decline. No amount of technology has been able to reverse this trend. The peak in production followed about 40 years after the peak in discovery(1930) of oil in the US.
Figure-1 : Oil discovery versus production : vertical bars represent discovery and the red worm charts the production.

In 1956, a prominent geologist for Shell Oil company by the name Marion King Hubbert predicted that oil production in the lower 48 states of the US would peak between 1965-1970. He was pooh-poohed by his colleagues for his prediction and in 1970 US produced more oil than any previous year - exactly the year when the production peaked.

In 1969, Mr. Hubbert went on to predict a peak for world oil production between 1995-2000 based on the best available data then. His theories about peaking of world oil production is known as Hubbert Peak theory. The oil shock of the seventies might have postponed the peak in world oil production by few more years. But there are increasing signs that world oil production is approaching a peak very soon.

No one disputes the facts that oil production would peak some day, the question is only about the timing. It goes from the most pessimistic Ken Deffeyes, who believes that peak happened last year to the most optimistic USGS which predicts a peak 3 decades from now.

Here are some of the reasons why I believe the peak has either happened or is just around the corner.

USGS: is the only organization private/public/government that has an estimate that high.
Biggest growth in demand is coming from Middle-east itself. Saudi Arabia was a country of 6 million people in 1970 and today the population is 22million. Production has never reached the 1970s high again. Saudi Arabia threatened to increase production and claimed to be the swing producer and their production didn't budge even in the aftermath of Katrina.
World's second largest oil field ever discover Kuwait's Burgan oil field peaked last year.

That estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least of which is Vice President Dick Cheney himself. In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated: "By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day."

US Government had done a study on the peaking of production, headed by a gentleman by name Robert Hirsch, this report disappeared later. But a copy can be found here

Europe only major oil field in the North Sea has peaked and the production is in decline. Britain will be a net importer of Oil next year for the first time in more than couple of decades.

World's second largest oil field in terms of daily out put - the Cantarell field of Mexico has peaked according to the Mexican National oil company Pemex. The field could experience steep declines in production up to 8-10% every year.

China has been transformed from being a net exporter of oil to an importer 10 years ago. China's major oil field has peaked in Daqing has peaked. A recent economic growth in that nation has added pressures on the demand side.

Matt Simmons a successful investment banker and CEO of simmons and company international has put his whole career on the line on the peak oil theory. He has gone through several society of petroleum engineers papers and have come to the conclusion that Saudi will not be able to hit their 1970s peak again.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
http://www.newcolonist.com/ghawar.html

Russian oil production had seen a revival since the mid 1990s but could be close to entering precipitous declines very soon. http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/06/07/oilproduction.shtml
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/10/25/oiloutput.shtml

World oil discovery peaked in mid 1960s. Since the oil production in the lower 48 of US peaked about 40 years after the peaking of discovery, there are reasons to believe the same thing could happen to World oil production
Reputed oil industry insiders other than Dick Cheney and Matt Simmons throwing their weight behind peak oil include billionaires Richard Rainwater and Boone Pickens

Looking the currently available data, OPEC production has been flat since 2004.

Many OPEC nations have manipulated oil reserve data. Under the quota regime of the OPEC cartel, the OPEC countries were allowed to produce oil in proportion to their reserves. During the oil crash of the 80s, many OPEC nations found themselves short of hard currency and upwardly revised their oil reserve data to increase their quota. In 1986, Kuwait doubled their reserves on paper, without ever finding a single new field of oil and other OPEC nations followed suit. All these nations have produced billions of barrels of oil since then and has not found any significant amount of oil, but surprisingly their reserves reported has remained the same ever since 1990. They have never deducted what has already been produced from the data. When the 7 sisters were running Saudi Aramco, the estimated oil reserves in Saudi Arabia were 110 billion barrels, There has been no significant discovery in that country since the Saudis nationalized Aramco, but the oil reserves were revised up to 260 billion barrels. Same thing can be said of all other nations belonging to the OPEC cartel.

Isn't it fitting that Kuwait is the first country to admit that they don't have as much oil as they have always claimed ?

Major oil companies are joining the alternative fuels bandwagon, like for e.g. BP - calling itself Beyond Petroleum and making significant investments in alternative energy. Chevron is running a conservation website titled willyoujoinus.
Half of the World's population residing in India and China were completely absent from the prosperity of the Industrial world. But that has been changing over the last decade or two. Close to 40% of world's population live in those countries alone. As you will see from the chart, crude oil consumption in those two enormous countries alone are on a tear. China is at least 10-15 years ahead of India on the path to prosperity.


Now, if all goes well in India, then the demand for goods, services, and, hence, commodities will continue to increase very substantially for another 10-20 years. As can be seen from the chart, Indian oil consumption has just recently started to turn up. Should its demand now accelerate, which is very likely, then China's and India's oil demand could double in the next eight years (see chart). Demand from China and India for oil doubled in the last 10 year.

Oil Links

Energy Story
Peak Oil Basics
Glance at World's oil
Simmons Presentations
Hirsch Report (pdf)
US Army report (pdf)
4 Biggest Fields Declining
Kuwait's Burgan Peaks
Cantarell is Dying
North Sea in Decline
Trouble in Ghawar
Ghawar is dying
Daqing Peaked
Russian Peak I
Russian Peak II
Iran is The next Target
Dick Cheney (pdf)
Shell cuts reserves 5th time
Rainwater Prophecy
Abiotic Oil I
Abiotic Oil II
Petrodollar Warfare (pdf)
This Week in Petroleum
Petroleum Monthly
Mega Projects 2004 (pdf)


Price Quotes/Charts
Oil Chart
Crude Real Time Quotes
CNN Commodities
Energy Price Quote
Live Gold/Silver Quotes


Alternatives or Fantasy?
Ethanol (pdf)
Ethanol II
Oil Shale
Oil Shale II
Hydrogen Fantasy
The Breaking Point
EROEI for alternatives
Alternative Fuel Data Center
Alternative For Farms

Uranium Links
Uranium Spot Price
Uranium Info Center
Uranium Fundamentals (pdf)
World Nuclear Association


North of the Border

USA today - Tar sands
CIBC World Markets Report
Oil Sands Discovery Center
Oil sands report
Raymond James Report
Suncor Energy
Canadian Natural Resource
Canadian Oil Sands Trust
Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Western Oil Sands
UTS Energy
Opti Canada
Petrobank
Canadian Royalty trusts
Central Fund of Canada
Cameco Corporation


Other Opps
Independent Oil & Gas
Drilling & Exploration
Equipment & Services
Oil & Gas Majors
Refining & Marketing
Streetracks Gold
Prudent Bear Fund
Clean Energy ETF
Investing for Apocalypse


Dollar/Precious Metals
Dollar at Risk
Secret of Gold
Yield Curve & Recession
Straight Talk on Mining


Crude Thoughts

About me (The author)

Go on-site to link up and see the numerous articles on this subject, and to keep current with their updated news, and articles.

http://www.theviewfromthepeak.net/

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Eye to eye in Iraq
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

06.15.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- I think we need to stop President Bush from looking people in the eye. On Tuesday, he told the new prime minister of Iraq that he had come to Iraq to "look you in the eye."

Do we even know if the cultural significance of "looking someone in the eye" is known or accepted in the Middle East? Even if Middle Easterners are kindly disposed toward looking one another in the eye -- say it's not considered rude or worse -- would they know what to make of Bush's declaration to U.S. troops that he came to look at "Prime Minister Maliki in the eyes and determine whether or not he is as dedicated to a free Iraq as you are."

Who knows if Iraqis think this is determinable by the deep-eye look. Come to think of it, I'm not sure it is.

People interpret things differently. Not long ago, I was in the beautiful home of an exceptionally rich person, even by Texas standards. And I saw what I took to be a lovely sort of "treatment" on the spiral staircase -- a swathe of cloth draped artistically about the twisting spiral. Commentator/author Bud Trillin was with me, and he thought the painters had been there and just left a drop cloth on the stair rail, which is the reason you can't take Bud anywhere. Maybe it's like that in the Middle East with the deep-eye look -- people just can't tell.

Now here's the media all in a tizzy because the president went to Iraq without telling hardly anyone -- a big shock. I don't want to ruin anyone's surprise, but I trust you have considered that the president couldn't let anyone know he was coming in advance because the bad guys would try to kill him. Sorry to take any of the fizz out of the celebration of the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but let's not get overexcited.

Bush said his message to the Iraqi people is, "Seize the moment." Do we think they knew what he meant? Is carpe diem part of Iraqis' general knowledge? Then, the president urged the Iraqis to end sectarian strife. I, too, think this would be a good idea. Thought so for at least three years. Basically, what I'm getting at here is, do you suppose the rest if the world just assumes George W. Bush is a moron when he goes overseas?

I realize the trip was arranged to try to take advantage of the killing of Zarqawi, for Bush to "get a bounce out of it," as they say back in Washington politics. But I'm just not sure there's much bounce left in Iraq. It's not good enough anymore to turn a corner or see a light at the end of the tunnel -- too many corners, too many lights later. I guess we can still seize the moment, although the confusion over how Zarqawi died kind of undercuts that.

The trouble with Iraq is what keeps happening there. We haven't rebuilt the place -- in fact, it keeps getting worse in terms of basic services. You have to admit, leaving a place worse off than Saddam Hussein kept it is not a bragging point. Number of people killed keeps going up, signs of militias out of control, sectarian violence, spreading anarchy ... not good.

Years ago, Mrs. T. Cullen Davis, of tacky Texas murder trial fame, said as her husband tried to grab a fabulous necklace he gave her, "This ain't no takesie-backsie." (You may now take a deep breath while considering the depth of that comment.)

I feel that Iraq is also a "no takesie-backsie." It is a putrid human, social and political disaster, and getting worse, not better. The people who got us into this should not be forgiven - - they should not even get a "bounce" from it. There is only one thing I want from them -- to get us and our Army out of there, instead of cavalierly announcing that will be left to "future presidents."
(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20955

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

'Enough is enough'

By John Murtha
Fri Jun 16, 7:35 AM ET

Iraq is not the center of the global war on terrorism, and nor is it overwhelmed by foreign terrorist groups, as this administration would like Americans to believe.

Iraqis are fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence, and U.S. troops have become the target.

On Thursday, we heard House Republicans argue that the United States cannot change the policy in Iraq. But a change in direction is in the best interest of the United States and Iraq. Saying we must "stay the course" amounts to an open-ended commitment, one that we can not afford in terms of human and financial sacrifice.

Our view: Setting deadline for troops' withdrawal will backfire

The president continues to say we must stay in Iraq. Iraq has formed a government, trained 265,600 Iraq security forces and the Iraqis want to govern themselves. We have more than 20,000 deaths from this war, and yet terrorist attacks rose sharply last year to more than 10,000. By the end of this year, we will have spent $450 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars on this war. Enough is enough. Our nation deserves better.

Instead of sticking with a failed policy, I propose a new policy. Instead of "stay and pay," which is what this administration continues to argue, I propose that we "redeploy and be ready." We must redeploy American troops out of the cities to the periphery and create a quick reaction force ready to attack only when the national security of the United States or its allies in the region is at risk.

The American people are not naive. They know a failed policy when they see one. Iraq is a failed policy. It's time to redeploy.
Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania is the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

http://news.yahoo.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

IN THE NEWS:

June 18, 2006
When a football game is over, there is a winner and a loser. It's all over but the nightly sports wrap-up, and then it's on to the next game.

That's roughly how the mainstream media treated the announcement by Karl Rove's attorney that the man who helped expose a CIA operative who tracked the illicit transfer of Weapsons of Mass Destruction, that this man -- Rove -- would not be indicted.

The terse statement by Rove's attorney allowed the Washington Post to quickly restore Rove to the Pantheon of Bush advisers, all the time puffing up his status and reputation.

Of course, someone should remind the writers of the Post's front page story that although Rove is apparently not going to be legally indicted in PlameGate, he was clearly involved in leaking classified information that endangered the national security of the United States. He also initially lied -- as in committed perjury -- to Department of Justice Attorneys.

But, remember this: the questions as to why Rove wasn't indicted linger like the raw stench of sewage.

Did he decide to cooperate with Fitzgerald, with the understanding that Rove's turning state's evidence won't be revealed until Libby's trial -- which is after the mid-term elections? Rove is a master of delaying incriminating news until after an election. This, however, is only one speculative possibility.

There is also the chance that Fitzgerald didn't have a strong enough case for perjury. A former Time Magazine reporter, Victoria Novak (no relation to "traitor" Bob) tipped Rove's lawyer to the fact that Time reporter Matt Cooper had testified that Rove had told him about Valerie Plame. Rove's lawyer than had his client voluntarily return to the Grand Jury, his memory "refreshed," to indicate that he had previously forgotten the Cooper conversation. Novak's leak to Rove's attorney was the key link, possibly, to getting Novak off the hook.

But then there is a far more ominous speculative possibility.

That is that Fitzgerald was stymied in his efforts to indict Rove by higher ups in the Department of Justice. Since Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate Plamegate, the Assistant Attorney General who gave him independent powers within the DOJ has left. A far more partisan man replaced him -- and that man would be more likely to put subtle pressure on Fitzgerald, at the request of Alberto "Bush Consigliere" Gonzales, were they able to get away with it without being exposed themselves.

The only way that we would know if this took place would be if Fitzgerald went public with it. That would take quite an act of courage, and likely mean the practical end of the entire investigation and Fitzgerald's career in the Justice Department.

Are we saying that Fitzgerald was told to back off a Rove indictment?

No, we have no firm indication of that whatsoever. But, we took note of the possibility laid out on one blog -- and, well, it is a possibility after all, isn't it? But, like all things in the Bush Administration, we are left only with various hypotheses about why Rove wasn't indicted.

Only Patrick Fitzgerald knows for sure.

And, right now, he's not talking.

The guy is a professional to the core -- unlike loose lips Ken Starr.

We respect him for that.

http://www.buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
HALLIBURTON WATCH
New documents suggest Pentagon lied about Cheney's role in awarding no-bid contract to Halliburton in 2003

WASHINGTON, June 15 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Newly-released government documents indicate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may have publicly lied about Vice President Dick Cheney's role in awarding a $7 billion no-bid Iraqi oil reconstruction contract to Halliburton in the weeks preceding the March 2003 invasion, the conservative activist group Judicial Watch disclosed today.

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Judicial Watch found an internal USACE email from April 2003 explaining that USACE Chief Counsel, Robert Andersen, told the 60 Minutes television program that, "There was no contact whatsoever (with the VP office)" in awarding the oil contract to Halliburton.

But this information contradicts another email uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2004. The email, dated March 5, 2003, sent by an official of the Army Corps of Engineers whose name was redacted, stated, “We anticipate no issue [with the Halliburton deal] since the action has been coordinated w VP’s office.”

“These new documents raise questions about the involvement of the Vice President’s office in the controversial KBR deal," Tom Fenton, Judicial Watch President, said. "One has to wonder whether the Army was being forthright about the issue.”

Judicial Watch was forced to obtain a court order to release the documents because USACE improperly claimed exemptions from the FOIA. One document USACE attempted to exempt from release includes a frank admission by an official who said, “I am copying you on this crap since I honestly believe the competitive procurement will never happen.”

"It took the intervention of a federal district judge to force the Army to release the document," a Judicial Watch press release states.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently investigating possible criminal behavior in the way the Pentagon has awarded contracts to Halliburton. USACE demoted its highest-ranking civilian employee for blowing the whistle on improper and potentially illegal contracting practices committed by Halliburton and the Pentagon.

More Information

Judicial Watch press release

Newly disclosed USACE documents

Go on-site to view the several links by clicking on the following one:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

I had this on the Haliburton Watch thread, and hardly anyone was checking it out, so pulled it over here so it gets some notice, some attention. Isn't it about time we were demanding some action and answers concerning Dick Cheney and his company? Look at the costs we are suffering, morally, and financially. Look at the suffering too many are subjected to, all due to his actions.

[Saundra Hummer]

...!...!...!...
The Worst Ruling of the Week!
By
Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive
Friday 16 June 2006

A lot of people are up in arms about the Supreme Court's "no knock" decision.

I also think it's outrageous.

Making police knock before barging into the sanctity of people's homes is fundamental to the 4th Amendment, and to the principle underlying that dates back to thirteenth century.

Talk about turning back the clocks But there's a decision that bothers me even more, and it's received a lot less attention.

And that's a ruling, on July 14, by Federal Judge John Gleeson, that the government can detain noncitizens indefinitely without explanation so long as that end of that detention is "reasonably foreseeable."
The case before him was Turkmen v. Ashcroft, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights "on behalf of male Muslim noncitizens from Arab and South Asian countries who were swept up by the INS and the FBI in the dragnet that followed September 11," the center notes.

Judge Gleeson also ruled that the government could single out people on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. "If applied to citizens," he acknowledged," this singling out "would be highly suspicious."

Calling the decision "profoundly disturbing," Rachel Meeropol, an attorney for the center, said it gives the green light to detentions of noncitizens "at the whim of the President."

Gleeson's ruling would have justified the Japanese internment camps for all except those who were citizens at the time. (David Cole, one of the attorneys in this case, makes this same point in a great article he wrote for the LA Times.)

In the here and now, it's an especially distressing ruling because it bestows a blessing on one of the Bush Administration's many powergrabs after 9/11. With the Ashcroft Raids, Special Registration, and other policies, the government rounded up 5,000 immigrants and deprived them of their due process rights.

And Judge Gleeson says that's OK?

The Fifth Amendment says "no person" shall be deprived of due process.

The Fourteenth Amendment echoes that, and says "no person" shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Now the Bush Administration and Judge Gleeson are willfully ignoring those amendments. And they are treating immigrants as less than persons.

How sweet it isn't.
. . . . . . .

I'm more frightened of what we're becoming - also by what is being done to us by our own - all under the guise of protection - under the guise of keeping the Barbarians from our Gates. All of this being done by those who vow to stay the course, to win this supposedly righteous war. Ridding the world of terrorism while paying out multi-million dollar bonuses to Halliburton, and it's subsideraries. It is our fearless leaders, (safe in their bunkers), it's their actions which frighten me more than the likes of Osama Bin Laden, more than the ones who would like to kill us all. What will we have gained if we are no longer free?

Then there is death. More have died by our hand and by the Iraqi's than in the Twin Towers, in the airplanes and in the Pentagon, but hey, it's over there! For how long? Look at those who have reason to hate us now.

Osama was so right when he said that the acts of the terrorists would erode our freedoms. Oh so right. Look around. There is no denying it. It is happening as we live and breath this beautiful June day - us in the safety of our insular lives, too many of us are all too to willing to let it happen or too oblivious to it all. I wonder what the 70+ percent of our military thinks of all of this? The 70 percent who believe we should be getting out of Iraq. Who knows for sure? It's hardly ever talked about a whole lot by the mainstream press. SRH

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_061706G.shtml
...

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
A project of the Nation Institute

To send this to a friend, or to read more dispatches, go to tomdispatch.com (Go on-site to access the numerous links, just click on the colored areas of the article once on-site)

Tomgram: Robert Dreyfuss, The Iraqi Insurgency and Us

Remember Saddam's "killing fields"? By now, the Bush administration has turned whole swathes of Iraq into a charnel house. Last week Hala Jaber, a fine British reporter, returned to Baghdad and visited one of today's killing fields -- that city's morgue into which, from what she calls "the nightly slaughter," approximately 6,000 corpses have been delivered since the first of the year. "Each corpse," she writes, "tells a different story about the terrors of Iraq. Some bodies are pocked with holes inflicted by torturers with power drills. Some show signs of strangulation; others, with hands tied behind the back, bear bullet wounds. Many are charred and dismembered."

Baghdad, she relates, is a city in which the "main topic of conversation in most households is death -- who is the latest to have been killed, what depraved technique was used and whether it is safe to go out."

It was into that city of death -- or rather its American death-lite version -- that our President flew last week, just over three years after he famously declared "mission accomplished" on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. He landed at Baghdad's airport, helicoptered into the Green Zone, that heavily fortified American citadel, in 25 pounds of body armor, surprised the new prime minister, looked him "in the eyes," and declared himself "inspired." It was, as Sidney Blumenthal put it, "‘mission accomplished' in a business suit."

The last time he was there, he hoisted a giant fake turkey for Thanksgiving. This time, he returned home and, visibly recharged like some Energizer Bunny, gave a thumbs-up press conference in which he hoisted a whole fake Iraq. He also made his intentions clear for the remainder of his second term -- and it was nothing short of more of the same until victory. ("What you hear from me, no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it's worth it, it is necessary, and we will succeed.")

If you're measuring by original administration dreams and plans for Iraq after the invasion (as well as for reordering the Middle East along neocons lines), what's happened since has been a catastrophe, but does that make "victory" of some sort inconceivable? Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devil's Game, a striking history of how successive American administrations bedded down with right-wing Islamic movements, thinks not and offers some clear-eyed, provocative thoughts below on the Sunni insurgency and the antiwar movement as well as mainstream "opposition" in the U.S.

It's worth remembering that the last time Iraqis rose up against an imperial occupier -- Britain in the 1920s -- they were, in the end, defeated; and, unlike then, the present insurgency remains a minority one. On the final fate of the Bush project in Iraq, as Dreyfuss makes clear, the jury remains out. No one should assume an end that may never come and so turn to other issues prematurely.

On the ability of the United States -- not just this administration but future ones -- to maintain an Iraqi occupation force of perhaps 100,000 thousand (or even 50,000) troops under charnel-house conditions or worse, I have my doubts, possibly more of them than Dreyfuss. For one thing, Iraq is not a contained situation. Its chaos is spreading in the region. How far and how dangerously we don't yet fully know, but these are, after all, the oil heartlands of the planet. In addition, the U.S. position as the globe's sole "hyperpower" continues to deteriorate as, I suspect, does its global economic situation. More than Iraq (and even Washington) will help determine how the situation in that country resolves itself.


Click here to read more of this dispatch.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=93289

~~~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.............


"Bush is Spending Like A Drunken Sailor and the Tax Payers are Being Stuck with the Bill:"
Rep. Waxman Issues Report on Contract Waste

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERTJune 19, 2006

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) released the first comprehensive assessment of federal contracting under the Bush Administration today in the House Government Reform Committee. The 65-page report “Dollars, Not Sense” identifies the substantially high spending on contracts since 2000. Instead of shrinking government as promised, Bush has increased procurement spending by 86% to a whopping $377.5 billion annually.

In a statement to BuzzFlash.com, Waxman cited Bush’s “spending binges” for “an unprecedented level of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.” Contract spending continues to accelerate rapidly despite countless reports highlighting such corruption, which has cost taxpayers billions.

“The Bush Administration isn't learning from its mistakes - it's repeating them,” Waxman said. “Billions of dollars have been wasted through noncompetitive contracts, lack of planning, abuse of contract flexibilities, inadequate oversight, and corruption. Private contractors like Halliburton are making out like bandits while taxpayers are getting repeatedly gouged.”

Click here to read the report:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1071

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both." -- James Madison

~

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." -- John Adams

~

"The tyranny of a principal in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." --Montesquieu, 1748 ~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Murtha to Iraq, Rove and Staying The Course

"He's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside-saying stay the course. That’s not a plan! "

06/18/06 - Meet The Press - Runtime 4 minutes

CLICK PLAY TO VIEW.....[Go on-site to click links to view]

Download File

You may need to download Windows Media Player 10 to view this video. Its FREE




TRANSCRIPT:
Russert: But first, Iraq. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman John Murtha. Welcome back to Meet the Press.

Murtha: Nice to be back here.


Russert: The President says, "Stay the course"; that within the next six months, Iraq will be secure under the direction of the new Prime Minister; and to anything less now would be irresponsible.


Murtha: Well, stay the course is stay and pay. And this is the thing that has worried me right along. We're spending $8 billion a month, $300 million a day. And to give you some perspective of what that means, Gates said, "I'm going to quite the corporation," or "I'm going to..." -- less time in the corporation. [He would] give away $30 billion. That's four months of this...cost of this war.


This port security -- if you want to spend more money, it'd take 47 years the way we're spending it. Education -- the No Child Left Behind -- a couple months of the war would pay for that. Who's gonna...who's gonna pay for this down the road? I'll children and grandchildren are paying for this war. And then you have the...the...the emotional strain, the...the...the people who are being hurt.


On the floor the other day -- you may have heard this -- one fella says, uh, "We're fighting this war." We're not fighting this war. One percent of the American people, these young men and women, are fighting this war with heavy packs, with seventy pounds of equipment, with helmets on in...in 130 degrees. That's who's fighting this war. And they stay, "Stay the course."


There's no plan! You open up this plan for victory. There's no plan there. It's just, "Stay the course." That doesn't solve any problem. It's worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially. When I spoke out, uh, the garbage wasn't being collected, oil production below pre-War level -- all those things indicated to me we weren't winning this, and...and it's the same today, if not worse.


Anbar province, there's not one project but one in Anbar province. Two million people live there. They have no water at all, no oil production. They have no electricity at all in that province where is...is the heartland of the defense. The first six months we went in there, no...there...not a shot was fired. So it shows you how it's changed. It's getting worse. That's why I feel so strongly.


All of us know how important it is internationally to win this war. We know how important. We import 20 million barrels of oil a day. We use 20 million barrels of oil. We know how important...international community. But we're doing it all ourself [sic], and there's no plan that makes sense. We need to have more international cooperation, we need to redeploy our troops, the periphery.


What happened with Zarqawi could have been done, uh, from the outside...it was done from the outside. Our planes went in from the outside. So there's no reason in the world that they can't redeploy the troops. They've become targets; they're caught in civil war. And I feel very strongly about it.


Russert: You sure do, Congressman. But so does the White House. Karl Rove, the principal political advisor to the President, went to New Hampshire on Monday, and he talked about Democrats who voted for the war, and who have now changed their opinion. Here's what he had to say, and I'll give you a chance to respond.


Video clip:


Karl Rove: Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that Party's old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they're not going to be there for the last, tough battles. They are wrong and profoundly wrong in their approach.


[End of video clip.]


Russert: Cutting and running.


Murtha: He's...he's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office with a big, fat backside saying, uh, "Stay the course." That's not a plan. I mean, this guy... I don't know what his military experience is, but that's a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he's saying.


Now, let's...let's...give you...give you an example. When we went to Beirut, uh, I...I said, "President Reagan, get out." Now, the other day, we were doing debate and they said, "Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run." We didn't cut and run. President Reagan made a decision to change direction 'cause he knew he couldn't win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made a decision: we have...we have to change direction.


Even with tax cuts -- when we had a tax cut under Reagan, we then had a tax increase because he changed direction. We need to change direction. We can't win a war like this. This guy sitting back there criticizing...political criticism, getting paid by the...by the public taxpayer, and he's saying to us, uh, we're...we're...we're winning this war, and they're running -- we've gotta change direction; that's what we have to do. You can't...you can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell these troops that are carrying seventy pounds on their back inside these armored vessels and hit with IED's every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says, "Stay the course"? Yeah, it's easy to say that from Washington, D.C."

From:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Go on-site to read other topical articles and to subscribe to their newsletter, which has great quotes.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

The Struggle to Recapture our Soul
By
Mike Whitney

06/18/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- George Bush loves being the war president. He loves popping up in Baghdad for a few hours of male camaraderie with the newly-appointed Iraqi Premier al-Maliki or strutting across an aircraft carrier in a tight-fitting flight-suit. He loves showing Papa-Bush that he can stay the course when things get tough and that he won’t squander his “political capital” by “cutting and running”.

But things are going the wrong way in Iraq and, by many accounts, the war is already lost. Conservatives are jumping off the bandwagon faster than liberals and Bush’s approval ratings continue to plummet. Retired General William Odom summarized the Iraq misadventure best when he said, “It is the greatest strategic disaster in US history.”

Bush’s photo-op in Baghdad only proves the wisdom of Odom’s judgment. What looked like a triumphant visit by the Commander-in-Chief to the heart of a war zone, was actually a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed mission.

The details of Bush’s junket are similar to his trip to England last year, when he had to be surrounded by a phalanx of 3,500 fully-armed security guards and paramilitaries who shadowed his every move from the time he touched down until the final lift-off. All the while, a squadron of Apache helicopters and F-16s kept circling overhead to ensure the Dear Leader’s safety. Providing security in Iraq is equally daunting and extreme.

Three years after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”, the U.S. still does not control one inch of territory beyond the pock-marked parapets and block walls of their Baghdad fortress. Even within the Green Zone, security is so stretched that Bush had to be spirited out of the country a mere 5 hours after his arrival. What does that tell the world about the magnitude of America’s failure?

Bush would never have put himself at risk by driving through the battered landscape of downtown Baghdad. Just like the Iraqi government and the American high-command, his movements were limited to one small dot on the map in central Baghdad; Bush’s citadel of “democracy”.

“My message to the Iraqis is this,” Bush boomed. ” We’re going to help you succeed. My message to the enemy is: Don’t count on us leaving before we succeed. My message to our troops is: We support you 100%. Keep doing what you’re doing. And my message to the critics is: We listen very carefully and adjust, and adjust when we need to adjust.”

Bush’s promises are absurd given the enormity of the catastrophe he has unleashed. By every objective standard, things were better under Saddam.

Never the less, the media gobbled up Bush’s photo-op with their customary zeal. The visit was another successful Karl Rove coup that probably nudged Bush’s approval ratings upward. The pictures of smiley-faced politicians glad-handing and chest-thumping appeared on front pages across the country; adding to the festive atmosphere that began with the killing of terrorist-mastermind Abu al Zarqawi. But the war won’t be won by the White House public relations team. People are less disposed to the garish publicity stunts like Bush’s diversionary trip to Baghdad. The long litany of war crimes is finally wearing away at the fragile American psyche.

Haditha, Falluja, Abu Ghraib; these are the names that are now identified with Iraq and engraved in the public’s consciousness. Their scars are bound to be felt long after the war is over. Brand Bush is now irreversibly linked to criminal renditions, abusive treatment of prisoners, and massive slaughter. Even Rove will have a hard time erasing those unpleasant factoids.

American elites are steadily abandoning their support for the war. This is a significant development that will eventually lead to an American withdrawal. Madeleine Albright, Brent Scowcroft, William F Buckley, Richard Holbrook are just some of the heavy-hitters who now see the futility of pursuing the present policy. President Jimmie Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of the war and the failure to provide basic security for the Iraqi people.

In an interview last week on the Jim Lehrer News Hour Brzezinski said that the invasion “was not worth it” and that it was a “major misadventure”.

“This is worse than the bad days of Vietnam…We do not have a free and democratic government that is functioning…The authority we have installed is besieged and relatively helpless, and a civil war is beginning to mushroom, under the occupation which is unable to crush the insurgency, because it is a foreign occupation….We no longer live in an age of colonialism. We no longer have to assume the ‘white man’s burden’ in order to ‘civilize’ others.”

Brzezinski finished the interview by offering a 4-step strategy for withdrawing from Iraq; something that the Democratic leadership needs to do immediately.

1 Talk to the leadership about when to leave.

2 Set a date for withdrawal.

3 Let the government convene a conference of all Iraq’s Muslim neighbors about stabilizing Iraq and helping it to stabilize.

4 “Convene a donor’s conference of interested countries in Europe and the Far East who benefit from Iraqi oil on helping to rehabilitate Iraq. This would allow us to leave and still say that we basically achieved what we wanted—the removal of Saddam—though not providing a secular, stable, united Iraq under a perfect democracy.”

Brzezinski poses realistic solutions for a situation that will progressively deteriorate into anarchy. His analysis cannot be easily dismissed. He is respected among his peers as a hard-edged Machiavellian strategist who is not given to flights of fancy. If he says the war is over, it is not because of some deep sympathy he has for the beleaguered Iraqi people, but because it is “unwinnable” and damaging to America’s long-term interests.

In an earlier interview, Brzezinski articulated his belief that the war has been a “moral setback” for America overshadowing everything else we are doing in the world. He added that if we were unwilling to commit 500,000 troops and $200 billion a year, for an unspecified amount of time then victory would probably not be achievable.

He said, “There comes a point in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified…and only time will tell if the United States is facing a moment of wisdom, or is resigned to cultural decay”.

Brzezinski is right; America is at a crossroads. The “moral squalor” of our political system has never been more evident, and the empty rhetoric of our leaders’ never more vile. It’s more than just a matter of extracting ourselves from the battlefield. Now, it’s a struggle to recapture our soul.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13675.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

A Plea for Net Neutrality

By
Charles Sullivan

06/18/06 "Information Clearing House"-- -- The early days of radio and television promised to bring enlightenment to the world. The public air waves, we were told, would be used for the public good; as a tool for education and for the spread of democracy. That has simply not been the case. The public airwaves, like all things public, were usurped by profit seeking capitalists to promote commercialism, propaganda, and the privatization of profits. It was another example of socialized cost and privatized profits that are a characteristic of capitalism. Not only were the public airwaves used as an instrument to exploit and to control the masses, they were used to dumb down America. Entertainment and consumerism quickly supplanted education and every other form of social uplift that should have permeated the air waves.
It is important to understand that capitalism rarely works in the public interest. Profit motive is the driving force. Any public good that stems from it is purely accidental.

The corporate media that was long ago used as a weapon against the people is still used to promulgate the lies and distortions that have torn this nation asunder and set the world ablaze with war and discord. The shameless promotion of the war in Iraq and the brutal occupation of the Palestinian people by the Israeli military are poignant examples. The commercial media is used against us like a weapon to promote the most barbaric human behavior and they are allowed to call it liberation, democracy, and Christianity. Invading and occupying armies are called liberators, while those defending their homes are labeled insurgents and terrorists.

Beyond their use to promote war, both at home and abroad, the public air waves are also used to endorse consumption on a grand scale that is detrimental to the health of the planet, so that a few get rich by exploiting the many.

So infected are the public airwaves with the lies and distortions of capitalism and the military industrial complex, that there is no room for the expression of opposing opinions or dissent. The perspectives presented are so homogenized and conformist as to be nearly indistinguishable from one another. This mush is spoon fed into the malleable minds of the restless consumer, if I may borrow a phrase from Neal Young, resulting in a bloated corpse of humanity that is essentially brain dead and unable to act in its own defense.

Enter the Internet, one of the last bastions for democracy and the free and open exchange of ideas. The Internet provides a place where people around the world can gather, share ideas, enjoy a laugh, and seek truth. It is not perfect but it is a resource that is pregnant with possibilities. It is one of the last places where one can readily read dissenting points of view that are no longer possible in the mainstream of corporate reportage and synthesized news. Thank goodness we can still gather at web sites like this and create a vision for a just and peaceful future, as an alternative to war that will not end in our lifetimes.

If the world’s largest telecommunications companies have their way that will change. Currently, the complex series of ones and zeroes that move at high speed through millions of miles of cables and airwaves are treated equally—a byte is a byte is a byte, whether yours, mine or Bill Gates’. The concept of net neutrality stems from this principle. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to change that by creating a two-tiered superhighway—a technological toll road, if you will. Users who pay additional fees, primarily corporate clients promoting capitalism, would have unfettered access to the fast lanes. The rest of us would, rather than being treated as equals, become second class citizens stuck in the slowest lanes with the poorest service. In the worst case scenario service could be denied altogether.

The greatest danger is that the Internet would no longer be free. The world’s largest telecommunications companies would become the gatekeepers that control the flow of information and ideas. Thus, web sites like this one might function so poorly, because the corporate gate keepers do not approve of its content, that they would essentially become unusable. Web sites that provide a medium for writers who challenge the corporate paradigm, such as the one you are now reading, could operate so slow that they would lose all but the most loyal following.

In the familiar parlance of corporate speak the telecommunications companies and their puppets in Congress, for example, Alaska senator Ted Stevens, a republican, want us to believe that net neutrality amounts to burdensome regulation that stifles innovation and reduces corporate profits. The supporters of the telecommunications bill making its way through Congress are shameless promoters of predatory capitalism and they should be impeached.

If net neutrality is defeated the result will be a familiar one that characterizes all capitalist societies divided by class. Once again, it will be those with money who get preferential treatment. It will be much like our American coin operated congress in which capital is equated to free speech. Those with money will have access, those without will not.

It is dangerous to get between a Grizzly Bear and her cubs; but it is far more dangerous to get between a capitalist and his dollar. Men like Ted Stevens, who so typify Congress these days, are a slave to his corporate pay masters. He does not serve the interest of the people or the commonwealth any more than do AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Senator Steven’s abysmal voting record speaks for itself. It is all about socializing cost and privatizing wealth—predatory capitalism.

More information on net neutrality can be found at www.savetheinternet.com or www.itsournet.org.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer, free lance writer and social justice activist residing in the hinterland of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at earthdog@highstream.net

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13672.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Good news / bad news
Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com
06.16.06 - Its almost dead solid meteorological summer and the crossing of the solstice seems to have inaugurated a season of good news / bad news for George W Bush, the Democrats, Iraq, you, me, pretty much everybody. Allow me to illustrate.

The good news is George W Bush pulled off a secret mission and flew to Baghdad in the dead of night.
The bad news is he only stayed five hours and then came right home.

The good news is Ben Roethlisberger is going to be okay.
The bad news is that diagnosis is based on the Gary Busey scale.

The good news is oil prices are going down.
The bad news is they're taking stock prices with them.

The good news is Iraq's future is in its own hands.
The bad news is Iraq's future is in its own hands.

The good news is the Republican Party won the special election for Duke Cunningham's 50th Congressional District in San Diego.
The bad news is they had to spend the GNP of Estonia to do it.

The good news is Bill Frist's gay marriage amendment went down in flames.
The bad news is the flames are being put out by the drool dripping out of his mouth just thinking of the flag burning amendment in his back pocket.

The good news is we've uncovered a new tactic of Al Qaeda: asymmetrical warfare.
The bad news is the three guys at Guantanamo Bay who introduced it aren't able to tell us where to send the royalty checks.

The good news is Abu Musag Al Zarkawi is dead.
The bad news is 72 virgins in heaven just filed a restraining order.

The good news is Senate Democrats have scuttled a Republican attempt to eliminate the estate tax.
The bad news is their kids are really pissed off.

The good news is Michael Chertoff has determined New York City is without any national monuments and therefore safe from terrorism.
The bad news is Michael Chertoff gets to determine anything.

The good news is US President Bush has resolved to stop taunting the world at large with his tough guy he-man posturing.
The bad news is Iranian President Ahmadinejad is taunting the world at large with his tough guy he-man posturing.

The good news is failure is not an option.
The bad news is it's a factory installed standard feature.

The good news is the President got a Zarkawi bounce.
The bad news is its not as high as Zarkawi's body actually bounced.

The good news is President Bush got to look Nouri Al Maliki eye to eye.
The bad news is Nouri Al Maliki has to sleep with a chicken foot under his pillow to counter the curse of the evil eye.

The good news is Tiger Woods is back on the PGA Tour.
The bad news is he's playing like me.

The good news is US air carriers are expected to be more crowded this summer than any time since 911. The bad news is one more cut in service and they'll have to tear out the seats.

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, sun worshiper Will Durst thinks he could fit in the overhead compartment.
Catch Durst in stand up mode Sunday June 18th as part of the Big Brothers Big Sisters benefit at COPIA. And in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7- 10am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20966

[Saundra Hummer]

.*.*.*.Bodies of 2 missing GIs found in Iraq
By
KIM GAMEL
Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago

. . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. forces on Tuesday recovered the bodies of two American soldiers reported captured by insurgents last week. An Iraqi defense ministry official said the men were tortured and "killed in a barbaric way." Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, and said the successor to terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" them.

The claim was made in a Web statement that could not be authenticated. The language in the statement suggested the men were beheaded.

U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the remains were believed to be those of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.

He said U.S. troops — part of a search involving some 8,000 American and Iraqi forces — found the bodies late Monday near Youssifiyah, where they disappeared Friday.

Troops did not recover the bodies until Tuesday because they had to wait until daylight to cordon off the area for an ordnance team for fear it was booby-trapped, Caldwell said.

The checkpoint attacked Friday was in the Sunni Arab region known as the "Triangle of Death" because of frequent ambushes there of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops. Caldwell said troops encountered a lot of roadside bombs and other explosives during the three-day search, including in the area where the bodies were found.

The cause of death was "undeterminable at this point," and the two bodies will be taken back to the United States for DNA tests to confirm the identities, Caldwell said.

The two soldiers disappeared after an insurgent attack Friday at a checkpoint by a Euphrates River canal, 12 miles south of Baghdad. Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed. The three men were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky.

The director of the Iraqi defense ministry's operation room, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, said the bodies showed signs of having been tortured. "With great regret, they were killed in a barbaric way," he said.

The claim of responsibility was made in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of five insurgent groups led by al-Qaida in Iraq. The group posted an Internet statement Monday claiming it was holding the American soldiers captive.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

The U.S. military has identified al-Muhajer as an Egyptian associate of al-Zarqawi also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

The killings would be the first acts of violence attributed to al-Muhajer since he was named al-Qaida in Iraq's new leader in a June 12 Web message by the group. Al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike on June 7.

Al-Zarqawi made al-Qaida in Iraq notorious for hostage beheadings and was believed to have killed two American captives himself — Nicholas Berg in April 2004 and Eugene Armstrong in September 2004.

Caldwell said that Iraqi and American troops involved in the search for the missing soldiers killed three suspected insurgents and detained 34 in fighting that wounded seven U.S. servicemen.

Also, just hours before the two soldiers went missing Friday, a U.S. airstrike killed a key al-Qaida in Iraq leader described as the group's "religious emir," he said.

Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was killed with two foreign fighters in the same area where the soldiers' bodies were found, the U.S. spokesman said. The three were trying to flee in a vehicle.

Al-Mashhadani was "a key leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, with excellent religious, military and leadership credentials" and tied to the senior leadership, including al-Zarqawi and his alleged replacement, Caldwell said.

U.S. forces captured Mansour in July 2004 because of his ties to the militant groups Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna, but the military let him go because he was not deemed an important terror figure at the time.

A witness to the attack Friday told The Associated Press on Sunday that insurgents swarmed the checkpoint, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive.

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer, said three Humvees at the checkpoint came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants but the third was ambushed.

He said seven masked gunmen, one carrying a heavy machine gun, killed the driver and took the two other U.S. soldiers captive. His account could not be verified independently.

Kidnappings of U.S. service members have been rare since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite the presence of about 130,000 forces.

The last U.S. soldier to be captured was Sgt. Keith M. Maupin of Batavia, Ohio, who was taken on April 9, 2004 after insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy. Two months later, a tape on Al-Jazeera purported to show a captive U.S. soldier shot, but the Army ruled it was inconclusive and remains listed as missing.

Caldwell said that in addition to the two soldiers, a dozen Americans — including Maupin and 11 private citizens — are missing in Iraq. In addition, Capt. Michael Speicher, a Navy pilot, remains listed as missing in Iraq since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said.

...

Associated Press writers Ryan Lenz in Balad, Iraq, and Nadia Abou el-Magd in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com

One of these young fellows is from a neigboring community of ours. Thomas Lowell Tucker is from Madras, Oregon. Madras is a somewhat small community which depends on small manufacturing companies, ranching, & farming. It's those three things which are the the main source of income. There's really not much opportunity in all of Central Oregon for many young men and women, so military service, either actual military service or the National Guard is an option for them to increase their chances for a livable income. Not much, but oftentimes that is a choice those with less than stellar opportunities in life have to make. Danger is always inherent. It is always there, even in peacetime - but this is a runaway situation we are sending these young men and women off into.

Where is the outrage? Where is a concerted effort to end this madness once and for all? We're staying the course? The course to what? A better life for the Iraqi's? They aren't convinced of that are they? Will they ever be? I'm sure not convinced that anything coming out of this administrations brain trust is anything we can or should believe. Untruthfulness rules their days and their cockamammie ideas are ruining ours.

Talk about lives ruined, just look at what the families of these poor unfortuanate young men are going through. It is enough to drive one crazy with grief.

They will never know how much we grieve for them, and for theirs. God Bless. SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Notification Upsets Kin of Slain GIs
4:58 PM PDT, June 20, 2006
By Associated Press
4:16 PM PDT, June 20, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The families of the two soldiers whose bodies were found Tuesday in Iraq were upset that first word of the gruesome discovery came from Iraqi authorities.

A senior Iraqi military official, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, said early Tuesday the bodies had been found near a power plant not far from the site where they were attacked.

"With great regret, they were killed in a barbaric way," he said in remarks that were widely reported.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm or deny the report until the families of the missing soldiers were fully briefed.

Hours later, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad, held a previously scheduled news conference at which he stuck to that line until after it was over.

"There have been press reports that have gone on this afternoon saying that we have, in fact, found the remains of our two missing soldiers," he said.

"We, as an armed force of the United States, have an obligation first and foremost to those families who have either lost or have someone missing. And to them we owe our first responsibility of any reporting," he said.

But after the news conference, an aide told journalists to stay put as Caldwell was on the phone and would have another announcement to make.

He returned and confirmed that the bodies believed to be those of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, had been found, although he said it would be inappropriate to discuss their condition.

Mario Vasquez, 48, Menchaca's uncle, said he was watching television news reports Tuesday morning, listening to a Pentagon spokeswoman say the two kidnapped soldiers' families would be notified before anyone else that they had been found when he got a call from his niece, Sylvia Grice. She told him that the media was reporting that the bodies had been found.

"It's very upsetting to me that they would give you details of the torture, of the beheading," he said. "Who tells the media when we don't know before they do. Why is the media doing that, saying what they did to them?"

Grice, 37, who was Menchaca's cousin, said the soldier's mother, Maria Vasquez, and older brother, Julio Cesar Vasquez, were very distraught after hearing the news about his death.

Ken MacKenzie told NBC's "Today" show that he first heard the news a few minutes before his interview. "The news will be heartbreaking for my family," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

Soldiers missing in Iraq found dead

By
Mussab Al-Khairalla
Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:06pm ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Two U.S. soldiers missing in Iraq for three days have been found dead, their bodies showing signs of "barbaric" torture, an Iraqi general said on Tuesday, after an intensive hunt involving thousands of troops.

"Coalition forces have recovered what we believe are the remains of the soldiers," U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell said, declining to comment on how they died.

An Internet statement said the new leader of al Qaeda in Iraq "slit the throats" of the two men but its authenticity seemed questionable. The same group had said in a statement on Monday to be holding the men, but Caldwell dismissed that.


"God Almighty has graced the leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir ... with the implementation of the sentence," said a statement from the Mujahideen Shura Council. Al Qaeda's former leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, died in a U.S. air strike two weeks ago.

Caldwell said a joint U.S.-Iraqi force found the bodies of Privates Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, and Kristian Menchaca, 23, on Monday night dumped at an electrical plant. The recovery of the bodies was delayed by having to defuse bombs planted nearby.

He did not make clear whether the bodies themselves or the site were booby-trapped: "There were some IEDs in that location and they did have to dismantle some stuff to get to them."

White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters on Air Force One traveling with President George W. Bush to Vienna for meeting with European Union leaders that the bodies were being shipped home for positive identification.

"I think it's a reminder that this is a brutal enemy that does not follow any of the rules. It attacks civilians for political gain. It provokes sectarian violence and it really follows no rules of warfare," Hadley said. Continued...
Iraqi Defense Ministry official Major General Abdul Aziz Mohammed told Reuters earlier that the bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture". He did not elaborate.

The U.S. military launched a massive search for the soldiers involving aircraft and 8,000 U.S troops and Iraqi security forces after vowing not to leave them "out there".

The discovery came as more bomb blasts shook Baghdad, killing nine people despite a security clampdown. The U.S. military also said troops hunting insurgents linked to al Qaeda had killed 15 gunmen in raids north of the capital.

FLEEING VEHICLE


Caldwell said a U.S. air strike on a fleeing vehicle killed a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader on Friday in the same area where the two American soldiers went missing a few hours later.

U.S. forces had been on the trail of Mansur al-Mashhadani, identified as the top al Qaeda religious leader in the country, before he was killed in the Yusufiya area just south of Baghdad.

Tucker and Menchaca went missing at dusk on Friday after an ambush at a checkpoint in Yusufiya, a town in an area south of Baghdad some Iraqis call the "Triangle of Death", which is an al Qaeda stronghold. Another soldier was killed in the attack.

Their deaths dealt a blow to the U.S. military after it killed Zarqawi on June 7 near Baquba, northeast of Baghdad.

U.S. forces hunting insurgents linked to a suspected senior al Qaeda member launched simultaneous pre-dawn raids near Baquba on Tuesday, the U.S military said. Continued...

U.S. soldiers were fired on from the roof of a house in the village of Qaduri Ali al Shahin, 13 km (8 miles) north of Baquba as the operation got under way. Troops and supporting aircraft returned fire, killing 11 gunmen.

U.S. troops said they found 10 AK-47 assault rifles and explosives in the raids, but residents said the victims were innocent employees of a nearby poultry farm.

Caldwell said no civilians had been killed in what he described as an "extremely long firefight".

U.S. forces have stepped up their hunt for al Qaeda insurgents following Zarqawi's death and the government announced a security clampdown in the capital to try to thwart the car bombings that exact a deadly daily toll on civilians.

Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said on Tuesday Japan would withdraw its 550 soldiers, engaged in reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq.

Iraqi and British officials said Iraqi forces could take responsibility for a second southern province soon after announcing on Monday that the British-led force in the south would hand over Muthanna province next month.

(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami, Ibon Villelabeitia, Michael Georgy, in Baghdad and Ahmed Abbas in Qaduri Ali al Shahin)


http://today.reuters.com/news/

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
U.S. Weighs Shootdown of N. Korea Missile
Administration Considering Shooting Down North Korean Missile, Officials Say
By
ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is weighing responses to a possible North Korean missile test that include attempting to shoot it down in flight over the Pacific, defense officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Because North Korea is secretive about its missile operations, U.S. officials say they must consider the possibility that an anticipated test would turn out to be something else, such as a space launch or even an attack. Thus, the Pentagon is considering the possibility of attempting an interception, two defense officials said, even though it would be unprecedented and is not considered the likeliest scenario.

The officials agreed to discuss the matter only on condition of anonymity because of its political sensitivity.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he could not say whether the unproven multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile defense system might be used in the event of a North Korean missile launch. That system, which includes a handful of missiles that could be fired from Alaska and California, has had a spotty record in tests.

Although shooting down a North Korean missile is a possibility, the Pentagon also must consider factors that would argue against such a response, including the risk of shooting and missing and of escalating tensions further with the communist nation.

Even if there were no attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile, it would be tracked by early warning satellites and radars, including radars based on ships near Japan and ground-based radars in Alaska and California.

Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a U.S. shootdown of a North Korean missile on a test flight or a space launch would draw "very strong international reaction" against the United States. He saw only a small chance that the U.S. would attempt a shootdown.

Signs of North Korean preparations to launch a long-range ballistic missile, possibly with sufficient range to reach U.S. territory, have grown in recent weeks, although it is unclear whether the missile has been fully fueled. U.S. officials said Monday the missile was apparently fully assembled and fueled, but others have since expressed some uncertainty.

Bush administration officials have urged the North Koreans publicly and privately not to conduct the missile test, which would end a moratorium in place since 1999. That ban was adopted after Japan and other nations expressed outrage over an August 1998 launch in which a North Korean missile flew over northern Japan.

At the time of the 1998 launch, the United States had no means of shooting down a long-range missile in flight. Since then, the Pentagon has developed a rudimentary system that it says is capable of defending against a limited number of missiles in an emergency with a North Korean attack particularly in mind.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, says the Pentagon has spent $91 billion on missile defense over the past two decades.

The 1998 event turned out to be a space launch rather than a missile test; U.S. officials said the satellite failed to reach orbit.

U.S. and international concern about North Korea's missile capability is heightened by its claims to have developed nuclear weapons. It is not known whether they have mastered the complex art of building a nuclear warhead small enough to fit a long-range missile, although in April 2005 the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, told Congress that North Korea was capable of arming a missile with a nuclear warhead. U.S. officials have since called it a "theoretical capability."

No administration official has publicly raised the possibility of bombing the North Korean missile before it can be launched. Jan Lodal, a senior Pentagon policy official during the Clinton administration, said in an interview Tuesday that he would not rule out a pre-emptive strike. He said it would be the surest away of eliminating the threat of being surprised by the launch of a Taepodong-2, an intercontinental ballistic missile that some believe has enough range to reach U.S. territory.

David Wright, a senior scientist at the private Union of Concerned Scientists, said he strongly doubts that the Bush administration could back up its claims of having the capability to shoot down a North Korean missile.

"I consider it to be rhetorical posturing," Wright said. "It currently has no demonstrated capability."

The last time the Pentagon registered a successful test in intercepting a mock warhead in flight was in October 2002. Since then, there have been three unsuccessful attempted intercepts, most recently in February 2005.

Rick Lehner, chief spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said the next intercept test is scheduled for the August-September period, to be followed by another before the end of the year. Lehner said that beginning about a year ago, the system has periodically been placed in "operational status."

Baker Spring, a Heritage Foundation analyst and strong advocate of U.S. missile defenses, said he believes that "in theoretical terms" the U.S. system is a capable of defeating a North Korean missile. And he thinks that if the North Koreans launched on a flight pattern that appeared threatening to the United States, the administration "would be well within its rights" under international law to shoot down the missile.

The Washington Times reported Tuesday that the Pentagon has placed its missile defense system in an active status for potential use.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/

[Saundra Hummer]

Having just watched the father of the young man from Oregon who died as a captive, Thomas Lowell Tucker, it seems his fathers beliefs are different from mine. He believes his son died preventing and stopping terrorism, while bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.

My sincerest sympathies to he and the other parents, family members and loved ones who've had the horrors of war change their lives.

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
The Monitor
Defendant expected to take stand in sexual harassment case

June 21, 2006
Brittney Booth
Monitor Staff Writer

EDINBURG — Political consultant and ad producer Carey Lee Cramer is expected to testify today defending himself against charges he sexually molested two young girls.

Cramer, 44, took the stand shortly before court recessed at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday. He will likely continue today before Visiting Judge Homer Salinas in Auxiliary Court A, where his trial began June 7.

Cramer, who gained national notoriety with an anti-Al Gore commercial in 2000, is facing several counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

He is the second witness defense attorney Charles Banker called to rebut the testimony of the two 15-year-old girls who testified Cramer sexually molested them when they were younger.

One of the girls lived with Cramer and his ex-wife Samara Whittaker for eight years in Mercedes, McAllen and Tucson, Ariz., and claimed he began to inappropriately touch her beginning when she was 8 years old. She testified the abuse included pornography, sex toys and escalated from touching to sexual intercourse.

But Cramer’s sister, Heather Cramer, told jurors Tuesday the girl and Whittaker are not truthful people.

Heather Cramer also claimed the girl denied the abuse to her, but the judge ruled the statements as hearsay, and would not allow her to testify to the jury about her conversation with the girl.

Banker has argued the girls’ allegations are false and stem from a custody battle over the son Cramer has with Whittaker. During her testimony, the girl denied lying for Whittaker and inventing the allegations.

Another 15-year-old testified that Cramer touched her genital area one time when she was visiting the family in Mercedes. Cramer’s alleged victims are relatives.

In 2000, Cramer produced an anti-Al Gore television ad accusing the Clinton-Gore administration of giving nuclear technology to China in return for campaign contributions.

Cramer’s commercial showed a young girl picking daisy petals and ends with a nuclear blast, a remake of a 1964 ad by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign against Republican Barry Goldwater. Cramer’s ad made national news, though he refused to identify who financed the commercial. One of the girls in the ad stands as his accuser now.
.......
Brittney Booth covers courts and general assignments for The Monitor. You can reach her at (956) 683-4437.

http://www.themonitor.com/

Check out foreign country sex junkets on the web, Granada becoming the latest one to fall under that dark cloud. It is becoming so big and out of hand, these perverted men with their lust for underage children, boys and girls alike. Some with children even being killed to satisfy their twisted minds. Perverted criminals, one and all. SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

***

POGO UPDATES

A periodic email update brought to you by the Project On Government Oversight ( POGO) www.pogo.org.
URGENT ACTION NEEDED. Please take action to stop the government's largest defense contractor from looting the government of $1.7 billion. As soon as 4:00 p.m. EST TODAY, the Senate will vote on an amendment offered by Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss to the Defense budget bill that would change the Pentagon's buying strategy for Lockheed Martin's troubled F-22 fighter jet.

The proposed amendment is a thinly-veiled attempt to allow Lockheed Martin to pocket $1.7 billion it does not deserve for the troubled program. Congress' own research agencies have found that the approach pushed in the Chambliss Amendment (Senate Amendment 4261) would cost more money than necessary, as much as $1.7 billion more.

Despite this, Lockheed Martin's lobbyists have been sending emails which lie, claiming the Chambliss Amendment will SAVE money. Rarely do we have an opportunity like this to directly challenge Pentagon and defense contractor lies. Please ask your Senator to vote NO on the Chambliss Amendment.

POGO has a letter you can use and modify. To send a letter, just click here.
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/pogo/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4333&t=action.dwt

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." -- Thomas Jefferson to P. Dupont, 1816

~

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

~

"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *

Great Moments in the History of Imperialism

By
William Blum

06/23/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- National Public Radio foreign correspondent Loren Jenkins, serving in NPR's Baghdad bureau, met earlier this month with a senior Shiite cleric, a man who was described in the NPR report as "a moderate" and as a person trying to lead his Shiite followers into practicing peace and reconciliation. He had been jailed by Saddam Hussein and forced into exile. Jenkins asked him: "What would you think if you had to go back to Saddam Hussein?" The cleric replied that he'd "rather see Iraq under Saddam Hussein than the way it is now."[1]

When one considers what the people of Iraq have experienced as a result of the American bombings, invasion, regime change, and occupation since 2003, should this attitude be surprising, even from such an individual? I was moved to compile a list of the many kinds of misfortune which have fallen upon the heads of the Iraqi people as a result of the American liberation of their homeland. It's depressing reading, and you may not want to read it all, but I think it's important to have it summarized in one place.

Loss of a functioning educational system. A 2005 UN study revealed that 84% of the higher education establishments have been "destroyed, damaged and robbed".

The intellectual stock has been further depleted as many thousands of academics and other professionals have fled abroad or have been mysteriously kidnapped or assassinated in Iraq; hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, other Iraqis, most of them from the vital, educated middle class, have left for Jordan, Syria or Egypt, many after receiving death threats. "Now I am isolated," said a middle-class Sunni Arab, who decided to leave. "I have no government. I have no protection from the government. Anyone can come to my house, take me, kill me and throw me in the trash."[2]

Loss of a functioning health care system. And loss of the public's health. Deadly infections including typhoid and tuberculosis are rampaging through the country. Iraq's network of hospitals and health centers, once admired throughout the Middle East, has been severely damaged by the war and looting.

The UN's World Food Program reported that 400,000 Iraqi children were suffering from "dangerous deficiencies of protein". Deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases, particularly amongst children, already a problem because of the 12 years of US-imposed sanctions, have increased as poverty and disorder have made access to a proper diet and medicines ever more difficult.

Thousands of Iraqis have lost an arm or a leg, frequently from unexploded US cluster bombs, which became land mines; cluster bombs are a class of weapons denounced by human rights groups as a cruelly random scourge on civilians, particularly children.

Depleted uranium particles, from exploded US ordnance, float in the Iraqi air, to be breathed into human bodies and to radiate forever, and infect the water, the soil, the blood, the genes, producing malformed babies. During the few weeks of war in spring 2003, A10 "tankbuster" planes, which use munitions containing depleted uranium, fired 300,000 rounds.

And the use of napalm as well. And white phosphorous.

The American military has attacked hospitals to prevent them from giving out casualty figures of US attacks that contradicted official US figures, which the hospitals had been in the habit of doing.

Numerous homes have been broken into by US forces, the men taken away, the women humiliated, the children traumatized; on many occasions, the family has said that the American soldiers helped themselves to some of the family's money. Iraq has had to submit to a degrading national strip search.

Destruction and looting of the country's ancient heritage, perhaps the world's greatest archive of the human past, left unprotected by the US military, busy protecting oil facilities.

A nearly lawless society: Iraq's legal system, outside of the political sphere, was once one of the most impressive and secular in the Middle East; it is now a shambles; religious law more and more prevails.

Women's rights previously enjoyed are now in great and growing danger under harsh Islamic law, to one extent or another in various areas. There is today a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq, which tolerates physical attacks on women for showing a bare arm or for picnicking with a male friend. Men can be harassed for wearing shorts in public, as can children playing outside in shorts.

Sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent previously, has become a serious issue.

Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims have lost much of the security they had enjoyed in Saddam's secular society; many have emigrated.

A gulag of prisons run by the US and the new Iraqi government feature a wide variety of torture and abuse -- physical, psychological, emotional; painful, degrading, humiliating; leading to mental breakdown, death, suicide; a human-rights disaster area.

Over 50,000 Iraqis have been imprisoned by US forces since the invasion, but only a very tiny portion of them have been convicted of any crime.

US authorities have recruited members of Saddam Hussein's feared security service to expand intelligence gathering and root out the resistance.

Unemployment is estimated to be around fifty percent. Massive layoffs of hundreds of thousands of Baathist government workers and soldiers by the American occupation authority set the process in motion early on. Later, many, desperate for work, took positions tainted by a connection to the occupation, placing themselves in grave danger of being kidnapped or murdered.

The cost of living has skyrocketed. Income levels have plummeted.

The Kurds of Northern Iraq evict Arabs from their homes. Arabs evict Kurds in other parts of the country. Many people were evicted from their homes because they were Baathist. US troops took part in some of the evictions. They have also demolished homes in fits of rage over the killing of one of their buddies.

When US troops don't find who they're looking for, they take who's there; wives have been held until the husband turns himself in, a practice which Hollywood films stamped in the American mind as being a particular evil of the Nazis; it's also collective punishment of civilians and is forbidden under the Geneva Convention. Continual bombing assaults on neighborhoods has left an uncountable number of destroyed homes, workplaces, mosques, bridges, roads, and everything else that goes into the making of modern civilized life.

Hafitha, Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi ... names that will live in infamy for the wanton destruction, murder, and assaults upon human beings and human rights carried out in those places by US forces.

The supply of safe drinking water, effective sewage disposal, and reliable electricity have all generally been below pre-invasion levels, producing constant hardship for the public, in temperatures reaching 115 degrees. To add to the misery, people wait all day in the heat to purchase gasoline, due in part to oil production, the country's chief source of revenue, being less than half its previous level.


The water and sewage system and other elements of the infrastructure had been purposely (sic) destroyed by US bombing in the first Gulf War of 1991. By 2003, the Iraqis had made great strides in repairing the most essential parts of it. Then came Washington's renewed bombing.

Civil war, death squads, kidnaping, car bombs, rape, each and every day ... Iraq has become the most dangerous place on earth. American soldiers and private security companies regularly kill people and leave the bodies lying in the street; US-trained Iraqi military and police forces kill even more, as does the insurgency. An entire new generation is growing up on violence and sectarian ethics; this will poison the Iraqi psyche for many years to come.

US intelligence and military police officers often free dangerous criminals in return for a promise to spy on insurgents.

Protesters of various kinds have been shot by US forces on several occasions

At various times, the US has killed, wounded and jailed reporters from Al Jazeera television, closed the station's office, and banned it from certain areas because occupation officials didn't like the news the station was reporting. Newspapers have been closed for what they have printed. The Pentagon has planted paid-for news articles in the Iraqi press to serve propaganda purposes.

But freedom has indeed reigned -- for the great multinationals to extract everything they can from Iraq's resources and labor without the hindrance of public interest laws, environmental regulations or worker protections. The orders of the day have been privatization, deregulation, and laissez faire for Halliburton and other Western corporations. Iraqi businesses have been almost entirely shut out though they are not without abilities, as reflected in the infrastructure rebuilding effort following the US bombing of 1991.

Yet, despite the fact that it would be difficult to name a single area of Iraqi life which has improved as a result of the American actions, when the subject is Iraq and the person I'm having a discussion with has no other argument left to defend US policy there, at least at the moment, I may be asked:

"Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?"

And I say: "No".

And the person says: "No?"

And I say: "No. Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then asked you: Are you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? The people of Iraq no longer have a Saddam problem." And many Iraqis actually supported him.
William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2

NOTES
[1] NPR, "Day to Day", June 6, 2006
[2] New York Times, May 19, 2006

***
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13719.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *
Kicking Open the Gates of Hell
By
Mike Whitney

“We have begun shredding documents that show local staff surnames. In March, a few members approached us to ask what provisions we would make for them if we evacuate.” Zalmay Khalizad “Baghdad-memo leaked to Washington Post”

06/22/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --- The prospect of an American defeat in Iraq grows greater with every passing day. A memo which was leaked to the Washington Post depicts a situation on the ground which is steadily deteriorating into chaos. The memo, which was written by Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, contrasts dramatically with the confident “happy talk” of high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. It offers a bleak “insiders-view” of a society that is progressively crumbling from the nonstop violence and lack of security.

President Bush’s surprise appearance in Baghdad was supposed to shore up support for the flagging mission in Iraq, but according to the memo, even the Green Zone, that one safe-haven in an ocean of resistance, could come under attack in the very near future.

Clearly, if the militia violence and infighting increase much more, American troops will be forced to withdraw quicker than planned. In practical terms, the country is already ungovernable and the newly-elected regime is merely a face to show-off to the anxious American public.

There’s considerable disagreement among critics of the war about how we got to this point. Some believe that Iraq was never going to submit to occupation regardless of how it was carried out. Others argue that the resistance only emerged in reaction to a poorly planned occupation that was unable to provide even minimal security for Iraqi civilians. Most of the criticism has been directed at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a man of limited abilities who is incapable of learning from his mistakes. The most scathing rebuke of Rumsfeld came from his own Major General John Batiste in his article “Root Causes of Haditha” which outlines the many grievous tactical and strategic errors Rumsfeld made following the fall of Baghdad. Batiste says:

“America went to war in Iraq with the secretary of defense's plan. He ignored the U.S. Central Command's deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build his plan, which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency....Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and grow to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and the decision to stand down the Iraqi security forces.”

Most of what Batiste says squares with the facts as we now know them. There was no plan for occupation and Dick Cheney later admitted on FOX TV that they were frankly surprised at the amount of violence they encountered. The fantasists in the White House expected that the Saddam regime would fall like a house of cards and that the people would greet them as liberators. Contingency plans from the Pentagon and the State Dept were ignored in a breathtaking display of hubris. Even so, Iraqis seemed to take a “wait and see” attitude and it was almost a full year before the resistance was up and running at full speed. If the civilian leadership at the Pentagon had taken the mounting attacks on coalition troops seriously, they may have reversed their strategy and not brushed aside the perpetrators as “dead-enders and ex-Ba’athists”.

Falluja; the turning point

Then there was Falluja. After the killing and desecrating of the 4 Blackwater agents in Falluja, Rumsfeld decided to exact punishment by reducing a city of 250,000 to rubble. Nearly two years later, independent photographers and journalists are still banned from photographing the wreckage.

Many believe that Falluja and Abu Ghraib made the war “unwinnable”; that the “hearts and minds” part of occupation was no longer feasible. Now, American forces must depend on brute force and counterinsurgency operations to pacify an increasingly suspicious and hostile public. That project is failing and mayhem is spreading across the Sunni heartland making occupation more and more untenable.

But the Bush administration faces another dilemma that is even more basic than beating the resistance. They desperately need a strategy for victory and they have no idea of what that might be. There’s no way that Bush can achieve his goals without knowing what those goals are. It seems obvious, but the administration is utterly clueless. Up to now, the strategy has been to simply ensure that “we kill more of them then they do of us”, but that, of course, does not provide a political solution and an end to the conflict.

Representative John Murtha keeps harping away at this one point but, no one in the congress seems to grasp what he’s talking about. They look at him like a madman while they continue to dawdle on meaningless resolutions that merely extend the war into perpetuity.

“There's no plan!” Murtha said on Meet the Press. “You open up this plan for victory. There's no plan there. It's just, ‘Stay the course.’ That doesn't solve the problem. It's worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially. When I spoke out, the garbage wasn't being collected, oil production below pre-War level -- all those things indicated to me we weren't winning this, and it's the same today, if not worse.”

Murtha’s frustration is palpable. He’s the only man in congress who seems to have a grip on the calamity that looms ahead. The rest don’t understand that the United States is losing this war and that a defeat in Iraq will precipitate a seismic shift in the lives of every American.

“The war in Iraq is not going as advertised” Murtha said. “It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion….It is time for a change in direction…. Our military has done its duty. They’ve been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years and now the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won ‘militarily.’…. We can not continue on the present course. The future of our country is at risk."

“Iraq can not be won ‘militarily’”.

Murtha’s pleas have had little effect on the political landscape. Bush still totters from one photo-op to the next, the media keeps fear-mongering on Al Qaida, and the Congress continues to regurgitate Rove’s silly “cut and run” mantra.

In 3 years of unrelenting bloodshed, the Bush administration has never pursued a political solution. No dialogue, no diplomacy, no negotiations. There’s still the naïve belief that violence alone can achieve their objectives and that America will prevail in any conflict. The administration’s arrogance has set them up for a crushing defeat.

Author Sidney Blumenthal says this about the administration’s approach,

“The Bush way of war has been ahistorical and apolitical, and therefore warped strategically, putting absolute pressure on the military to provide an outcome it cannot provide – ‘victory.’"

As the situation in Iraq continues to worsen, Bush refuses to make any adjustments to his approach; insisting that success is just a matter of “staying the course”. But “victory” is not achievable by perseverance alone; there must intelligence and concrete objectives. An army of 130,000 will not overcome a population of 25 million without tangible goals and a realistic plan for providing security.

Bush ignores military strategist Carl von Clausewitz axiom that “War is politics by other means” Von Clausewitz added, “Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd; for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.” (Thomas Barton)

Bush confuses missiles with foresight, and tanks with political acumen. The results are predictably disastrous.

For Bush, war is a self-ennobling activity that demonstrates the grandiose power of the aggressor but precludes any final resolution. It is merely mindless, indiscriminate violence directed outwards.

After 3 years, the administration still knows next to nothing about its adversary. So far, the resistance has succeeded in all its main aims; frustrating every attempt to establish security, rebuild infrastructure, or to transport oil. The administration has strengthened the resistances’ resolve and swelled their ranks by torturing prisoners, killing civilians, and decimating towns and cities. The vast majority of Iraqis now want the occupation to end and 46% believe that fighters are justified in killing American soldiers.

The United States is now fighting battle-hardened Iraqi nationalists who will not give up or give in until America is compelled to withdraw its troops. But, that is only a small part of the problem. As Khalizad’s memo indicates, the society has broken down into tribal units forming vast, fully-armed militias which have stepped up to fill the security vacuum. The militias have wormed there way into every area of Iraqi society and, now, are active even in the Green Zone; creating a viable threat to the American stronghold.

No wonder Khalizad is alarmed.

In a USA Today article about the memo, the editor says, (The memo) “underscores the uphill battle faced by the fledgling Iraqi government and US forces, the limited time they have to assert control, and even whether that is still possible. …The fundamentalists and militias are fast obtaining the kind of power that destroys governments. To whit: ‘The central government, our staff says, is not relevant.’”

The country is controlled by the militias and the resistance. The United States controls nothing beyond the block-walls and gun-towers of the besieged Green Zone, and now, even that may be in jeopardy. As Patrick Cockburn presciently noted, the memo “portrays a society in the state of collapse.”

Fisk’s Crystal Ball

Months ago, author Robert Fisk said that he could foresee a dramatic event taking place in Iraq that would reshape the public’s attitude towards the war; something comparable to the TET Offensive in Vietnam, which was the turning point for America’s fortunes in that war.

Could the disparate Iraqi resistance actually mount an attack on the Green Zone, the last refuge for America’s puppet regime?

Here’s what Fisk says:

“Sometimes I wonder if there will be a moment when reality and myth, truth and lies, will actually collide. When will the detonation come? When the insurgents wipe out an entire US base? When they pour over the walls of the Green Zone and turn it into the same trashed blocks as the rest of Baghdad? Or will we then be told—as we have been in the past—that this just shows the “desperation” of the insurgents, that these terrible acts only prove that the “terrorist” know they are losing?” (Robert Fisk, “What does Democracy really mean in the Middle East” Aug, 2005)

Khalizad’s frantic memo seems to indicate that such an assault is possible and that the occupants should prepare accordingly.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak anticipated the Iraqi debacle nearly two years ago when he cautioned Dick Cheney, “There’s no way to win an occupation. It’s just a matter of choosing the size of your humiliation.”

That was good advice, but it was ignored.

Bush was also warned strenuously before he began his Iraqi crusade. He was told that if he invaded he would be “kicking open the gates of hell”.

We’ll soon find out whether he’s prepared to deal with the trouble inside.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13721.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . .
Frontline: The Dark Side

After 9/11, Vice President Richard Cheney seized the initiative. He pushed to expand executive power, transform America's intelligence agencies and bring the war on terror to Iraq. But first he had to take on George Tenet's CIA for control over intelligence.

The damning 90-minute exposé stops short of laying those bodies at Vice President Dick Cheney's feet. But it does finger Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — through more than 40 interviews with CIA veterans, journalists, politicians and others — as the ones who ignored, suppressed and manipulated intelligence after the 9/11 attacks to lead us into war with a country that had nothing to do with our attackers.

Broadcast By PBS - 06/20/06 Runtime 90 Minutes

The Dark Side

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9


Part 10

Go on-site to view by clicking on the following link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13728.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

A FOLLOW UP TO AN EARLIER POST* * * * * * *
John Stossel Loses Control of His Faculties
I knew it was only a matter of time before ABC News "reporter" John Stossel struck back. Someone as egotistical as him can't let himself be embarrassed on the facts on national television. So today, in Stossel's official ABC email newsletter, he attacked me - though you will notice, he simultaneously distorted my position, and never refuted the argument I made.

Here's what Stossel said today:

"The book tour is tiring, but fun. One fun part is dealing with people like the guy on Larry Kudlow's CNBC show who calls me that 'smarmy looking pathological liar.' He's one of Al Franken's socialists, convinced that government can make everyone richer simply by raising the minimum wage. Ignorant. And Arrogant." This is really the hilarious rantings of a lunatic who has clearly lost control of his faculties. First and foremost, raising the minimum wage from its current level to say, $7.25 is a far cry from "making everyone richer." Even at the higher level, folks making the minimum wage would hover around the official poverty line. Second, I find it truly funny that instead of actually trying to defend his "minimum wage hurts jobs" argument on the merits, he instead calls me "one of Al Franken's socialists" - a frothing nonsequitur. Then he has the nerve to call my fact-based position showing the minimum wage does not hurt job growth "ignorant" and "arrogant" - all while he ignorantly and arrogantly still refusing to substantiate his own position with any facts whatsoever.

What's really incredible is that this guy is still being allowed to call himself an objective "correspondent" and use ABC's resources to put out his clearly partisan political agenda.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=FD732008-0C77-FB50-2D8664B2B356E6A2

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . .
« Raising a Glass:
When law becomes a bother
Perhaps the greatest single consistency of the Bush presidency has been its contempt for legal process. Given the choice between following prescribed legal steps in carrying out policy or flaunting them, Bush & Co. will almost always choose the latter. So habitual is this contempt of law, it’s hard anymore to chalk it up to pragmatic motivations, like, for example, a cop who lies about a supposed “confidential informant” to justify searching the house of a bad guy.

No, there’s something more at work here.

Take the administration’s insistence on conducting wiretaps without court approval. It isn’t as though the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) present some horrendous burden to the government. FISA judges have approved almost all requests for national security wiretaps; and, in any case, the terms of the Act allowed surveillance to begin even without court approval, subject only to a far from oppressive requirement that the government obtain retroactive court approval within 72 hours.

Still, the Bush Administration refused to be bothered.

No, this isn’t about expediency; it’s about contempt for the rule of law — together with an arrogant insistence upon completely unfettered executive power.

It’s been a long and ugly parade, going back to the start of the administration, but especially since the Sept. 11 attacks, an event Bush seems to believe transformed him into a de facto dictator, with complete freedom to ignore not just enactments of Congress, but the United States Constitution itself: Military tribunals created by executive fiat, foreign nationals seized and held in secret, American citizens imprisoned in military brigs as “enemy combatants,” attorney-client confidentiality breached without court order; widespread warrantless surveillance, resistance to all congressional oversight, use of “rough interrogation” methods otherwise known as torture, issuing presidential “signing statements” purporting to exempt the president from the law of the land and on and on and on.


And now, of course, there’s also this:

(The New York Times) Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block TerrorWASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

* * *

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans’ financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

“The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling,” said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, “the potential for abuse is enormous.”

Welcome to George W. Bush’s America, where we no longer have a “government of laws and not men,” but increasingly a government of just one man (with a little help from his friends).

We have to ask ourselves what this says about our democracy. The rule of law, after all, is the life blood of any democratic system - what separates true democracies, like the United States (at least until recently), from fraudulent ones, like the old Soviet Union. The right to vote isn’t ultimately the point: It’s the right to have that vote translated into controlling law that gives the process meaning. When a president claims the privilege to simply make up the rules as he goes along, without regard to either the acts of Congress or individual liberties protected in the constitution, this meaning evaporates.

James Madison always worried that the Bill of Rights would become a mere “parchment barrier,” with little practical power to protect individual freedoms. Bush seems to agree with him.

It’s just that unlike Madison, who viewed this as a threat, Bush seems to see it as an opportunity.

This entry was posted by Steve on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 at 12:34 pm and is filed under Comment.

[Go On-Site to access the numerous links in this post, there are several, and check out the other articles once on site, on both of the following links - just click on them. SRH]

http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/

http://www.buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . .

SWIFT TRACKING FROM WAR AND PEACE BLOGGERS
June 23, 2006
SWIFT tracking. What's amazing is how long this has stayed secret, given the amount of people who knew about it, including the auditors at Booz Allen Hamilton:
U.S. officials, some of whom expressed surprise the program had not previously been revealed by critics, acknowledged it would be controversial in the financial community. "It is certainly not going to sit well in the world marketplace," said a former counterterrorism official. "It could very likely undermine the integrity of SWIFT."

Bush administration official