A Controversial and/or Informative Site

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
Roberts and Alito Misled Us
By
Edward M. Kennedy
The Washignton Post
Sunday 30 July 2006

I have had the honor of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 43 years, during which I've participated in confirmation hearings for all the justices who now sit on the Supreme Court. Over that time, my colleagues and I have asked probing questions and listened attentively to substantive responses. Because we were able to learn a great deal about the nominees from those hearings, the Senate has rarely voted along party lines. I voted, for example, for three of President Ronald Reagan's five Supreme Court nominees.

Of course, an examination of a nominee's views may cause the Senate to withhold its consent. That is what happened in 1795 to John Rutledge, who was given a temporary commission as chief justice by President George Washington (while Congress was in recess) and was then rejected by the Senate several months later. In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon's nomination of G. Harrold Carswell was derailed when the Senate learned of his segregationist past. At that time, I explained that "the Constitution makes clear that we are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for White House selections." That was also the Senate's view in 1987, when its rejection of Robert H. Bork's extreme views led to the unanimous confirmation of the more moderate Anthony M. Kennedy. The Senate's constitutional role has helped keep the court in the mainstream of legal thought.

But the careful, bipartisan process of years past - like so many checks and balances rooted in our Constitution - has been badly broken by the current Bush administration. The result has been the confirmation of two justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., whose voting record on the court reflects not the neutral, modest judicial philosophy they promised the Judiciary Committee, but an activist's embrace of the administration's political and ideological agenda.

Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.

The confirmation process became broken because the Bush administration learned the wrong lesson from the failed Bork nomination and decided it could still nominate extremists as long as their views were hidden. To that end, it insisted that the Senate confine its inquiry largely to its nominees' personal qualities.

The administration's tactics succeeded in turning the confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito into a sham. Many Republican senators used their time to praise, rather than probe, the nominees. Coached by the administration, the nominees declined to answer critical questions. When pressed on issues such as civil rights and executive power, Roberts and Alito responded with earnest assurances that they would not bring an ideological agenda to the bench.

After confirmation, we saw an entirely different Roberts and Alito - both partisans ready and willing to tilt the court away from the mainstream. They voted together in 91 percent of all cases and 88 percent of non-unanimous cases - more than any other two justices.

A few examples help illustrate how the confirmation process failed the American people. During Roberts's hearing, I asked him about his statement that a key part of the Voting Rights Act constitutes one of "the most intrusive interferences imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes." In response, he suggested that his words were nothing more than an "effort to articulate the views of the administration . . . for which I worked 23 years ago."

Today - too late - it is clear that Roberts's personal view is the same as it was 23 years ago. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry , the Supreme Court held that Texas's 2003 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act by protecting a Republican legislator against a growing Latino population. Roberts reached a different view, concluding that the courts should not have been involved and that it "is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

The same Roberts who wished the federal government would leave Texas alone was unconcerned by federal intrusion into Oregon's approach to the issue of assisted suicide. In Gonzales v. Oregon , a majority of the Supreme Court held that the Justice Department lacked the power to undermine Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. However, Roberts joined a startling dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia, stating that the administration's actions were "unquestionably permissible" because the federal government can use the Constitution's commerce clause powers "for the purpose of protecting public morality."

It is difficult to believe that a neutral judicial philosophy explains Roberts's very different views in these two cases. He memorably claimed during the confirmation process that he wanted only to be a diligent umpire, calling balls and strikes without regard to what team was at bat. But it turns out that our new umpires have a keen interest in who wins and who loses.

One clear loser is the environment. In Rapanos v. United States , the court was asked to interpret the definition of wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Four justices deferred to the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise in implementing the statute. But Roberts and Alito joined an opinion that describes wetlands as "transitory puddles" and criticizes their colleagues for "giving that agency more deference than reason permits." For Roberts and Alito, protecting the environment - unlike "protecting public morality" - is clearly not a top priority.

Perhaps the biggest winner is the president himself. During Alito's hearing, I asked him about a 1985 job application in which he stated that he believed "very strongly in the supremacy of the elected branches of government." He backpedaled, claiming: "I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today."

But he is willing to say it now. In the very recent case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , Alito signed on to a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that asserts a judicial "duty to accept the Executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs" as grounds for allowing the administration to use military commissions of its own design to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This is part of a pattern. When he was in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito wrote in support of signing statements, through which the president has claimed to limit the scope of measures passed by Congress - including the ban on torture. When questioned about the legal status of such statements, he said it was an open issue that still needed to be "explored and resolved" by the court. But Alito joined a Scalia dissent in the Hamdan case that endorsed the use of signing statements without providing any analysis or legal support.

Similarly, Alito had a pattern of ruling against individuals in Fourth Amendment cases - including a case involving the strip-search of a 10-year-old girl. When questioned, he insisted that one of the judiciary's most important roles "is to stand up and defend the rights of people when they are violated." But Alito cast the deciding vote in Hudson v. Michigan , in which the court decided - contrary to almost a century of precedent - that evidence gathered during an unconstitutional search of a suspect's home could be used to convict him.

In the term that begins in October, the court will decide major cases on abortion, affirmative action and the Clean Air Act. Roberts and Alito may well cast the deciding votes. If their first term is any indication, their agenda will be exactly what many of us feared - and nothing like the judicial modesty they promised during their hearings.

At a time when great legal issues are being decided by the slimmest of margins, we cannot afford to learn nominees' views only after they have obtained lifetime tenure on our highest court. Instead, the Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the American Bar Association need to work together to return to an honest confirmation process. I support reform despite my belief that the next justice will be nominated by a Democratic president and be sent to a Democratic Senate for confirmation.

The discussion should start with a few truths. First, any qualified nominee to the Supreme Court will have spent many years thinking about legal issues. We should require that nominees share that thinking with the Judiciary Committee, and not pretend that such candor is tantamount to prejudging specific cases. In particular, the Senate should have the same access to the nominee's writings as the administration. Second, the Judiciary Committee will need to reorganize the way it asks questions. An in-depth inquiry will require something more than short rounds of questions that pass from senator to senator. Third, we need to remember what this process is all about. It is good to hear that a nominee has a loving family, faithful friends and a sense of humor. It is important to know that nominees possess the intellect, life experience and discipline that make a good judge. But it is essential that we learn enough of their legal views to be certain that they will make good on the simple promise etched in marble outside the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law." --------
Edward M. Kennedy (D) has represented Massachusetts in the Senate since 1963.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_073006X.shtml

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Condoleezza Rice: Midwife From Hell
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive

Friday 28 July 2006

After being one of the most inept national security advisers in the nation's history, Condoleezza Rice is now earning the same grade as secretary of state.

Her description of the conflagration in Lebanon as the "birthpangs of a new Middle East" was about as callous as it gets, matched only by Bush's remark that the conflict represents "a moment of opportunity." The 400 Lebanese who have died, an overwhelming number of them civilian and many of them children, were not feeling any birthpangs. They were feeling deathpangs.

Nor were families of the Israeli victims (about 50 so far, and most of them soldiers) cheering the new day, either.

Rice's cruel opposition to an immediate cease-fire has left the whole world outside of Israel (and Tony Blair's kennel) aghast.

And U.N. Ambassador John Bolton's sneering about a cease-fire not being "the alpha and omega" only reinforced the arrogance.

More than half a million people in Lebanon have been turned into refugees in just a matter of weeks.

Israelis are bunkered in bomb shelters.

And all Rice can do is issue hollow words of concern and then sabotage any immediate cease-fire?

The expediting of U.S. bombs to Israel at the same time sent an all too obvious message. Did they fly in carriage on the same plane that took Rice to the region? Is she bringing another load with her this time?

As Rice did in the lead up to the Iraq War, so she is doing now: She's drinking her own propaganda.

.....The Iraq War was going to redraw the map of the Middle East.

.....Now the Lebanon War is going to do the trick?

.....The Iraqi people were going to welcome the Americans with open arms.

.....Now the Lebanese people are going to rise up and somehow defeat
........Hezbollah when Israel can't even do the job?

Politically naïve, Rice also appears woefully jejune about human nature.

When people are being attacked by a foreign power, they rarely rally to that foreign power's side.

And when a group in their midst fights back against the invaders, that group doesn't lose support, it gains support.

The United States and Israel have succeeded only in making heroes of Hezbollah thugs.

Rice's green light for Olmert's spilling of red blood has managed only to further enrage the Arab and Muslim world and isolate the United States among its allies (except, of course, for Tony Blair, who is still wagging his tail and licking Bush's face).

It is not in the interests of the United States, and it is not in Israel's interests either, to show the international community utter disdain. And the war crimes of Israel, and Rice's blessing of them, will long be remembered.

Where was Condoleezza Rice when Israel bombed the only power plant in Gaza, bringing about a humanitarian crisis?

Where was Condoleezza Rice, when Israel inflicted collective punishment on the sovereign people of Lebanon?

Where was Condoleezza Rice, when Israel was killing more than 100 Lebanese children?

.....Condoleezza Rice was in Israel's corner.

For five and a half years, Rice did nothing about the most serious problem in the Middle East, and now she's done worse than nothing.

.....Rice believes in is the diplomacy of the F-16.

And that style of diplomacy is crashing and burning. -------

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072906Y.shtml

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~WHY ON OUR GOOD EARTH
WOULD THEY WANT
THE PEACE WE ALL YEARN FOR?
LOOK AT THE MONEY TO BE MADE
IN ARMS SALES AND RECONSTRUCTION.
SRH

US Plans $4.6 Billion
in
Mideast Arms Sales
Reuters
Friday 28 July 2006
Washington - The Bush administration spelled out plans on Friday to sell $4.6 billion of arms to moderate Arab states, including battle tanks worth as much as $2.9 billion to protect critical Saudi infrastructure.

The announcement came two weeks after the administration said it would sell Israel its latest supply of JP-8 aviation fuel valued at up to $210 million to help Israeli warplanes "keep peace and security in the region."

The United States also rushed a delivery of precision-guided bombs requested by Israel after launching its airstrikes against Hizbollah fighters in Lebanon 17 days ago, The New York Times reported last week.

In the newly proposed sales to Arab states, UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter gunships worth up to $808 million would go to the United Arab Emirates, while AH-64 Apache helicopters worth as much as $400 million would go to Saudi Arabia.

Bahrain would also get Black Hawk helicopters, valued at up to $252 million. Jordan would get a potential $156 million in upgrades to 1,000 of its M113A1 armored personnel carriers.

Javelin anti-tank missiles valued at up to $48 million would go to Oman under the deals put forward by the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which administers U.S. government-to-government arms sales.

The $2.9 billion Saudi deal involves the sale of 58 older-generation U.S. M1A1 Abrams tanks that would be modernized. Also, 315 Saudi-owned, newer-model, Abrams tanks would be improved with such things as air-conditioning and infrared sights for the commanders as well as the gunners.

The project's prime contractor would be General Dynamics Corp.'s Land Systems business unit of Sterling Heights, Michigan, the Pentagon said in a notice to Congress required by law.

Vehicle "teardown" and final reassembly would be carried out in Saudi Arabia, the notice said. The upgraded configuration is known as the M1A2S, in which the S stands for Saudi.

"The proposed sale and upgrade will allow Saudi Arabia to operate and exercise a more lethal and survivable M1A2S tank for the protection of critical infrastructure," it said.

It also would keep a substantial number of tanks in the region that have "a high degree of commonality" with the U.S. tank fleet, the Pentagon said, referring to interchangeable parts.

Notices of proposed U.S. arms sales are required by law once they top certain value thresholds. They do not mean a sale has been concluded. Congress may block a sale if both houses pass resolutions of disapproval within 30 calendar days of formal notification.
Go on-site by clicking this link:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072906C.shtml

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recycling medical devices raises concerns
By LINDA A. JOHNSON,
AP Business Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago

For eight months during his infancy, Sean Van Duyn gagged, retched and vomited daily. Now 6, the Winter Haven, Fla., boy still can't eat or drink by mouth, instead being fed by a permanent tube in his belly.

Beset by multiple medical problems in his first months, the boy had to have a breathing tube inserted through a hole cut in his neck. The gagging began and continued until his mother, Susan, discovered the tube was misshaped at the end and had been poking the back of his throat the whole time. The tube was replaced, but by then Sean's developing brain was programmed not to swallow; he still cannot.

The family alleged the injury occurred because the plastic breathing tube's tip had been bent during "reprocessing" — cleaning and heat sterilization — done at an Orlando hospital even though the tube was labeled for single use only. They won a confidential settlement from the hospital.

The case has fueled the debate over the safety of reusing surgical blades, forceps and other medical devices. The practice was routine until a couple decades ago, when stronger plastics enabled manufacturers to start making devices designed for single use to cut costs and prevent infection spread in the era of AIDS.

Then hospitals, and eventually specialized companies, started "reprocessing" single-use devices, cutting device costs by about half — without patients' knowledge.

Federal regulators say reprocessing is safe, but original device manufacturers say they can't guarantee recycled products will work correctly — and that they are wrongly blamed for malfunctions and patient harm caused by reprocessing.

A federal law taking effect Tuesday, requiring reprocessors to put their company name on recycled devices as well as the packaging, could help determine who's at fault when problems occur. For devices too small to mark, detachable stickers could be transferred to the patient's chart.

"That's like a 'Sue Me!' sticker," and may not be used much, said Josephine Torrente, a lawyer and biomedical engineer who consults for device manufacturers.

Dan Vukelich, executive director of the Association of Medical Device Reprocessors, argues reprocessed products are totally safe because each item is inspected before being shipped.

The device makers and their trade group have been lobbying legislators in several states for bills that protect their interests — and patients. The battle has a big — and fast-growing — financial stake for both sides. Device makers saw combined revenues jump from $48 billion in 2001 to $71 billion last year; reprocessors went from a combined $20 million in 2000 to $87 million in 2004.

Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Endo-Surgery is suing the biggest reprocessor, Ascent Healthcare Solutions, for trademark infringement over reprocessing its single-use devices.

"It is impossible to reuse them," said Robert O'Holla, J&J's head of regulatory affairs for medical devices, because they are not designed to be taken apart for cleaning. Yet J&J gets complaints from customers about problems with devices showing excessive wear or bleach on them — signs of reprocessing.

Ascent Healthcare's regulatory chief, Don Selvey, said only about 2 percent of medical devices — a category that ranges from MRI machines to reading glasses — are now reprocessed. He said his company's processes reduce chances of "viable organisms" surviving on devices to one in one million.

Reprocessed devices are soaked in sterilizing solutions, disassembled, blasted clean with a fine powder, reassembled and inspected, then packaged, sterilized and resealed. On average, they're reused three to six times.

"It is as safe and effective as a new device if they meet our requirements," said Larry Spears, compliance chief for medical devices at the Food and Drug Administration.

Since early 2004, when reports of problems with medical devices were first required to note if they had been reprocessed, the FDA has received 13 reports of patient deaths and 421 other trouble reports, including 130 involving serious patient harm, although some may be duplicate reports.

Reprocessors say they must meet stringent FDA standards after first proving they can safely clean and sterilize each type of device. But the manufacturers main trade group, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, notes about half of the reprocessors' applications for reprocessing of individual devices were rejected by FDA, a sign of the difficulty of properly cleaning complex devices.

Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who chairs the House Government Reform Committee, said Friday he plans a fall committee hearing to examine the issue.

"It is unclear to us at this time whether FDA is able to accurately track how often something goes wrong because a device meant to be used once was instead reused," Davis wrote in a statement.

Congress also has asked its investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, to update a June 2000 report which concluded more oversight is needed. GAO is unsure when it will begin investigating.

Ken Hanover, CEO of the seven-hospital Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, said his hospitals have used reprocessed devices for about eight years without a problem.

"There's far more risk of medication errors in a hospital than of a problem arising with a reprocessed device," he said, adding that his hospitals "probably" would honor patient requests to have only new devices used on them.

Children's National Medical Center in Washington, on the other hand, doesn't use reprocessed devices, said surgeon in chief Dr. Kurt Newman.

"We want to use the safest and most sterile equipment," he said.

University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan has "qualms" about the practice, particularly because patients don't give informed consent — required when deviating from the standard of care raises safety or efficacy concerns.

"I just think people ought to know what's going on," Caplan said.

Susan Van Duyn, Sean's mother, agreed.

"If anybody can learn from the tragedies with Sean, it's worth telling" his story, she said.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On the Net:

Advanced Medical Technology Association: http://www.advamed.org

Association of Medical Device Reprocessors: http://www.amdr.org

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death. From Shiloh to Dachau, from Antietam to Stalingrad, from Hiroshima to Vietnam and Afghanistan, the great specialty of industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses." -Edward Abbey

~ ~ ~

"The death of a single human being is too heavy a price for the vindication of any principle, however sacred." -Daniel Berrigan

~ ~ ~

We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom: Stephen Vincent Benét:

~ ~ ~
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

~ ~ ~

A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming: Ralph Waldo Emerson:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pictures From Qana

"We want this to stop," shouted villager Mohammed Ismail. " May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting. They are hitting children to bring the fighters to their knees."

07/30/06

Video Report From Qana Massacre 2006: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14276.htm

Video: Scenes Of Israeli Massacre In Qana 1996:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/quana_01_19_03.htm
Page I - Page II- Page III - Page IV Page V - Page VI - Page VII - Page VIII - Page IX - Page X GO ON-SITE TO VIEW AND READ ARTICLE:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14273.htm

WARNING Graphic images depicting the reality and horror of Israel's Invasion and destruction of Lebanon.

Please wait a moment for images to load. Click image to enlarge.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14273.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . .
TERRORISM: AL-QAEDA LAUNCHES WEB TV


Rome, 28 July (AKI) - The next evolution in al-Qaeda's propaganda war is a television channel visible only via the Internet, which has already begun operating on an experimental basis. The 'channel' has evolved out of the experience of jihadi internet forums - in particular of the al-Firdaws site - and al-Qaeda's own experiments in 'news bulletins' and talk shows produced by the Islamic Media Front. The new channel - called al-Firdaws TV - aims to publish the most important video and audio documents in the recent history of the terror network.
The documents include speeches by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as well as documentaries on mujahadeen.

The broadcasts start at 8pm Mecca time and run till midnight.

Like most traditional Islamic television channels, the broadcasts open with a reading from the Koran, followed by a film on al-Zarqawi and various videso that have already been published on the Internet such as that of the London bombs. The end of transmission is marked by Jihadi songs, calling for Islamic martyrdom.

To view the programming of al-Firdaws all that is required is a wide-band connection and a multimedia programme such as Windows Media Player or Real Player.

Radical Islamist internet forums publish the planned programmes daily and the channel organisers are seeking feedback from al-Qaeda sympathisers, on what they think of the new channel.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.325740710&par=#

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . .
Analysis: Hezbollah May Have the Edge

From the Associated Press
By SALLY BUZBEE
Associated Press Write
Sunday July 30, 2006 9:46 PM

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - It's hard to defeat a group of extremists who can mingle among civilian supporters and are pros at propaganda. Israel's military faces the same conundrum the United States has encountered elsewhere - finding that airstrikes are costly in civilian deaths and public support, while ground attacks are risky for soldiers.

That does not mean Hezbollah is winning militarily. But the guerrilla group has so far avoided a knockout by Israel, even as international pressure for a cease-fire has grown. And in the war of perceptions, Hezbollah has only to look strong against Israel and make Israel look bad to win across much of the Arab world, many analysts say.

That was brought into stark focus Sunday when an Israeli airstrike flattened a house in southern Lebanon, killing at least 56 people, mostly women and children. Israel apologized for the deaths and blamed Hezbollah, accusing it of using civilians as human shields.

But the backlash against Israel and its ally America was swift: Lebanese officials reacted in fury and Beirut protesters attacked a U.N. building and burned American flags. At an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was ``deeply dismayed'' his previous calls for a cease-fire had been ignored.

The United States knows this scenario well from Iraq and elsewhere: Pictures of dead children and women killed in airstrikes can hurt support even among friends.

Yet the alternative for Israel, if it wants to push back Hezbollah, is either a full-scale ground war or a lengthy series of smaller-scale incursions to eliminate the group's positions along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

For now, Israel says it has no plans for a big land invasion, still leery from its costly occupation of south Lebanon from 1982 to 2000. But the smaller incursions have brought relatively high Israeli casualties and low apparent impact: U.N. observers in south Lebanon say Hezbollah's supply of rockets remains adequate to fight, and most of its leaders have survived.

Israel has privately told the United States it needs 10 days to two weeks to accomplish what it wants.

Hezbollah's strength comes from its ability to hide fighters and weapons - both among the populace and in bunkers and tunnels - who can pop up once the Israelis pass by and fire more missiles toward Israel. That ability springs from its wide support among people in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld famously called it ``asymmetric warfare'' and identified it as the challenge America faced from terror groups after the Sept. 11 attacks, and from al-Qaida linked groups in Iraq.

Israel faces just such a struggle against both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the militant group Hamas in Gaza, says Jon Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In many ways, such threats ``are more difficult to resolve'' than battles against conventional military forces, he said. ``The groups have made a living out of having few tangible assets to attack. In many ways, they exist principally as a set of ideas ... and they enjoy wide support among their target communities.''

Israel, of course, has years of experience fighting the guerrilla-style Palestinian uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza. But its wars against outsiders have mostly, except in Lebanon, been against Arab countries' armies or air forces.

Some analysts say that history appears to have left it off-balance this time.

``It's relying too much on the air campaign and it's wrong,'' said Efraim Inbar, an analyst at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

He instead advocates a robust ground attack and attacks on Syria to prevent Hezbollah resupply of weapons.

But ground attacks also carry risks: Israel lost nine soldiers in ambushes Wednesday alone in operations around the Hezbollah stronghold of Bint Jbail.

Even when Israel succeeds in such pin-pointed ground incursions, ``Hezbollah can disperse, hide men and equipment'' and live to fight another day, notes Anthony Cordesman, another Mideast expert.

And a longer-term occupation of south Lebanon would simply give Hezbollah a ``new, exposed ambush zone,'' plus ample opportunity to raise anti-Israeli and anti-American hostility among Arabs - a propaganda ploy it is expert at.

Even one of the best outcomes for Israel - the insertion of an international force at the border to keep Hezbollah at bay - comes with huge risks for whoever makes up the force, eerily resonant of the attacks against U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, Cordesman warns.

``The international force will probably have to do the heavy lifting, be willing to fight and become the focus of new Hezbollah attacks and ambushes,'' he says. ``Non-Muslims will be seen as occupiers and crusaders ... Can anyone spell IED?''
---
Sally Buzbee is the AP's Chief of Middle East News, based in Cairo.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . .
How can 'terrorism' be condemned
while war crimes go without rebuke?

Washington's partners in this hypocritical war on terror are given free rein to wreak their own brutal, illegal violence

David Clark
Monday July 31, 2006
The Guardian

As if we didn't know it already, the conflict in Lebanon shows that truth and war don't mix. All parties to the tragedy of the Middle East resort to disinformation and historical falsification to bolster their case, but rarely has an attempt to rewrite the past occurred so soon after the fact. Israeli ministers and their supporters have justified the bombardment of Lebanon as "a matter of survival". Total war has been declared on Israel, so Israel is entitled to use the methods of total war in self-defence. This would be reasonable if it were true, but it isn't. It's completely false.
The conflict was triggered by a Hizbullah operation in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three killed. Let's be frank, this wasn't exactly the Tet offensive. It certainly didn't justify Israel's ferocious onslaught against the very fabric of Lebanese society. Yes, the rocket attacks on Haifa are an appalling crime, but they followed rather than preceded Israel's decision to escalate the fighting. They cannot provide retrospective justification for Israeli strategy.

The crisis has also been accompanied by the selective and often inappropriate use of the term "terrorism". Following the Israeli government, George Bush and Tony Blair were at it again on Friday, blaming "terrorists" for sparking the conflict. The purpose behind this is obvious enough. In the context of America's war on terror, anyone claiming to be engaged in the fight against this most contested of notions gets carte blanche to do as they please. But the result has been to politicise the term in ways that render it effectively useless as a category of moral judgment or policy analysis.

It is certainly true that Hizbullah has been linked to a string of classic terrorist attacks going back more than 20 years, including suicide bombings against civilian targets, hostage-taking and the hijacking of a TWA flight. A particularly vile example was the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in which 85 people were murdered. Hizbullah strongly denies involvement, but the truth is probably murkier than either side pretends. Responsibility for these attacks has often been attributed to Hizbullah's External Security Organisation (ESO), a unit believed to be under the operational control of Iranian intelligence rather than the Hizbullah's Lebanese leadership. Britain is one country that draws this distinction, proscribing ESO, but not Hizbullah itself, under the Terrorism Act.

Interestingly, some of the earliest suicide bombings commonly attributed to Hizbullah, such as the 1983 attacks on the US embassy and marine barracks in Beirut, were believed by American intelligence sources at the time to have been orchestrated by the Iraqi Dawa party. Hizbullah barely existed in 1983 and Dawa cadres are said to have been instrumental in setting it up at Tehran's behest. Dawa's current leadership includes none other than the new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, feted last week in London and Washington as the great hope for the future of the Middle East. As the old saying goes, today's terrorist is tomorrow's statesman - at least when it suits us.

None of this should be read as exonerating Hizbullah of the charge that it uses terrorist tactics. Irrespective of anything else, the use of Katyusha rockets against Israeli population centres is clearly intended to inflict terror and suffering on civilians. It deserves a response. But the allegations of terrorism levelled at Hizbullah (as well as Hamas and other groups) by America and Israel go well beyond the targeting of non-combatants. The US state department's annual reports on terrorism also list operations carried out against the Israeli Defence Force as examples of terrorism. The US government justifies this conclusion by way of a logical contortion that defines Israeli troops as "non-combatants", despite the fact that Israel continues to occupy territory in Lebanon and Palestine with military force. The intention is not just to stamp out terrorism as commonly understood, but also to stigmatise perfectly legitimate acts of resistance.

Terrorism has always been extraordinarily difficult to define, but the American approach lacks any pretence at objectivity, thus making the term utterly meaningless. Used in this way, terrorism becomes simply "political violence of which we disapprove". The answer, of course, must not be to abandon any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong in the use of force. There need to be standards if we are to prevent the free-for-all of violence without limit. But these standards must be disinterested, legitimate and robust. As it happens, most of what we need is adequately provided for in international humanitarian law. Numerous treaties and judgments from the Geneva conventions onwards set out quite detailed rules governing the use of force, including the principles of proportionality and civilian immunity.

Under international law, there can be no doubt that many of the actions carried out by Hizbullah and Hamas constitute war crimes that must be punished. The reason it has been disregarded for the purposes of fighting terrorism is that, rather inconveniently for the governments concerned, it applies to states as well as non-state groups. Accepting it would leave them open to unwanted scrutiny and possibly even prosecution for war crimes of their own. In the case of the Israeli government, it isn't hard to see why. Israeli doctrine eschews the principle of proportionality in favour of massive retaliation, as has been amply demonstrated in Lebanon and Gaza.

Despite Israel's protestations that it is doing everything it can to avoid civilian casualties, it is clear that its military strategy is aimed at maximising the suffering of the Lebanese people as a whole. This was declared quite openly on day one of the campaign, when Israel's chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, promised to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years", and confirmed again yesterday with the horrific slaughter at Qana. The approach is identical to the one taken in similar operations in 1996 and 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin admitted: "The goal of the operation is to get the southern Lebanese population to move northward, hoping that this will tell the Lebanese government something about the refugees, who may get as far north as Beirut." Populations will move like this only if they are in fear of their lives.

The same applies to Gaza, where the pretence at discrimination is even thinner and Palestinian civilians are being subjected to a brutal siege and acts of violence that have no military justification. As in Lebanon, the intention is to force civilians to turn on the militias by inflicting as much pain and suffering as the Israeli government thinks it can get away with. What is this if it is not terrorism? It is certainly a war crime. So let's hear no more hypocritical utterances about the evils of terrorism from Bush and Blair. Not until they are able to speak with genuine moral authority by condemning all forms of illegal violence, irrespective of who commits them.·
David Clark is a former Labour government adviser
Dkclark@aol.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1833931,00.htmlI believe "Hizbullah" knew full well what the response by Israel would be when they kidnapped an Israeli soldier. I believe they drew Israel into this with the intention of drawing in others, like Iran, if in fact Iran didn't instigate and plan this action in the first place. The US has been saying all along that it is Iran who props up and instigates their actions and, perhaps, there were plans of drawing in Syria as well. All of this done to try to escalate an already shaky situation, and even bring about a confontration with Iran. With the US and Israel standing side by side. I believe they wanted to cause havoc in the region and to cause the shaky ground we stand on in the Middle East to deteriorate to a state where all of the Middle East, and perhaps some in the near east will be drawn in as well. They will be chafing at the bit, wanting, with all that's in them, to stand against us. It seems this is what too many have wanted, it really does seem that all of this violence fits into so many wishes and plans.

Just indignent over it all and not being as sensible with my thoughts as I should be, because who in their right minds would want to rain down the terror on so many innocent people or did they not think that the strikes would hit their children, wives, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers? Blow up their homes relegating them to tents? Did they think Israel would avoid family dwellings, cars on roadways, refugee escape routes? Not when they store their weapons in family homes, have a history (or so we've been told) of using ambulances for their own war efforts, not humanitarian aid.

What a horrible situation.

Our own citizens had a terrible time of it trying to escape the country. Leave, the Iraeli's warned, but to where? How? Even the ones who tried to escape were gunned down and/or hit by rockets, by bombs. So where were their choices? What were they? They had none in too many cases. Just none. SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Wal-mart Supercenter: Archaeologist: developers discount site findings print Go on-site to view photo's and map.

By TOM SHARPE | The New Mexican
July 30, 2006

Researcher considers discoveries significant; city says area ‘cleared’ by earlier survey

An archaeologist who worked on the site of the planned Wal-Mart Supercenter in southwest Santa Fe says the developers didn't want to hear about him finding 2,000-year-old artifacts there.

Tom McIntosh, who was hired to examine the vacant 65 acres earlier this year, said the developers seemed to have their minds made up that there was no significant archaeology there.

He said Richard Gorman, a land-use consultant for the proposed Entrada Contenta development, initially offered him an incentive to finish his work in two weeks.

"Gorman says, 'You don't need to tell me anything. Just go out there and get us a survey. ... There's nothing there. We're going to offer you $2,500 extra to turn that report in in two weeks,' " McIntosh recalled. "I said, 'There's no way we can get it in in two weeks.' He said, 'Well, if there's nothing there, you should be able to get it.' "

While the archaeologist made what he considers significant discoveries, it's not clear what, if anything, city officials will do with a report he drafted. And McIntosh is riled about how his work has been treated.

Gorman did not respond to repeated messages from The New Mexican seeking a response. McIntosh said Gorman called him Thursday and threatened to sue him over his statements to a reporter.

McIntosh, who has been working in Santa Fe for three years under the name ArcCom, said he negotiated an open-ended contract with Gorman and project manager Tom Keesing, acting on behalf of BSW Engineering and Steve Johnson Development LLC.

Keesing directed a reporter's questions to Nancy Long, an attorney for landowner William Herrera. Long said she couldn't speak for Gorman or Keesing because she was not present during their dealings with McIntosh. Keesing also said he had "never met" McIntosh.

McIntosh, who said he only spoke to Keesing by phone, said his contract called for a base fee of $4,500 if no significant archaeology was found or, in the alternative, $150 an hour.

After he and two associates worked for two to three weeks in May along the confluence of the Arroyo de los Chamisos and the Arroyo Hondo, McIntosh said, they identified six "lithic" sites, with stone tools and dwelling sites dating back 2,000 years, plus one "ceramic" site from around 1200 AD.

McIntosh said archaeological sites are considered significant if there is a potential to obtain more information. But he said the lithic sites are particularly significant because little is known of the hunter-and-gatherer cultures that lived in the Santa Fe area before pottery was invented.

Other archaeologists agreed with McIntosh's definition of archaeologic significance but said almost any site has the potential to yield more information. They said lithic sites are common in the Santa Fe area and are considered significant only when found in a context that allows the sites to be dated through scientific methods, such as the presence of hearths with charcoal that yields carbon-14.

"If the site is just a couple of (stone) flakes and there's no way to date when they were left behind, then often it's just considered not significant," said Eric Blinman, director the state Office of Archaeological Studies.

McIntosh said regardless of the significance of the sites, full exploration and documentation would have taken about 30 days and cost the developers another $20,000.

The project already has been put in limbo by a pending lawsuit. More than 20 small-business owners are asking a judge to void City Council approval of the project, claiming the governing body acted improperly during a series of split votes last summer on the development, which includes a planned 265,800-square-foot commercial development anchored by the 150,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter.

The archaeologist said when he presented Keesing and Gorman with a bill for $17,000 for more than 100 hours of work, they balked. "Keesing said, 'Look, do you know who you're dealing with? We'll just walk away from this and not pay you, period, because that's absurd,' " McIntosh said.

After he insisted Keesing and Gorman pay him, McIntosh said, he met with Herrera, who paid him in full. "Herrera is totally honorable," McIntosh said of the retired dentist whose family owns the land. "He wanted to make sure everything was right and no bad stuff was going on."

A few days after Herrera paid him, McIntosh said, David Rasch, head of historic preservation for the city Planning and Land Use Department, told McIntosh his report wasn't needed because the site already had been "cleared" by a 2001 archaeological survey. McIntosh said when he went to Rasch's office to look at the 2001 report, he was told it was missing.

However, Carla Lopez, a media spokeswoman for the city, said no report is missing. She said a 1994 report by Matthew Schmader, approved by the city Archaeological Review Committee in 2001, found no significant archaeology in the area, including the adjoining Tierra Contenta subdivision. She said this gave "permanent approval" to development on the property.

The city about a decade ago annexed Tierra Contenta and some adjoining properties, including the land near Cerrillos Road that Herrera and his representatives have designated as Entrada Contenta.

McIntosh, however, said he's not satisfied with the city's explanation.

Other archaeologists say they have heard of developers offering incentives for finishing surveys quickly and trying to persuade archaeologists not to find anything. Alysia Abbott, a local archaeologist, recalled how a developer refused to pay her a $3,000 fee because she found archaeological sites on his county land. She said she turned in her report identifying the sites to county officials, even though the developer told her not to do it.

McIntosh said he'll turn his report in to the city, even though city officials say it's no longer needed. "The thing that's got me riled up now," he said, "there's seven significant sites that are going to get destroyed out there without any kind of protection or data recovery or anything."

Staff writer Bob Quick contributed to this report.

Contact Tom Sharpe at 995-3813 or tsharpe@sfnewmexican.com
http://www.freenewmexican.com/story_print.php?storyid=47168#

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *
EXCLUSIVE: Gibson Skated Twice Before
Posted Jul 31st 2006 1:06AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice
Mon, July 31, 2006
TMZ has learned that Mel Gibson has been stopped for reckless driving two other times in Malibu but he was allowed to leave without a ticket or arrest.
As TMZ first reported, Gibson was arrested on Friday for suspicion of driving under the influence on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu -- driving 87 miles an hour. As we reported, the deputy who arrested Gibson was ordered to sanitize his arrest report to make it appear that Gibson's arrest was "without incident." In fact, The report states Gibson was abusive, violent and vulgar, and even attempted to escape.

TMZ has confirmed that approximately three years ago, Gibson was driving 74 miles per hour on Pacific Coast Highway, one mile from his house, when he was pulled over by a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy. Sources say Gibson avoided eye contact with the deputy during the stop and even though the deputy was suspicious of Gibson's sobriety, he let him go.
Approximately one year ago Gibson was stopped again, after driving 64 miles an hour on Pacific Coast Highway -- where the speed limit is 45. Sources say that Gibson was so cocky that he was on his cell phone the entire time he was detained by the deputy. Ultimately, the deputy decided to let him go without giving him a citation.

And there's new information about Friday's arrest. As TMZ reported, the deputy who arrested Gibson was ordered by superiors to re-write his report and eliminate all references to Gibson's bad conduct and anti-Semitic remarks. Sources tell TMZ that Lt. Crystal Miranda told the arresting deputy that Captain Tom Martin talked to Sheriff Lee Baca who expressed concern that the explosive report might leak to the media and that it needed to be re-written in a sanitized form.

Sources say Gibson, who was pulled over early Friday morning for allegedly crossing lanes at a high speed, told the arresting deputy that he was leaving home just after 2 a.m. and heading to his brother's house. The arresting deputy found a bottle of tequila in the car, 3/4 full, in a brown paper bag. We're told that Gibson told the deputy that the bottle wasn't his but, "I've had a little bit."

We're also told that Gibson, who issued a statement over the weekend, suggesting he was not of sound mind when he uttered the anti-Semitic tirade and engaged in abusive behavior, was not in fact "out of it." Sources connected with the case tell TMZ that Gibson was drunk but was in control of his senses.

At one point at the Sheriff's station, sources say Gibson was "jumping like a monkey" on a steel cage and told the arresting deputy, "I'm not going to hurt you physically. I'm gonna hurt you. I'm gonna make you lose."
We're also told that deputies at the Sheriff's station were star struck by Gibson and a number of them went to Gibson's holding cell to get a look of the star. The problem for the Sheriff's department -- there's a mounted camera in the station and the deputies can be seen fawning over the actor. Sheriff's officials have called some of the officers who were caught on tape in and warned them they might be subject to discipline.

As TMZ reported, the arresting deputy was ordered by officials to take out references to Gibson's bad behavior. We're told the altered report makes no mention of the fact that Gibson attempted to flee the scene by running to his car to escape. We're also told that the officer checked a box on the report that Gibson was "belligerent." Ironically, even though officials did not order the deputy to remove that reference, they did order him to re-write the report to eliminate all references to the supporting evidence leading the officer to believe Gibson was indeed "belligerent. "
PermalinkEmail thisComments [5]
Gibson's Anti-Semitic Tirade -- Alleged Cover Up
Posted Jul 28th 2006 9:15PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice

TMZ has learned that Mel Gibson went on a rampage when he was arrested Friday on suspicion of drunk driving, hurling religious epithets. TMZ has also learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department had the initial report doctored to keep the real story under wraps.

TMZ has four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case, L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Mee. According to the report, Gibson became agitated after he was stopped on Pacific Coast Highway and told he was to be detained for drunk driving Friday morning in Malibu. The actor began swearing uncontrollably. Gibson repeatedly said, "My life is f****d." Law enforcement sources say the deputy, worried that Gibson might become violent, told the actor that he was supposed to cuff him but would not, as long as Gibson cooperated. As the two stood next to the hood of the patrol car, the deputy asked Gibson to get inside. Deputy Mee then walked over to the passenger door and opened it. The report says Gibson then said, "I'm not going to get in your car," and bolted to his car. The deputy quickly subdued Gibson, cuffed him and put him inside the patrol car.

TMZ has learned that Deputy Mee audiotaped the entire exchange between himself and Gibson, from the time of the traffic stop to the time Gibson was put in the patrol car, and that the tape fully corroborates the written report.


Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, "You mother f****r. I'm going to f*** you." The report also says "Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he 'owns Malibu' and will spend all of his money to 'get even' with me."

The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

The deputy became alarmed as Gibson's tirade escalated, and called ahead for a sergeant to meet them when they arrived at the station. When they arrived, a sergeant began videotaping Gibson, who noticed the camera and then said, "What the f*** do you think you're doing?"

A law enforcement source says Gibson then noticed another female sergeant and yelled, "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?"

We're told Gibson took two blood alcohol tests, which were videotaped, and continued saying how "f****d" he was and how he was going to "f***" Deputy Mee.

Gibson was put in a cell with handcuffs on. He said he needed to urinate, and after a few minutes tried manipulating his hands to unzip his pants. Sources say Deputy Mee thought Gibson was going to urinate on the floor of the booking cell and asked someone to take Gibson to the bathroom.

After leaving the bathroom, Gibson then demanded to make a phone call. He was taken to a pay phone and, when he didn't get a dial tone, we're told Gibson threw the receiver against the phone. Deputy Mee then warned Gibson that if he damaged the phone he could be charged with felony vandalism. We're told Gibson was then asked, and refused, to sign the necessary paperwork and was thrown in a detox cell.

Deputy Mee then wrote an eight-page report detailing Gibson's rampage and comments. Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?"

We're told Deputy Mee was then ordered to write another report, leaving out the incendiary comments and conduct. Sources say Deputy Mee was told the sanitized report would eventually end up in the media and that he could write a supplemental report that contained the redacted information -- a report that would be locked in the watch commander's safe.

Initially, a Sheriff's official told TMZ the arrest occurred "without incident." On Friday night, Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore told TMZ: "The L.A. County Sheriff's Department investigation into the arrest of Mr. Gibson on suspicion of driving under the influence will be complete and will contain every factual piece of evidence. Nothing will be sanitized. There was absolutely no favoritism shown to this suspect or any other. When this file is presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, it will contain everything. Nothing will be left out."

On Saturday, Gibson released the following statement:

"After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the LA County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health."



Click to see portions of the original report.


EXCLUSIVE: Mel Gibson Busted for DUI
Posted Jul 28th 2006 7:00PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice

Mel Gibson was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in Malibu, Calif. early this morning for suspicion of DUI. Bail was set at $5,000.

He was pulled over for speeding in his 2006 Lexus as he was heading eastbound on the Pacific Coast Highway and a Breathalyzer test was administered. The arrest report lists the time of arrest as 2:36AM and the time booked as 4:06AM. Gibson was released at 9:45 a.m.

A spokesman for the Los Angeles Country Sheriff's Department told TMZ, "Mel Gibson was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. He was released later this morning. The investigation was still ongoing, just like it would be with any other person."

A rep for Gibson tells TMZ they are "checking into" the matter.

Click here for Sheriff's Inmate Info. Center -- type in "Gibson, Mel" and hit search.

EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: A sheriff's official told TMZ Gibson had a blood alcohol level of .12. The legal limit in the state of California is .08.

UPDATE 9:15 p.m. Explosive new details in this case! Click here.

Click on link below to go on-site to view this story, photo's and other articles about Pop Culture.
http://www.tmz.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . .
TOP FIVE HEADLINES
July 31

Okay, it's clear now that the Neo-con, Bush theory of creating maximum chaos has metastasized.

Only Dr. Strangelove wannabees believe that if you exponentially increase death, blood, disorder, conflict and profiteering, you somehow end up with peace.

Or maybe it's that they really just want permanent instability. The Republican Party can't win if there is peace. That is a simple truth.

They have nothing to offer domestically but bankruptcy, the dismantling of the American government and the U.S. Constitution, some wedge issues from the Victorian era, and unconscionable tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans.

That's a losing ticket, if they ever had to run on what they are really about. (Oh, did we forget to put chronic corruption and law breaking on the list?)

So, they distract the masses with endless conflicts abroad, and create more threats to our national security than they eliminate.

Okay, so either they are so massively incompetent that they think you can make a wedding cake out of dog shi*, or they are brilliant evil political Machiavellians who divert the public's attention from their dirty doing by pursuing unrelenting war, or Bush truly believes he is heralding the "End Times" and will achieve "Rapture" for his most cultist followers.

Take your pick.

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, and Bush is continuing his residency on Fantasy Island.

Meanwhile, "Dr. No" (AKA Dick Cheney), pours on the gasoline, lights the match, and ensures that he and his friends pocket the profits off of the misery of the world.

And the mainstream media considers the wrenching tragedy as so much footage for the nightly news.

“The Sopranos,” the Bush Administration, and “The Devil Wears Prada.”

It’s all entertainment, isn’t it?

.....1. Bush to Armageddon: "Bring It On!

.....2. A Supreme Disgrace

.....3. Busheviks Do An About Face and Go Whining to the U.N. About Getting a Ceasefire. It's Just Another Stalling Tactic. What a Grand Hypocrisy Party, Indeed.

.....4. Seattle Muslim Who Shot American Jews and Mel Gibson Should Share Cell

.....5. As many BuzzFlash Readers know, "Air America" almost didn't get off the ground. It was underfinanced and almost crashlanded. That's why you should watch "Left of the Dial.".

For More Than 180 Headlines and Stories visit BuzzFlash.com by clicking on the followoing link:

http://www.buzzflash.com
. . . . . . .

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Can you make a difference
by not buying a stock?
A monthly discussion with notable experts
[B]Divestment efforts haven't attracted too much attention since an antiapartheid campaign against South Africa in the 1980s. Now one against the Sudanese government is catching on. Ethnic cleansing in Darfur Province has been so extreme that some states and universities are pulling (or plan to pull) their money out of corporations with operations there.

Can such moves make a difference? To find out, the Monitor's Laurent Belsie interviewed Don Pollak, senior vice president of Northern Trust Global Investments, which sells a Sudan-free portfolio to institutional investors, and Eric Fernald, research director for KLD Research & Analytics, a group that evaluates which companies should be avoided. Here are excerpts of their conversation:

Two years ago, activists began pushing the idea of divesting from Sudan. How successful have they been?

Mr. Pollak: There's been a great deal of activity along that line and a lot of discussion. I'm aware of four states that have passed binding legislation that calls for divestment and 20-some universities with a couple dozen more states who have some legislation pending.

So far, Illinois is leading the charge?

Pollak: Illinois thus far has put the most wide-ranging definition around the investment program. Illinois's, unlike some of the others, includes both US companies and non-US companies.

What about divestment plans in the other states?

Pollak:Some of them aren't due to take effect for a couple more years.... And some of the states have put laws into effect that would allow them to hold what they already hold but just not buy anything new. So there's varying definitions across the map and a large lack of consistency.

Is it hard to figure out which companies should be excluded?

Mr. Fernald: It's difficult research. I think the hardest area - well, one area - is companies that are providing humanitarian assistance and how you draw the line there. Sometimes, the definitions are not quite as clear as they should be. For example, General Electric has donated some medical supplies [to Sudan]. And that, we considered, was not worthy of being on the exclusion list. It was purely humanitarian. But Procter & Gamble is on the list because of razors that are distributed in Sudan.

Razors?

Fernald: It's not considered directly humanitarian so [Procter & Gamble] is on the list. Some of these issues are difficult areas to decide on. Are you helping build the infrastructure of a country, which can obviously support the people of the country? Or, as you help build up the structure, are you actually empowering the government, which is carrying out the atrocities?

Do companies respond?

Fernald: We contact all the companies that make it on our list. And they do respond. They don't want to be on the list. We had Xerox tell us that they're getting out of Sudan. Total, the oil company from France, is involved in Sudan, but they sent us a long letter explaining the exact nature of the involvement and how, in their eyes, it's not an active support for the Sudanese government.

Because?

Fernald:They have a percentage of one of the fields. they're not actively drilling. So are they giving any revenues to the government right now? They claim they're not. But the energy industry, that's what drives the government right now. And, of course, you wouldn't want to be supporting a company that's selling to the military.

How did you rule on Total?

Fernald: Well, they qualify [for the list] under the Illinois legislation.

Have you taken any companies off your list?

Fernald: Two American companies - [oil-service firm] Baker Hughes and Xerox - have told us that they are preparing to leave Sudan. So we will watch that closely. And if it comes to fruition, then they'd be removed from the list.

How many companies are on the list?

Pollak: Different research companies have different definitions. We work with KLD, and KLD's list has at this point about 160 names. Nine of them are US companies; 38 of them are within the EAFE [Europe, Australia, and Far East] Index; another 16 are within the emerging markets piece of the Morgan Stanley indexes; and the remainder aren't part of established benchmarks. But it's a pretty wide-ranging list that you'll notice if you're not investing in it.

Are investors flocking to your divestment product?

Pollak:I wouldn't say that investors are flocking to it. I think at this point they're looking to those bodies that either make policy for them - or their own policies - and saying: "If we're going to do this, how can we minimize the impact of these restrictions on our overall investment goal?"

And cutting out 160 companies from the universe of stocks could make that more difficult?

Pollak: For example, the 39 companies that are part of the developed, non-US countries represent almost 9 percent of that index. So you're taking out a large portion of that.

Those are the institutional investors. What can the individual investor do to be Sudan-free?

Fernald: You can certainly educate yourself on the issue. There's a lot of traffic on the Internet on it. So if you're interested, you can certainly find certain lists [of companies with links to Sudan]. I wouldn't claim that they would be exhaustive or as complete as ours, for example, but you can certainly make a beginning.



Pollak: The important thing, I think, is to have a definition that you're comfortable with as you get to be Sudan-free.... If you're not thoughtful about putting that definition together, you could wind up very unhappy with your returns.

The government and a rebel faction signed a peace agreement in May. If peace comes to Sudan, would the divestment campaign end?

Pollak: I think organizations like KLD and other firms that are doing the research would look for some proof that it's sustainable before they would reduce their list to zero. I think the legislatures and the foundations and endowments would do the same thing.

Fernald: We'd all be thrilled to see that take place.... If that actually came about, then I'm sure, fairly quickly, this issue would go away.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Today's Article on Christian Science
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

from the July 10, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0710/p16s01-wmgn.html

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * * * *If ethical dollars can change manufacturing and banking, can they improve the media, too?
Can investors help make the media better? Some investment firms are trying to do so in specific niches. For a look at two of them, the Monitor's Laurent Belsie sat down with Dawn Wolfe, social research and advocacy analyst for Boston Common Asset Management, and Chat Reynders, who is starting his own socially responsible investing firm here in Boston. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation:


Dawn, your company wants Internet firms to stop giving too much data to foreign nations like China.
Ms. Wolfe: The incident you're referring to is the Shi Tao case, which has received a lot of press. Shi Tao was a journalist living in Hunan Province and in April 2004, he attended a staff meeting where they discussed documents that had been put out by the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda bureau, warning them about specific security implementations that were going to be happening in advance of the 15-year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Shi Tao sent an e-mail that evening from his personal Yahoo! e-mail account to a website in the US. About a year later Shi Tao was arrested, tried, and imprisoned for 10 years for distributing state secrets abroad.

What was Yahoo's role?
Wolfe:
In September of this year, a founder of Yahoo!, Jerry Yang, admitted that the company had in fact worked with Chinese authorities to help in their actions against this journalist. Certainly that case in particular raised the issue for a lot of people.

Is this problem limited to Yahoo?

Wolfe: Microsoft just this summer agreed to censor words like "freedom," "human rights," and "democracy" on its MSN China portal. So, for example, if you were to type the word "freedom" in that portal in China today, you would receive a message similar to "Your request cannot contain forbidden words such as profanity." And it would ask you to type in something else. Boston Common has been working with Cisco on the networking capabilities that they are providing [to China].

Chat, you're asking investors to fund educational films. That sounds risky.

Mr. Reynders: The first lesson I learned when I became an investment adviser was 'Never invest in films.' for 15 years now, we've been investing in IMAX film properties.

What films?

Reynders: We've got four films out right now. The first film we did, years ago, was "Whales." That's grossed about $50 million. We've got a second film out, "Dolphins," which was nominated for an Academy Award. It raised $80 million and is still out. "Bears" was another educational film that's raised about $30 million. "Coral Reef Adventure" was released two years ago and that is now over $60 million in revenue. When I add all of those revenues up, it's nearly $200 million, 80 percent of which is going to cultural institutions.

What are the social benefits?

Reynders: When we started there were 57 theaters and now there are over 400 worldwide. We partner with the National Science Foundation to create curricula that reaches, with each film, 2 million children. We have a website presence that goes all over the world in 16 languages. So, the impact of these media properties has expanded to an incredible degree.

And the financial benefits?

Reynders: Our clients receive something on the order of 50 to 70 percent return on their dollar over six to eight years.

Dawn, how have investors reacted to your initiative?

Wolfe: Over the course of the last couple months, Boston Common worked with other organizations including an NGO by the name of Reporters Without Borders and other social investment firms to put together a joint investor statement on human rights and the Internet. We launched that statement in November with 26 signatories representing over $20 billion worth of investments calling on US corporations within the technology sector to be mindful of what their potential impact could be in certain countries where the government was actively suppressing human rights via the Internet.

So, can ethical investors change the media?

Wolfe: I don't think the socially responsible investing community alone will change how the Internet is censored and monitored. But we are part of a much bigger group. I think it's important that investors are part of the debate. Shareholders bring a unique voice in that we are talking with management as owners.[B]• Watch the entire webcast conversation at www.csmonitor.com/ethicalinvesting

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

www.csmonitor.com

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Posted December 12, 2005 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1212/p25s01-wmgn.html

[Saundra Hummer]

----------------
BUSH'S HEIR CUT:
AWARDS TAX BREAK TO SON OF AN ASTOR

A NEWSLETTER:
by Greg Palast
For The Guardian, Comment Is Free
Monday, July 31, 2006

East Hampton, New York -- Anthony Marshall, the tabloids tell us, wouldn't buy his elderly mother her prescribed medicine, locked her poodles in the pantry and refused to buy her hair dye or her favorite make-up. His mom is Brooke Astor, the ultra-rich socialite, now frail, helpless and dependent on her son.

While others merely gossiped about this tragedy of dogs and cosmetics, George Bush acted. In a deft maneuver at the end of last week, Bush rammed through Congress a massive reduction in the inheritance tax. As a result of the tax change engineered by the White House, Marshall stands to save $9 million on the $45 million he expects to inherit from his mom.

George W. Bush could feel Anthony's pain. It's not easy being a child of incredibly wealthy parents. Indeed, as the President noted, "death taxes" are supremely unfair to those who've earned these millions. As Mr. Bush often mentions, he himself worked long hours his whole life to be born into a rich family.

Our President recently told the Detroit Economic Club that, in an era of government belt tightening, “Spending discipline requires difficult choices.” But this choice was easy as pie: the President chose to use our tax dollars to reduce the burden on the most deserving. And who could be more deserving than Barbara's kids? The President himself, who stands to inherit well over $76 million from his parents, will save at least $12.7 million. Talk about family values!

This year, the President's budget eliminated the $255 paid to widows of social security recipients. But who needs a measly $255 when you're going to save millions on the estate you inherit?

Here's how much your family will save, if your family is the Astors. Under current law, Anthony would have to pay the government 46% of his profits from his mother's death, after the first tax-free $2 million. Now, Anthony will get the first five million tax-free and the tax rate on the rest is cut in half.

Altogether, this reduction in inheritance taxes will cost, oh, a quarter trillion dollars over the next decade -- $267 billion, to be exact. To pay for it, besides eliminating the $255 widow benefit, the President's "difficult choices" included taking $12 million from the federal traumatic brain injury assistance program and $119 million from housing for the disabled.

But cripples looking for a government hand-out should stop thinking selfishly. They should have more sympathy for the Menendez brothers, whose parents were worth $14 million. The tax laws in 1989 reduced the net sum each of the two boys stood to inherit to just $2 million each, giving the young men no choice but to kill their parents for the additional insurance money.

Apparently, one of the single largest beneficiaries of the change will be Robert Durst. And now that he's out of jail (he dis-membered his 71-year-old neighbor), the heir to the Durst real estate billions can look forward to a bonus of, I'd estimate, at least a quarter billion bucks from the US taxpayers. (With the extra Treasury treasure, Durst can look for his wife who is, uh, missing.)

The President could have used the quarter trillion to buy every displaced family from New Orleans a one million dollar home. But, he reasoned, their kids would just end up paying estate taxes on it when their parents kicked the bucket.

Several newspapers deplored the way Anthony treated the elderly Mrs. Astor. But, let me note, it was the Tax-and-Spend policies of Big Government that forced him to dilute his mom's medicine. Let's face it: until our President's bold action to repeal death taxes, Mrs. Astor, hanging in there at 104 years of age, simply had no incentive to die.

The National Association of Manufacturers, the key lobby for the end of estate taxes, wrote every Congressman, "Why on earth should good, honest, hard-working people" -- like Durst, Marshall and the Menendez kids -- have to pay taxes while other Americans just slack it?

Until the Republicons took action this week, Americans have simply had no reason, said our president, to "accumulate wealth." I know that in my own dad's case, rather than become a multi-millionaire, he chose to work 65 hours a week in a furniture store, with no pension, just so my sister and I would never have to fear estate taxes.

Congress' vote last week would eliminate only 74% of the taxes on America's wealthiest. Our President is not satisfied. Mr. Bush will not rest in peace until we emulate one of the only nations on the planet without any death taxes, Saudi Arabia. There, our president could point to the example of the billionaire bin Laden family, whose scion, Osama, unburdened by estate taxes, has donated his entire inheritance to "faith-based initiatives."

-----------------Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "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." To find out more about the book and to read Palast's reports go to www.GregPalast.com You may change your email address or unsubscribe from the newsletter member page. (If you don't have a password for the member page, you can have one sent to you.) GO ON-SITE TO ACCESS LINKS

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * * * *Making Radio Waves
The new voice of immigrant rights
Sara Catania
July/August 2006 Issue

It was well past noon when Eduardo Sotelo’s SUV rolled up to a crowded loading dock in Los Angeles. By the luck of an on-air drawing earlier in the day, the employees of this sheet metal plant had won a coveted Sotelo taquiza, or taco party. When they spotted the white suv, decorated with a supersized reproduction of Sotelo, they began chanting “Pi-o-lín! Pi-o-lín!” which translates as “Tweety Bird! Tweety Bird!” a childhood moniker bestowed upon Sotelo for his large lips and diminutive stature. The nickname has stuck with him as the host of one of the most popular radio shows in the country.

Though most non-Spanish-speakers have never heard of it, “Piolín por la Mañana” (“Tweety Bird in the Morning”) is beamed daily from Los Angeles’ La Nueva 101.9 and some 20 other stations throughout the West to more than 1 million listeners. Until recently, the seven-hour broadcast was best known for its lively mix of humor, norteño and banda music, and the occasional taquiza giveaway. Then, in early March, Sotelo agreed to help publicize a protest of a proposed House bill that would turn undocumented immigrants into felons. For weeks, he and other Spanish-language radio personalities he had recruited blanketed the airwaves with announcements and discussions promoting the event. On March 26, around 400,000 protesters descended on downtown Los Angeles in an unexpected display of political muscle that energized the Latino community. Soon afterward, the Senate and President Bush started discussing a compromise measure that included none of the draconian proposals approved by the House. All thanks, in no small part, to Piolín.

Piolín has drawn the attention of politicians and power brokers hoping to tap into his audience’s newfound clout. Cardinal Roger Mahony has called in to the show several times to lead on-air prayer sessions and guide listeners through a fast to emphasize humility while seeking immigration rights. Sotelo says he hasn’t heard from any Democrats who might want to take advantage of his ability to mobilize potential voters. But Luis Miranda, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, says Sotelo’s role is valuable: “He has taken a strong stand. It’s about families and communities of people who are outraged at the attempt to scapegoat people who are here to work hard. Piolín is bringing that message to a diversity of people.”

Still, “Piolín por la Mañana” is not agenda radio. It springs from neither Rush Limbaugh nor Air America. It is entertainment radio from which a political consciousness, one that is not easily categorized, is taking shape. Sotelo is not an ideologue, and as he points out, he does not have U.S. citizenship and therefore cannot vote. His goal, he says, is simply to secure legal status for all undocumented immigrants. But the means to this end, as envisioned by Sotelo, are far from revolutionary, and instead hinge on patience, spiritual enlightenment, and personal accountability. For Sotelo, the big productions, marches, and protests are impressive displays that draw attention and catalyze communities. But, he argues, those marches are meaningless unless they inspire individual action. “If somebody does not agree with us,” he says, “demonstrate with work, with positive actions. We have to win the privilege of citizenship. And we have to respect all the laws.” And as the politicians take notice, Sotelo proceeds with caution. “I have to be careful because I have a big responsibility,” he explains. “I’m not going to do something just because somebody asks me to if I don’t believe in it. I need to feel it in my heart for it to happen.”

He took a guarded position, for instance, in the controversy over the May 1 walkout in support of immigrants’ rights, at first opposing the work boycott on grounds that it would hurt the economy. But as his listeners weighed in, he changed his mind. On the day of the boycott, he canceled his show and appeared at a rally in downtown L.A., where he told the members of an enthusiastic crowd that they should work to become citizens.

Sotelo attributes his passionate connection with his fans to his personal experience as an immigrant. His own border crossing was typically horrific. At 16, he narrowly escaped the hounding of a border patrol helicopter north of Tijuana, then packed himself into the airless trunk of a car with two others, where they remained, faint and gasping, for an hours-long journey. For a time, he lived with his family in a garage without a bathroom, working jobs at a car wash and a photo-developing shop. He got his break on the graveyard shift of a community radio station and, using a forged green card, worked his way up to bigger jobs until immigration agents tracked him down. The station where Sotelo worked at the time put its lawyers on the case, and at the eleventh hour, just as he thought he would be deported to his native Jalisco, approval for his residency came through.

Sitting in the taquiza truck, Sotelo bowed his head in prayer. “Dear God,” he began, “thank you for what you’re doing in Washington. Thank you for letting us be the light that you give us in our hearts.”

Whether or not he chooses to continue to use the devotion of his legion of fans for political ends, Sotelo clearly has the power to do so. When he emerged from the suv, a group of women screaming “Piolín!” closed in. The one closest to him thrust a Sharpie his way and yanked the collar of her shirt down, making room for him to scrawl “Piolín” across her upper chest. A few moments later, he leaped atop the suv’s roof and began gyrating. The crowd laughed as someone shouted, “Viva Piolín!”

Sara Catania is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles who specializes in stories on criminal and social justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones.

© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2006/07/making_radio_waves.html

. . . . . .

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . .

Still Cleaning Up After Katrina
Still doing a heckuva job for Katrina victims

July/August 2006 Issue

205,000 houses were severely damaged by last year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes. As of May, 60% remained unoccupied.

Displaced families have moved an average of 3.5 times since the storms.

In March, the New York Times found that more than 1 in 10 New Orleans evacuees were homeless or had no permanent place to live.

Fewer than 35% of New Orleans’ 462,000 residents had returned to the city as of March. Only half are expected to return by September 2008.

State Farm and Allstate will no longer sell homeowners insurance in New Orleans.

Eight months after Katrina, fewer than 1 in 10 New Orleans businesses had reopened.

The Small Business Administration has rejected nearly 70% of the 2.4 million loan applications received from hurricane victims.

36 countries and international organizations donated $126 million to federal rebuilding efforts, half of which remained undistributed six months after Katrina.

FEMA spent $431 million on 11,000 trailer homes that were never used, $3 million for 4,000 unused cots, and $10 million to fix up 240 rooms in Alabama that housed only six people.

Carnival Cruise Lines got a six-month, $236 million contract to house evacuees on three of its ships, which sat half empty off the Gulf Coast for weeks.

The GAO found that there was insufficient oversight on 13 reconstruction contracts, including $100 million to Bechtel.

Experts predict there is a nearly 50% chance that a Category 3 or greater hurricane will hit the Gulf Coast this season.

On a scale of 1 to 10, FEMA director R. David Paulison gave the agency an 8 in terms of preparedness for this year’s hurricane season.

More than 100,000 families in Louisiana and Mississippi live in FEMA trailers that Paulison said “should not, or could not, ride out even a Category 1 storm.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and viewers.

© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress . . . . . . . . .

[Saundra Hummer]

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

CIA Blogger Fired For Torture Post
Govenment technology Intelligence Blogs
A software contractor for the CIA lost her job last week when she blogged one post too many. (go on-site to view links)The Washington Post's Dana Priest reported on Friday that Christine Axsmith, who wrote a popular blog for people top-secret security clearances, criticized the US policy on torture and promptly found herself on the street.

Writing as Covert Communications, CC for short, and posting on Intelink, the intel world's classified intranet, she was a typical general blogger in a rarified domain. She wrote about everything from the economy to terrorism to the food in the CIA cafeteria.

The day of the last post (July 13), Axsmith said, after reading a newspaper report that the CIA would join the rest of the U.S. government in according Geneva Conventions rights to prisoners, she posted her views on the subject.

It started, she said, something like this: "Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong."

And it continued, she added, with something like this: "CC had the sad occasion to read interrogation transcripts in an assignment that should not be made public. And, let's just say, European lives were not saved." (That was a jab at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to Europe late last year when she defended U.S. policy on secret detentions and interrogations.)

She thought it would be OK to post about it, since the official policy had changed. She was wrong. She thought she might be reprimanded or her blog would be deleted. She was wrong about that too.

After a humiliating interrogation in which her badge was taken and she was left in a freezing conference room that people used as a shortcut, she was fired.

Fired - and threatened with criminal prosecution - for opining that torture is wrong, at a time when that sentiment is official policy.

How's that for a chilling effect?

CIA Blogger
That lady should get a medal for bravery!
Pity there aren't more humanitarian 'whistle blowers' l... (Read the rest)


CIA Blogger rob_wil -- 07/24/06
CIA blogger fired for torture post graphix1@... -- 07/24/06
She ought to get a medal barryschaeffer@... -- 07/24/06
new urban legend or grounds for claim? add7 -- 07/24/06
When doing the Right thing isn't Professional Dr_Zinj -- 07/25/06
Axsmith bloviated madmaven -- 07/26/06
Add your opinion
«« Previous Post | Next Post »»

Go on-site to view links and more articles. Just click on the following link:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2454

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . .
Next We Take Tehran
The confrontation with Iran has very little to do with nukes—and a lot with the agenda of empire
Robert Dreyfuss
July/August 2006 Issue

President Bush may or may not order a massive aerial bombardment of Iran later this year. Or he may wait until 2007. Or he may simply escalate a risky confrontation with Iran through covert action and economic sanctions. But whatever the next act in the crisis, don’t be fooled by the assertion that the problem is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms.

Iran is a decade away from gaining access to the bomb, according to the administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate, and despite all the talk about the ugliness of the theocratic regime in Tehran, the likely showdown is, at bottom, driven by the geopolitics of oil. With one-tenth of the world’s petroleum reserves and one-sixth of its natural gas reserves, Iran sits in a strategic geographical position that makes it the cockpit for control of the entire Middle East. It straddles the Persian Gulf’s choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz; it has important influence among Shiites throughout Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states; and it borders highly contested real estate to the north, from the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia.

The logic of the Bush administration is inexorable. Its ironclad syllogism is this: The United States is and must remain the world’s preeminent power, if need be by using its superior military might. One of the two powers with the ability to emerge as a rival—China—depends vitally on the Persian Gulf and Central Asia for its future supply of oil; the other—Russia—is heavily engaged in Iran, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. Therefore, if the United States can secure a dominant position in the Gulf, it will have an enormous advantage over its potential challengers. Call it zero-sum geopolitics: Their loss is our gain.

Of course, the idea of the Persian Gulf as an American lake is not exactly new. Neoconservatives, moderate conservatives, “realists” typified by Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker, and liberal internationalists in the mold of President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, mostly agree that the Gulf ought to be owned and operated by the United States, and the idea has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy under presidents both Republican and Democratic. Its adherents justified it in the past, however thinly, because of the exigencies of World War II and then the Cold War.

But if the administration’s goals are congruent with past U.S. policy, its methods represent a radical departure. Previous administrations relied on alliances, proxy relationships with local rulers, a military presence that stayed mostly behind the scenes, and over-the-horizon forces ready to intervene in a crisis. President Bush has directly occupied two countries in the region and threatened a third. And by claiming a sweeping regional war without end against what he has referred to as “Islamofascism,” combined with an announced goal to impose U.S.-style free-market democracy in southwest Asia, he has adopted a utopian approach much closer to imperialism than to traditional balance-of-power politics.

By inaugurating a war of choice against a nation that had not attacked the United States, and by justifying his actions under a new doctrine of unilateral, preventive war, Bush shattered the U.S. establishment’s policy consensus while alienating America’s closest allies, angering its rivals, and provoking a storm of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Now, like a high-stakes blackjack player doubling down, the president is letting the world know that he is ready to do it all over again in Iran.




A SUCCESSION OF U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower to Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush, literally and figuratively planted the American flag at the heart of the Persian Gulf. F.D.R., who met Saudi Arabia’s king aboard a warship in 1945, had proclaimed two years earlier: “I hereby find that the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.” Carter, in 1980, restated the doctrine even more forcefully: “Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States.”

From the 1950s through the 1990s, the U.S. backed up those words with muscle. Military treaties reaching into the Middle East, including NATO and CENTO, were established. An archipelago of U.S. military bases took form in east Africa, the Indian Ocean, and the Gulf. Washington sent billions of dollars in military aid and arms sales, and tens of thousands of U.S. military advisers, into the region. The Rapid Deployment Force and then the U.S. Central Command were created, and the U.S. 5th Fleet was assembled and based in the tiny Gulf nation of Bahrain. All that, and more, preceded the Gulf War in 1991, which led to a massive expansion of the U.S. military presence in the region.

Since 2001, President Bush has radically revised the rules of the game. From the beginning, the neoconservative architects of Bush’s policy intended for the war that began in Afghanistan and expanded to Iraq to go on, in a dominolike series of forced regime change, revolution, and even war, to Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. Iran, in particular, was always seen as the next step after Iraq. The original idea was that if the United States toppled Saddam Hussein and installed in Baghdad a regime dominated by Kurdish and Shiite puppets, Iran would be caught between U.S. forces to its west in Iraq and to its east in Afghanistan. And because both Shiites and Kurds have allies inside Iran, and because Iraqi Shiite religious leaders have intimate connections with the ruling Iranian theocracy, the skids would be greased for a U.S.-inspired overthrow of the Iranian government—or so Bush and Cheney believed.

Needless to say, things haven’t exactly gone according to plan. Still, it’s far too early to write off the impact of 130,000 U.S. soldiers in a country the size of Iraq, backed by a president convinced that he can still pull out a victory, especially if the troops stay for another five years or more. And if the United States launches the sort of bombing campaign against Iran that is being considered—involving attacks against not just nuclear research facilities but also airfields, command and control centers, and other intelligence and military targets—to say that the consequences would be unpredictable is an understatement. The administration and many of its supporters are apparently ready to take the gamble that after an armed confrontation with Iran, a moderate, pro-American regime might emerge from the wreckage. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is explicit on that score. “I don’t disagree [about] the convulsive effects that a strike would have. I actually think that it would be in the end a healthy thing for Iran internally.”

Not surprisingly, Russia and China have a different perspective. Moscow and Beijing, neither of which wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, nevertheless do not see Tehran as a threat. To them, the country’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas make it a natural ally. Both Russian and Chinese oil companies had enormous development and supply contracts with Baghdad under Saddam Hussein, deals that are worthless in an Iraq controlled by the United States. They might be forgiven for thinking that Iran, too, would be off-limits to them if Bush succeeds.

For China’s economic future, Iran and the region are essential. As recently as 1992, China was an oil-exporting country, but since then it has become a voracious importer of oil and gas. (Indeed, China’s demand for oil is the leading factor in pushing prices from $10 to $20 a barrel to around $75 a barrel today.) In Iran, China has signed a series of gargantuan deals, including a 25-year contract reported to be worth $100 billion between Iran and the Chinese state-owned energy company Sinopec. China is also deeply engaged with Russia’s oil industry and with Central Asian oil exporters in constructing a web of gas and oil pipelines throughout the region. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China have made energy the centerpiece of Russian-Chinese relations. Russia’s Rosneft oil company and China National Petroleum Co., two state-owned conglomerates, have negotiated plans for Russia to supply about 10 percent of China’s oil, and the Russian gas giant Gazprom is talking to China about building two huge new gas pipelines with a total capacity of 80 billion cubic meters a year. Last year, the Asia Times heralded the emergence of a strategic “new triangle comprised of China, Iran, and Russia.”

Since 2001, Russia and China have watched America’s heavy-handed push into the Middle East and Central Asia with suspicion and alarm. Together, they and four Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security body that has emerged as a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region. Last July, the organization issued a declaration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia; by the end of 2005, Uzbekistan had kicked the United States out of its Karshi-Khanabad air base, and soon Kyrgyzstan may evict the U.S. from its Manas air base, both head-on challenges to the administration in countries that Washington considers essential to its influence in Central Asia. This summer, the SCO may agree to extend a membership offer to Iran.

Meanwhile, U.S. relations with both China and Russia are edging toward outright hostility. With Beijing, the administration has maintained cordial ties, in part because Big Business depends so heavily on China. But many Bush officials have an innate distrust, even loathing, of China, especially in the office of Vice President Cheney, who in 2001 drew several of his top aides from the staff of a strongly anti-China congressional committee pursuing allegations that Beijing had stolen state secrets during the Clinton administration. Cheney, too, is leading the charge for a more confrontational stance toward Russia. During an overseas visit in May that took him from the Baltic republic of Lithuania to Kazakhstan, in the heart of Central Asia’s oil and gas fields, Cheney delivered a series of broadsides against Moscow and warned Putin against using “oil and gas [as] tools of intimidation or blackmail.”

Flynt Leverett, who worked on Middle East policy for Bush’s National Security Council before resigning in disgust, told a political salon in Washington recently that the U.S.-Iran conflict could end up pushing Russia, China, and Iran closer together. “What I see as an emerging axis of oil between Russia and China will be greatly bolstered,” he said.

SERGEY LAVROV, Russia’s foreign minister, is Moscow’s point man for the U.N. talks about Iran. After a U.N. meeting in New York earlier this year, Lavrov said bluntly: “This looks like déjà vu.” Indeed, the parallels with the year before the invasion of Iraq are startling.

In addition to exaggerating the nuclear threat, the administration has been accusing Iran of harboring Al Qaeda fugitives and supporting bin Laden’s movement, though there is little or no evidence to support these claims. As in Iraq, Washington is sinking millions of dollars into propaganda efforts and alliances with dubious exile groups; according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up Iran intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Frankfurt, London, and Azerbaijan to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.” Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president and a top State Department official, is overseeing a program to spend $85 million on support for dissidents in Iran and to pay for anti-Iran propaganda. She has helped create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, and she reportedly supervises an office called the Iran-Syria Operations Group. As with Iraq, U.S. officials—realizing that U.N. support for an attack on Iran is nil—are talking openly about bypassing the world body and forging yet another “coalition of the willing” to confront Iran. And, of course, as with Iraq, there is the escalating rhetoric, the talk of “all options” being on the table, the news of Special Forces already operating in the country to foment civil conflict.

“If that is déjà vu, then so be it,” John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at the U.N., told reporters in March. “That is the course we are on.”
Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. He is a Mother Jones contributing writer, and his work frequently appears in The Nation, The American Prospect, and Rolling Stone.. . . . . . . . .
This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and readers like you.

© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/next_we_take_tehran.html

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." -- Alexis de Tocqueville [Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clerel, le Comte de Tocqueville] (1805-1859) French historian
~ ~ ~
The dangerous patriot: "The one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism . . . which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory.": Marine Corps, Colonel James A. Donovan~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *
A Nato-led force would be in Israel's interests, but not Lebanon's

Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.

By Robert Fisk
08/01/06 "The Independent" -- -- So, how come George Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara - after their inevitable disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq - believe that a Nato-led force is going to survive on the south Lebanese border? The Israelis would obviously enjoy watching its deployment - it will be time for the West to take the casualties - but Hizbollah is likely to view its arrival as a proxy Israeli army. It is, after all, supposed to be a "buffer" force to protect Israel - not, as the Lebanese have quickly noted, to protect Lebanon - and the last Nato army that came to this country was literally blasted out of its mission by suicide bombers.

How blithely the US and British governments have erased the narrative of the old Multinational Force - the MNF - which arrived in Beirut to escort Palestinian guerrillas out of Lebanon in August of 1982 and then, after the massacre of up to 1,700 Palestinian guerrillas at the Sabra and Chatila camps by Israel's proxy Lebanese militia, returned to protect the survivors and extend the sovereignty of the Lebanese government.

Does that sound familiar? And they also came to train the Lebanese army - one of the missions being foisted on the new Bush-Blair army - and they failed. Blown up by suicide bombers at their Beirut headquarters with the loss of 241 American lives, the US Marines retreated into the ground, digging earthworks beneath Beirut airport.

And there they lived until the newly-trained Lebanese army broke apart in February 1984 - at which point, President Ronald Reagan decided to "redeploy" his troops offshore. Like other famous historical redeployments - Napoleon's redeployment from Moscow, for example, or Custer's last redeployment - it represented a national disaster, a colossal blow to US prestige in the region and a warning that such Lebanese adventures always end in tears. The French left shortly afterwards. So did the Italians. A company of British troops had been the first to scuttle out.

So, how come anyone believes that the next foreign army to arrive in the Lebanese meat-grinder is going to be any more successful? True, the MNF was not backed by a UN Security Council resolution. But since when were Hizbollah susceptible to the UN? They have already failed to disarm - as they were required to under UN resolution 1559 - and one of the world's toughest guerrilla armies is not going to hand over its guns to Nato generals. But most of the force will be Muslim, we are told. This may be true, and the Turks are already unwisely agreeing to participate. But are the Lebanese going to accept the descendants of the hated Ottoman empire? Will the the Shia south of Lebanon accept Sunni Muslim soldiers?

Indeed, how come the people of southern Lebanon have not been consulted about the army which is supposed to live in their lands? Because, of course, it is not coming for them. It will come because the Israelis and the Americans want it there to help reshape the Middle East. This no doubt makes sense in Washington - where self-delusion rules diplomacy almost as much as it does in Israel - but America's dreams usually become the Middle East's nightmares.

And this time, we will watch a Nato-led army's disintegration at close quarters. South-west Afghan-istan and Iraq are now so dangerous that no reporters can witness the carnage being perpetrated as a result of our hopeless projects. But, in Lebanon, it's going to be live-time coverage of a disaster that can only be avoided by the one diplomatic step Messrs Bush and Blair refuse to take: by talking to Damascus.

So when this latest foreign army arrives, count the days - or hours - to the first attack upon it. Then we'll hear all over again that we are fighting evil, that "they" - Hizbollah or Palestinian guerrillas, or anyone else planning to destroy "our" army - hate our values; and then, of course, we'll be told that this is all part of the "War on Terror" - the nonsense which Israel has been peddling. And then perhaps we'll remember what George Bush senior said after Hizbollah's allies suicide-bombed the Marines in 1982, that American policy would not be swayed by a bunch of "insidious terrorist cowards".

And we all know what happened then. Or have we forgotten?

Day 20

* Lebanese dead - at least 577 confirmed, could be up to 750. Israeli dead - 51.

* Israel bombs and shells southern Lebanon despite announced halt in air raids.

* Rescue workers find 28 bodies buried for days in destroyed buildings in three Lebanese villages.

* UN postpones a meeting on Lebanon peacekeeping force indefinitely.

* Bush says he will seek UN action this week to end the fighting.

* Clashes near Aita Al-Shaab leave four Hizbollah fighters dead and three Israelis wounded.

Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14309.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

They say for every affair the saintly Loretta Young engaged in, (and I'm not saying that in a derogatory manner, she did have a saintly way about her, which she cultivated and strived for), she added a wing on to the church, she gave and gave and gave, for which ever addition the Catholic Church, and hospital was in need of.

Mel Gibson has put money into a huge Catholic Church and complex, one which will teach and preach his version of religion, pure orthodoxy, not contaminated by time and new thinking.

Now it seems that the Jewish community is asking for more, as Mel Gibson has refused for years to dispute his fathers beliefs, he skirts the issue, but there is doubt they say about his inner beliefs, in fact many believe he is as much an anti-semite as his father. Just more clever. He uses an almost subliminal approach with his movies, how he points out things which have dogged the Jews for two millenniums. That has bothered Jews and those of us who don't want their problems with Gentiles, us Goyims, exacerbated. We sometimes think he's done that, intentionally or unintentionally. Very subtle for sure, but it's there they say.

The Jews want deep and meaningful apology's concerning this latest incident, They are deserved I believe.

It has probably been the Jewish makers of film, of their having financed film projects, the use of their publicity skills, their lawfirms, underwriters and so forth, it being their expertese which has helped him to become such a success.

Could be, that growing up in such a confused situation as his radical and bigoted father provided him, is part and parcel of his problems with alcohol and life in general? Easy enough to understand looking in, but to have lived it like he has, well it's no wonder he has issues in life, no wonder he is driven to drink, unless he drinking started out as a fun thing and got carried away. But with the words which came out of his mouth make it seem he has deep seated issues which he, for some reason, for some time, just hasn't dealt with. Maybe it's too late. Leopards never change their spots?

I know one thing, the boycots have started and programs of his have been yanked. He's opened the door to a lot of adverse thinking, He certainly won't be viewed in the same way by an awful lot of us, or so it seems. Barbara Walters, has said she will never go to see another Mel Gibson movie, which brought in a large round of applause, and there are probably more out there who harbor the same emotions.

[lotech]

. . . . . . . . . . .

Still Cleaning Up After Katrina
Still doing a heckuva job for Katrina victims

July/August 2006 Issue

205,000 houses were severely damaged by last year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes. As of May, 60% remained unoccupied.

Displaced families have moved an average of 3.5 times since the storms.

In March, the New York Times found that more than 1 in 10 New Orleans evacuees were homeless or had no permanent place to live.

Fewer than 35% of New Orleans’ 462,000 residents had returned to the city as of March. Only half are expected to return by September 2008.

State Farm and Allstate will no longer sell homeowners insurance in New Orleans.
If this is true, it must be due to some factor other than the possibility of a repeat of the damage caused by Katrina. Flooding is not covered under company underwritten homeowners policies. A separate,federally funded flood insurance program covers rising water. Insurance companies are required to handle the paperwork, as a price of doing business, but most people didn't carry a flood policy (even though it's cheap), unless their mortgage lender required it.---LOTECH


Eight months after Katrina, fewer than 1 in 10 New Orleans businesses had reopened.

The Small Business Administration has rejected nearly 70% of the 2.4 million loan applications received from hurricane victims.

We were told by FEMA personnel, that we must apply for an SBA loan even, or especially if we knew we weren't eligible, and even if we didn't want the loan, because the processing of the application was required, if we were to be eligible for any further monetary help (government grants, etc.).
It's not at all surprising that there was a high rejection rate, since almost everyone who walked into a Fema office, for any reason, filled out an application.---LOTECH

36 countries and international organizations donated $126 million to federal rebuilding efforts, half of which remained undistributed six months after Katrina.

FEMA spent $431 million on 11,000 trailer homes that were never used, $3 million for 4,000 unused cots, and $10 million to fix up 240 rooms in Alabama that housed only six people.

Carnival Cruise Lines got a six-month, $236 million contract to house evacuees on three of its ships, which sat half empty off the Gulf Coast for weeks.

I could have stayed on one of those ships at the Port of Pascagoula, very near my workplace. I preferred to live in a tent, in my own back yard.
You can make housing available, but you can't make people live in it.---LOTECH

The GAO found that there was insufficient oversight on 13 reconstruction contracts, including $100 million to Bechtel.

Experts predict there is a nearly 50% chance that a Category 3 or greater hurricane will hit the Gulf Coast this season.

On a scale of 1 to 10, FEMA director R. David Paulison gave the agency an 8 in terms of preparedness for this year’s hurricane season.

More than 100,000 families in Louisiana and Mississippi live in FEMA trailers that Paulison said “should not, or could not, ride out even a Category 1 storm.”

A very large number of families lived in Trailers, before Katrina,. No house-trailer, regardless of origin, can be considered a safe haven in even a Category 1 storm. ---LOTECH