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

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 . . . . . . . . .

I live close enough to the shore I can hear waves breaking on a quiet night, when there's an on-shore breeze. Though not required by my mortgage-holder (I'm in flood zone B), I carried flood insurance. A good thing for me, and my mortgage-holder, because the high-water line in my house, was over the light switches.
As a very interested observer, sitting in a FEMA trailer as I write this, I take exception when deliberately misleading statements, of any kind are made by people who, knowing nothing first hand, spout well-spun factoids; not with the intention of bettering the situation in any way, but solely to discredit one particular political leader.
There are real problems that need to be solved, but who will ever know what the problems are, if you paint everything as a problem, with the only solution to elect someone different next time? The danger in this sort of simplification is that if you can get a majority to buy that logic, we will elect someone with a different label, everyone will congratulate themselves for having provided the solution . . . and all the problems will still be there, waiting for the next Hurricane, earthquake, pandemic, or terrorist's electromagnetic-pulse dirty-bomb. -Lotech

[Saundra Hummer]

I live close enough to the shore I can hear waves breaking on a quiet night, when there's an on-shore breeze. Though not required by my mortgage-holder (I'm in flood zone B), I carried flood insurance. A good thing for me, and my mortgage-holder, because the high-water line in my house, was over the light switches.
As a very interested observer, sitting in a FEMA trailer as I write this, I take exception when deliberately misleading statements, of any kind are made by people who, knowing nothing first hand, spout well-spun factoids; not with the intention of bettering the situation in any way, but solely to discredit one particular political leader.
There are real problems that need to be solved, but who will ever know what the problems are, if you paint everything as a problem, with the only solution to elect someone different next time. The dander to this sort of simplification is that if you can get a majority to buy that logic, we will elect someone with a different label, everyone will congratulate themselves for having provided the solution . . . and all the problems will still be there, waiting for the next Hurricane, earthquake, pandemic, or terrorist's electromagnetic-pulse dirty-bomb.

Interesting take on your situation. I just hope that you have some sort of air conditioning when the hot weather hits. It's easy to warm up, but so hard to cool off in aluminum or any kind of house trailer. If safe and in a mosquito net, I would take the outdoors anytime. We used to sleep out side at our house in Hermosa Beach quite a bit. Never a worry and very few bugs of any kind there. A back yard full of kids, and when the Hawaiians came over for the Lifeguard races, we had a house and yard full of them as well. We gave them our bedrooms, the living room floor, with it's soft wool, rug, they liked that, and then there was the room off of the garage with it's shower, all the privacy they wanted there, so it was a favorite with them, letting them save their money, not having to pay for motel rooms. Talk about fun, it was that.

Isn't governement red tape something? How do you think of the mandatory filings knowing they are for rejections, rejections printed out, posted and or mailed, adding to the expense I would imagine, surely there would be an easier way to make sure one would be accepted into programs if the need should arise in the future, other than a convoluted proceedure which you mentioned. Or do you think it is a good one.

I sure hope all works out well for you. Did you lose everything, or were you able to pack up clothing, memento's and other necessities? How about family and friends. Were they all spared the drama & trauma of it all or were they in it as well? Sure hope you're doing well and that your prospects are good.

From your viewpoint, how is it all coming along down there? I know most people are all concerned with the French Quarter and it's old buildings and establishments for music and food. How is that coming along? I know there's more to New Orleans and Mississippi than what we hear of the most, but what do you hear, and see. We're hearing a lot about some serious crime, is that a big problem? Or is it about like it used to be. I've always heard it's bad down there, not just during Mardi Gras. Not the girls flashing for beads and rowdy drunkeness, but some pretty serious stuff most of the time, locals, not college kids on spring break rampages, not that they can't be a wreck.

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * * * *
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK
As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.

Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.

Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.

In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?

Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.

Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.

For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.

Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.

Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.

By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.

The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.

A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.

These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.[/

• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.

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

from the August 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[the magnificent goldberg]

* * * * * * * * * * *
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK
As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.

Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.

Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.

In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?

Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.

Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.

For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.

Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.

Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.

By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.

The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.

A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.

These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.[/

• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.

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

from the August 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Yes INDEED!

mg

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *

How Can There Be Peace, When For Years There Have Been Suicide Bombings And Policies Such As This? This Old Article Talks About Many Of The Problems Of The Palestenians.
SRH

Behind the barrier
Israelis say a new partitioning of the West Bank is critical to security. Palestinians say they'll be prisoners on their own land.
By
Nicole Gaouette
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
QALQILYA, WEST BANK - Yusif Josef Ramsi is still farming, if you can call it that. The West Bank farmer, never a major landowner, once tended his seven-acre plot of fig and olive trees with pride.

Now, what's left of his patrimony sits in a few dozen black plastic buckets.

"The rest is all over there," says Mr. Ramsi, pointing a gnarled hand beyond the sleek gray expanse of Israel's security barrier, just a few feet away.

At 26 feet high, the barrier around Qalqilya is the most striking example of Israel's attempt to physically separate itself from the Palestinians.

Israelis say the structure will end the militant attacks that have scarred their cities and left so many families in grief.

But the barrier's detours into the West Bank have claimed hundreds of acres of fertile Palestinian land, Ramsi's included, leading Palestinians to question whether security is Israel's only consideration. "We'll have a Palestinian state you can fit in a Coca-Cola bottle," Ramsi jokes bitterly.

Concerns about the barrier's route have brought it center stage. President Bush has raised it with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The State Department is proposing sanctions against Israel for construction in Palestinian areas. While Israeli officials stress the barrier's security function, Israelis outside government say it is also driven by a desire to define the borders of a Palestinian state. As such, it could derail the shaky Israeli-Palestinian peace plan now under discussion.

"[The barrier] will profoundly change the geographical and political landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," RAND Corporation analyst Bruce Hoffman wrote recently.

The barrier is also the latest manifestation of a tragic trend in this conflict, in which the long-term security that Israelis desire and the state that Palestinians envision are in danger of becoming mutually exclusive possibilities.

Some 80 percent of Israelis, tired and worn after what the army estimates are 817 deaths at the hands of Palestinian militants, want the barrier. They say physical separation is the only way to free Israelis from the fear of suicide bombers. While left-wing groups campaign against the barrier, they are in a minority. Most Israelis, after three years of conflict, want nothing to do with Palestinians.

Israeli security, Palestinian hardship
But when Israelis lay out their safety concerns, Palestinians, pointing to the barrier's path through fields, around cities, and between neighbors, see only a blueprint for their suffering.

In the short term, the barrier blocks Palestinians from their land; their livelihoods, and their access to resources like water, schools, and health care. In the long term, it will stifle economic growth and, under an Ottoman-era law still in effect, could lead to the permanent loss of land. Many Palestinians believe this is the true aim of Israel's West Bank policy.

Israelis, who remember Palestinians' widespread public support for suicide bombers, say their adversaries are simply reaping the fruits of their hatred.

"We are not punishing the Palestinians. They are punished by their leadership ... that incites them," says Judith Shahor, head of staff at the group Victims of Arab Terror, whose 19-year-old son was murdered by Palestinians in 1995.

In Qalqilya, a town of 42,000 completely encircled by the barrier, Mayor Ma'aruf Zahran says both sides will pay a price for these policies.

"We have no income, no services, no water, no land . People think about moving out, we call it 'voluntary transfer,' " he says. "Young people are looking for ways of revenge. The Israelis are planting seeds of hatred and terror."

A modest genesis
The concept of a barrier emerged in November 2000, just two months after the intifada began. Then Prime Minister Ehud Barak wanted to block Palestinian cars from crossing the Green Line, which divides Israel proper and the West Bank.

When Ariel Sharon replaced Mr. Barak in March 2001, he inherited the project but had little enthusiasm for it. Right-wing Israelis, particularly settlers living in the West Bank, were worried the barrier would entrench the Green Line as the border.

But a steady barrage of suicide bombings - 42 from March 2001 to March 2002 - and strong public support for the barrier - shifted the tide. Settlers didn't want to pit themselves against the general public and fell in line behind the barrier. However, they planned to make changes.

In April 2002, the government tapped the Ministry of Defense to oversee the project, and in August the first bulldozers bit into the earth.

What are they building is not strictly a fence, the word Israelis prefer, and only five miles of the completed 87-mile northern section is a wall, the term Palestinians use. Every few miles, there will be gates to allow farmers access to their lands. If a farmer like Ramsi couldn't get through his gate and decided to cross illegally, he would face a formidable challenge.

He would have to scale a 6-foot-high pyramid of coiled razor wire; clamber through an 8-foot ditch; cross an army patrol path, then climb a 10-foot-high fence, avoiding its intrusion-detection sensors. Around Qalqilya, concrete walls stand 26-feet high.

Once on the other side, he would land in a sea of sand meant to capture his footprints. Then, the remaining hurdles: a patrol road wide enough for a tank, another sand trap, another razor-wire pyramid, surveillance cameras, and, every few miles, a manned sniper tower.

Officials describe the barrier as an interim security measure meant to stand until conditions are sufficiently peaceful. Palestinians and Israelis alike question who would spend $2 million per half mile on a temporary fixture. Netzah Mashiah, director of the Seamline Project Administration in charge of the barrier, told Ha'aretz newspaper in May that "politicians found a formula, but I believe the fence will be the border." Settlers thought so too. Loathe to be on the "wrong" side of the barrier, they began lobbying to be on its western flank.

'We've moved the Green Line'
As mustard-yellow earth graders began leveling hills for the northern section, Palestinians watched the barrier swerve east of the Green Line, ever deeper into the West Bank's most fertile land. The 5,000-strong settlement of Alfe Menashe, just east of Qalqilya, was going to be east of the fence until its leader Eliezer Hasdai took action. Now, the barrier does a double loop, enclosing Qalqilya to the north, snaking in some 4 miles to embrace Alfe Menashe along with a substantial amount of Palestinian land.

Then it curves back out toward the Green Line, shutting the Palestinian town of Habla off from Israel and from Qalqilya, its economic hub.

Mr. Hasdai told Israeli journalist Meron Rappaport that "we've moved the Green Line." Americans will now have to decide whether politics or security concerns prompted that move, and indeed, much of the barrier's path.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that no decision has been made "at this stage" about the State Department's suggestion to dock the $9 billion in loan guarantees the US is extending Israel this year.

Under the loan guarantee agreement, the US is committed to cutting the equivalent of any money Israel derives from the guarantees and then invests in the Palestinian territories for purposes other than security.

Some observers think there's little ambiguity. "It is clear to everyone that [the barrier route] is a political line behind which there is a political outlook," David Levy, head of the settlers' Jordan Valley Council, told Ha'aretz in May.

No one yet knows what the completed barrier will look like. The Ministry of Defense planners are still mulling its final route. Even so, environmental groups, among others, have assembled maps based on government statements, media leaks, information from contractors, settler maps produced with defense ministry support, and land confiscation orders.

These orders announce, in a curious turn of phrase, that the army is "laying its hands on the land," always for security purposes and, on paper at least, only for a short-term period. Having watched numerous settlements and multi-lane highways go up in the wake of these orders, Palestinians have no faith they will see the land again.

The projected barrier map shows three Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank, hemmed in by settler access roads. One small enclave makes Jericho an island unto itself. A second encompasses Hebron and Bethlehem in the south. The third enclave extends from Jenin in the north to Ramallah, narrowing at one point to about a mile wide.

To the west, Palestinians lose swaths of land to barrier incursions that surround settlements. In the center, Jerusalem is cut off from Palestinian areas. To the east, the Jordan Valley remains in Israeli control. The enclaves are not contiguous.

Sharon watchers say the barrier route reflects his long-held beliefs about keeping control over as much land and as few Palestinians as possible. Other analysts see echoes of the Allon Plan, devised after the 1967 war and premised on the belief that keeping hold of some West Bank areas is vital.

Uzi Dayan, a former director of the National Security Council and early coordinator of the seamline project, recommended in 2002 that the barrier be built on "demographic principles." Mr. Dayan means that Palestinians, with one of the world's highest birth rates, must be contained so that their rising numbers don't threaten Israel's Jewish identity - an issue fundamental to the country's existence.

The West Bank's new look
Whatever the theory behind the barrier, its presence is already altering the political and physical terrain here. The World Bank estimates that the 87-mile section now complete directly affects 200,000 Palestinians.

Some analysts say it already short-circuits Palestinian hopes of statehood. "The wall's route is seizing some of the West Bank's most fertile land, reducing the agricultural potential of a future state, and its configuration strangles any potential for urban and economic growth," says Dutch cartographer Jan de Jong, who documents the impact of Israel's policies in the West Bank.

On the other side of the barrier, residents of the Israeli cities of Netanya and Kfar Sava, traumatized by repeated suicide bombings, say the barrier gives them a sense of security. If it means Palestinians have to truncate their dreams, so be it, they say.

"They can forget about a state in the full sense of the word," says Ephraim Inbar, director of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University. "We don't want to give them control over their own borders because they kill us."

Yet the barrier could make things worse, warns Mr. Hoffman of the RAND Corporation, who writes that the barrier could deepen Palestinian rage, prompting stepped up attacks against targets inside Israel, and on its citizens around the world.

Israelis like Mr. Inbar are unimpressed. "We've been through this for one hundred years," he says of the conflict. "We have the stamina to go on."

About this series
Even as Israelis and Palestinians renew political negotiations, Israel is bringing more Palestinian territory under its control. Settlers continue to expand their communities while officials claim land to build roads, establish buffers, and erect the barrier intended to protect Israelis from terrorist attack. These confiscations are eating more deeply into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, raising concerns about the viability of any future Palestinian state. This occasional series will examine the trend, its roots, and its implications for Palestinians and Israelis alike who have been profoundly affected by ongoing conflict.

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

from the August 08, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0808/p01s05-wome.html

Go on-site to view the other articles. Pro & Con. They give another insight to this long lived struggle, one which has only esclated with time. In this case, time hasn't healed all wounds, as no one will let it do it's job. Everyone, many nations included, keep picking at, and abraiding, the situation, until they have the whole world sitting on this powder keg we all inhabit. this earth of ours. Changes are needed and in a hurry, but it has all become so convoluted, so involved, that no one can see the forest for the trees, so we just rush towards destruction like it will be some sort of divine salvation.

Look at the rubble and suffering. Things need to change before more of the world is drawn in, and more innocents are just so much "collateral damage", which the majority of supporters of whichever side, could really care less about. It isn't them suffering, it's the enemy - so turn a hardened heart and a blind eye to it and know that one day it will end, as you believe you will have won, and winners are always right. SRH

Go on-site to view charts, maps, and other articles about Israel and Palestine. There is much, much more. Check out the following graphs & articles on-site. .

Part 1
an overview of the barrier's dimensions

Part 2
The barrier's impact on Palestinians

Part 3
Israeli victims talk about the barrier

Part 4
Jerusalem's growing web of walls

Part 5
Sharon's plans, made concrete

Map
The wall in Israel

Graphic
Fence to contain violence
[B]...
Reporters on
the Job

The Monitor gives the story behind the story.

Related stories:

07/31/03
Mideast road map hits impasse

02/27/03
Palestinians say wall is a noose

02/05/03
A week in the Middle East: Day Six

10/23/02
Palestinian statehood fades

07/10/02
After 21 months of intifada, a wall is born
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[lotech]

Interesting take on your situation. I just hope that you have some sort of air conditioning when the hot weather hits. It's easy to warm up, but so hard to cool off in aluminum or any kind of house trailer. If safe and in a mosquito net, I would take the outdoors anytime. We used to sleep out side at our house in Hermosa Beach quite a bit. Never a worry and very few bugs of any kind there. A back yard full of kids, and when the Hawaiians came over for the Lifeguard races, we had a house and yard full of them as well. We gave them our bedrooms, the living room floor, with it's soft wool, rug, they liked that, and then there was the room off of the garage with it's shower, all the privacy they wanted there, so it was a favorite with them, letting them save their money, not having to pay for motel rooms. Talk about fun, it was that.

Isn't governement red tape something? How do you think of the mandatory filings knowing they are for rejections, rejections printed out, posted and or mailed, adding to the expense I would imagine, surely there would be an easier way to make sure one would be accepted into programs if the need should arise in the future, other than a convoluted proceedure which you mentioned. Or do you think it is a good one.

I sure hope all works out well for you. Did you lose everything, or were you able to pack up clothing, memento's and other necessities? How about family and friends. Were they all spared the drama & trauma of it all or were they in it as well? Sure hope you're doing well and that your prospects are good.

From your viewpoint, how is it all coming along down there? I know most people are all concerned with the French Quarter and it's old buildings and establishments for music and food. How is that coming along? I know there's more to New Orleans and Mississippi than what we hear of the most, but what do you hear, and see. We're hearing a lot about some serious crime, is that a big problem? Or is it about like it used to be. I've always heard it's bad down there, not just during Mardi Gras. Not the girls flashing for beads and rowdy drunkeness, but some pretty serious stuff most of the time, locals, not college kids on spring break rampages, not that they can't be a wreck.

Hi Sandi,

The air-conditioning works very well. These trailers are not top-of-the-line, but there's no reason they should be. Everything works and I'm well sheltered.
The Irony is, the government regulations meant to ensure equal treatment for everyone are also the cause of many inequalities. When you apply for a trailer, you get put on a waiting list and you take what's available when your name comes up; that's after you've waded through the red tape and met with all the various inspectors and got all your "tickets punched", just to get on the list. I know of millionaires who got trailers, months before I did, not because of undue influence, but because they had time to stay on top of the process and keep their application moving.
My own application suffered from the attentions of well-meaning, but inexperienced staff. I was told multiple times that everything was on track, but to come back in x-number of days if I didn't hear anything. Finally the supervisor spotted a mistake in the computer entries that had blocked my application from further processing.
I live alone, yet I got one of the bigger trailers. One of the Engineers, where I work, is a Vietnamese lady with six in her family. They got some kind of pop-up camper with a refrigerator so small, when she puts a gallon of milk in it, there's no room for anything else. The Vietnamese are small people, but they're not that small! I think they actually got priority, because of the number in the household, but luck of the draw gave them less than what they needed.
There are federal laws, with jail time attached, that keep anyone at ground-level from trying to make it all work better. I had to sign a paper stating that only I, the assigned resident, would live here. This is to keep people from renting out beds, or even whole trailers, but it can have unintended consequences.
I've heard of people who wanted to swap trailers, so the larger one could go to the larger family. Can't do that.
I've heard of people finally getting a trailer, after they had resolved their housing problem themselves and trying to get their trailer given to their next door neighbors, who were still waiting. Can't do that, either.
They asked, "Can we set it up on our property and let our neighbors stay in it?" Most definitely not allowed.
I don't know how to streamline the process, but I mention these things to make this point: A lot of what appears to be the result of ineptitude or wrongdoing, actually is caused by earnest people doing their very best to follow the letter of the law.
The law that really holds sway, is the law of unintended consequences. If we are to improve our ability to respond to emergencies, we must keep that law in the fore-front of our consciousness. I would suggest that FEMA, as an essential element of our homeland security forces, should adopt a technique used to great profit by the military. The core-staff (Most of the staff are sort of like draftees; brought in on response to a real emergency, but not part of the permanent staff.) should engage in regular "war-games", trying out the standard response against various known threats, and a few strictly hypothetical threats.
Guidelines are absolutely necessary, nothing will work at all, without them, but it's probable that no standard set will work well, in every scenario. Perhaps we need response "packages", for a variety of scenarios, each with it's own user-friendly software package, to guide the minimally trained responders.
One very big problem, that doesn't ever seem to get mentioned is communications. Even though we had a FEMA office here within a day or so (we heard about it on the police scanner), A trip up there, burning very-precious gasoline, would get you informed that you first had to get a registration number. All you had to do is call the FEMA 800-number, or go online to www.fema.gov. Easily said, impossible to do, when almost all links to the outside have been erased.
We finally got through, by staying at the cell-phone for hours, far into the night, waiting to get a signal, then dialing and dialing and dialing . . . Then we got cut off before I could register; it took me two more nights, just to get a number, so the FEMA person with her boots-on-the-ground, so to speak, would be able to even talk to me.
If an outside communications channel is what is required of disaster victims, in order to get help, then FEMA should be prepared to set it up themselves, before they do anything else!!! Gasoline was impossible to get. To be required to make multiple trips to the FEMA office, just to get the ball rolling, is unacceptable.

As far as the SBA-loan applications goes, it doe's make some sense. Why give someone a grant, when they're eligible for an almost no-interest loan? That can only be determined by processing an application.
What I took exception to, was the use of a single statistic, context-omitted, to "prove" that the SBA was not doing their job.

Did I lose everything? The little girl, down the street, asked me that. Her house suffered the same as mine, I'm sure she had heard adults talking about "losing everything". I told her, "I was lucky to have what I had, and I was lucky I got to keep, what I got to keep." That describes most of us, and as Forest Gump said, "That's all I got to say about that."
People died during the storm, about four-hundred yards from where I stood under a car-port, in the back of a pickup-truck, watching unmanned sailboats race between my friend's neighbor's houses. Perspective makes all the difference.
I am doing well and my prospects are indeed, very good.

The town I live in, Ocean Springs, is older than New Orleans; it was the original French settlement in the Mississippi Valley, founded by the same brothers who founded the Crescent City.
I used to wonder, why did they choose to build a city where you have to pump the water out, all the time? The answer was made evident by the flood. Where the original city was, the French Quarter, is the only high-ground around. It's the only place where there was any dry ground at all. Termites are the biggest danger to the historic buildings in that small section and the adjacent flooding has only made a very big problem, worse.
I haven't been to New Orleans in years, so I can't give any first-hand observations, but the crime has always been bad and I doubt the storm, or the city governments reactions to it, have improved anything.

Thanks for your good-wishes! -Lotech

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Sixty Western wildfires stretch crews to limit

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- For the first time since 2003, federal land management agencies are being asked to make more employees available to fight wildfires because crews and equipment have been stretched to the limit by nearly 60 major blazes around the West.

The National Interagency Fire Center over the weekend raised its response status to the highest threat level, a move triggered when nearly all available crews and firefighting resources are committed.

The move allows federal firefighting coordinators to summon additional federal employees, military reinforcements and foreign fire crews if necessary.

"It frees up what we call the militia -- agency employees whose regular job may be as a biologist or realty specialist but who are trained in fire duty and can now be called up to help," said Randy Eardley, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management spokesman at the federal firefighting center in Boise.

More than 24,000 firefighters were working on fires across the West on Monday, including 58 large fires of 500 acres or more.

The biggest active fire in the country was in northern Nevada, where nearly 300 square miles of grass and sagebrush had burned. It was 10 percent contained Monday, and fire bosses had no estimate when it would be surrounded.

No homes were in immediate danger, though one outbuilding had been destroyed, said Jamie Thompson of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Winnemucca, Nevada.

More people were told to evacuate Monday from areas south of Chadron, Nebraska, on the fourth day of fires that have scorched nearly 80 square miles.

About 45 to 50 people were affected by the latest evacuation orders, and hundreds of others evacuated over the weekend were kept from their homes.

Four rural houses have been destroyed and several more damaged since lightning sparked the fires last week.

In Montana, more firefighters, equipment and aircraft arrived Monday as crews fought to corral a fire that blew up rapidly in Glacier National Park over the weekend, fanned by strong winds and blistering heat.

Firefighters got some relief Monday with calmer winds and lower temperatures, but officials said the fire -- estimated at 34 square miles -- still posed a threat to the gateway community of St. Mary.

The blaze came within a mile of the town over the weekend. The National Park Service on Sunday evacuated its administrative site there, as well as several area campgrounds.

Most of the park remained open to visitors, officials said.

Residents of a subdivision in central Oregon were allowed to return late Monday as crews tamed a fire there, though evacuation orders remained in effect for another 500 residents of two subdivisions near the tourist town of Sisters.

The subdivisions appear to be protected from the 14-square mile fire, which is 30 percent contained, said Scott Brayton, a fire spokesman.

An evacuation order was also lifted for several dozen residents near Weaverville in northern California after a wildfire that destroyed one home calmed down.

In Idaho, a 5-square-mile fire in the mountains fed on bug-killed evergreen stands as it neared a cluster of vacation homes and a mining museum.

More than 70,600 timber and range fires have burned on federal land so far this year, higher than the 10-year average of 50,984, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Because of unusually large early-season range fires in Texas and Oklahoma, the acreage burned so far in 2006 is 5.5 million, compared with a 10-year average of 3 million acres for the same period.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01/wildfires.ap/index.html


Rich has an aquaintence who was a smoke jumper, and later on when his age made fighting fires as a jumper somewhat more difficult, he then switched over to management. As a manager, he was managing the crews who were filling tankers, doing dangerous and difficult jobs none the less, very dangerous he tells Rich.

He is totally disgusted with the system that is operating now. He believe's the man in charge of the Air Station he worked out of, is nothing but a political hack. The man he is telling Rich about, is in his opinion out to make his brownie points at the expense of the men & women under him as well as at the expense of the forest, the animals, wild and domestic, the people and their homes. He really has concerns for the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line to protect it all. He believes their lives have been made much more dangerous than ever before. Man made dangers.

It is about making points, by short cuts and not being sensible about it. Also cutting short monies needed. Under cutting proposed as probable expenses for equipement, chemicals, man hours, etc. It's another way to manipulate the system, leaving the needed firefighting manpower, equipment, and chemicals, etc., short. So after being given an order which he told Rich he thought harmful and dangerous to others, he wrote his letter of resignation and after two weeks, he was out of there. Pity, as we need men like him in positions of influence, not the type who oftentimes are, making life and death choices without the gray matter to do so. Or at least they don't live up to their potential as they are too busy manipulating the system to make themselves look oh so good.

Let's just hope that no one dies due to his shortcutting the system, a good one for most happenings, but not perfect, however in inept hands, the system fails, the system has failed us, and lets just hope again that it doesn't continue to do so.

He believes that the government decision of bringing pilots from back east will turn into a disaster, because they aren't familiar with the air currents, that jumpers will die, they will burn, as the three young kids did on Storm King Mountain, in Colorado. I used to see them almost every day jogging down our road, and to learn of how they died was tragic. New to smoke jumping and not savey in the way of fires, to the extent that they didn't do the right thing to escape, going uphill instead of parallel to the fire. and they died in Colorado, and others did in that fire as well.

There's got to be some good intelligent hardworking people, honorable people, out there somewhere. Not just those trying to raise up their own selves. How is it that people like he was talking about run the show? How can it be "All political"?
SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Sandi,

The air-conditioning works very well. These trailers are not top-of-the-line, but there's no reason they should be. Everything works and I'm well sheltered.
The Irony is, the government regulations meant to ensure equal treatment for everyone are also the cause of many inequalities. When you apply for a trailer, you get put on a waiting list and you take what's available when your name comes up; that's after you've waded through the red tape and met with all the various inspectors and got all your "tickets punched", just to get on the list. I know of millionaires who got trailers, months before I did, not because of undue influence, but because they had time to stay on top of the process and keep their application moving.
My own application suffered from the attentions of well-meaning, but inexperienced staff. I was told multiple times that everything was on track, but to come back in x-number of days if I didn't hear anything. Finally the supervisor spotted a mistake in the computer entries that had blocked my application from further processing.
I live alone, yet I got one of the bigger trailers. One of the Engineers, where I work, is a Vietnamese lady with six in her family. They got some kind of pop-up camper with a refrigerator so small, when she puts a gallon of milk in it, there's no room for anything else. The Vietnamese are small people, but they're not that small! I think they actually got priority, because of the number in the household, but luck of the draw gave them less than what they needed.
There are federal laws, with jail time attached, that keep anyone at ground-level from trying to make it all work better. I had to sign a paper stating that only I, the assigned resident, would live here. This is to keep people from renting out beds, or even whole trailers, but it can have unintended consequences.
I've heard of people who wanted to swap trailers, so the larger one could go to the larger family. Can't do that.
I've heard of people finally getting a trailer, after they had resolved their housing problem themselves and trying to get their trailer given to their next door neighbors, who were still waiting. Can't do that, either.
They asked, "Can we set it up on our property and let our neighbors stay in it?" Most definitely not allowed.
I don't know how to streamline the process, but I mention these things to make this point: A lot of what appears to be the result of ineptitude or wrongdoing, actually is caused by earnest people doing their very best to follow the letter of the law.
The law that really holds sway, is the law of unintended consequences. If we are to improve our ability to respond to emergencies, we must keep that law in the fore-front of our consciousness. I would suggest that FEMA, as an essential element of our homeland security forces, should adopt a technique used to great profit by the military. The core-staff (Most of the staff are sort of like draftees; brought in on response to a real emergency, but not part of the permanent staff.) should engage in regular "war-games", trying out the standard response against various known threats, and a few strictly hypothetical threats.
Guidelines are absolutely necessary, nothing will work at all, without them, but it's probable that no standard set will work well, in every scenario. Perhaps we need response "packages", for a variety of scenarios, each with it's own user-friendly software package, to guide the minimally trained responders.
One very big problem, that doesn't ever seem to get mentioned is communications. Even though we had a FEMA office here within a day or so (we heard about it on the police scanner), A trip up there, burning very-precious gasoline, would get you informed that you first had to get a registration number. All you had to do is call the FEMA 800-number, or go online to www.fema.gov. Easily said, impossible to do, when almost all links to the outside have been erased.
We finally got through, by staying at the cell-phone for hours, far into the night, waiting to get a signal, then dialing and dialing and dialing . . . Then we got cut off before I could register; it took me two more nights, just to get a number, so the FEMA person with her boots-on-the-ground, so to speak, would be able to even talk to me.
If an outside communications channel is what is required of disaster victims, in order to get help, then FEMA should be prepared to set it up themselves, before they do anything else!!! Gasoline was impossible to get. To be required to make multiple trips to the FEMA office, just to get the ball rolling, is unacceptable.

As far as the SBA-loan applications goes, it doe's make some sense. Why give someone a grant, when they're eligible for an almost no-interest loan? That can only be determined by processing an application.
What I took exception to, was the use of a single statistic, context-omitted, to "prove" that the SBA was not doing their job.

Did I lose everything? The little girl, down the street, asked me that. Her house suffered the same as mine, I'm sure she had heard adults talking about "losing everything". I told her, "I was lucky to have what I had, and I was lucky I got to keep, what I got to keep." That describes most of us, and as Forest Gump said, "That's all I got to say about that."
People died during the storm, about four-hundred yards from where I stood under a car-port, in the back of a pickup-truck, watching unmanned sailboats race between my friend's neighbor's houses. Perspective makes all the difference.
I am doing well and my prospects are indeed, very good.

The town I live in, Ocean Springs, is older than New Orleans; it was the original French settlement in the Mississippi Valley, founded by the same brothers who founded the Crescent City.
I used to wonder, why did they choose to build a city where you have to pump the water out, all the time? The answer was made evident by the flood. Where the original city was, the French Quarter, is the only high-ground around. It's the only place where there was any dry ground at all. Termites are the biggest danger to the historic buildings in that small section and the adjacent flooding has only made a very big problem, worse.
I haven't been to New Orleans in years, so I can't give any first-hand observations, but the crime has always been bad and I doubt the storm, or the city governments reactions to it, have improved anything.

Thanks for your good-wishes! -Lotech

You're welcome and if you were a girl, I would send you some clothing. I tried to do that when Katrina was new news, but no takers, I guess they had lots of new clothing items given to them by lots of manufacturers, and by private individuals as well, so I had no one wanting what I had offered, not one person, which was a surprise.

Anyway:

Rich says the thing going on with this silly red tape thing the government is so fond of wrapping us all up in, is this: It keeps many of their offices open and their people at work. It's like going out to buy light bulbs, they, the lightbulb manufacturers took out the long lasting element in them, replacing it with aluminum, just so they can keep their factories open and profitable. Every month, new bulbs were needed it seemed, not the three to four years (and longer, as our friends had one at their store that was over 80 years old and left it lit out in front of their store, never turning it off) the brass filament ones lasted. They were not making it with Brass, and some manufacturer went under their bulbs lasted so long. Nothing needed replacing nor fixed to work better. Not complaining about their need to keep things profitable, but that is going on with government as well, because if there weren't all of this red tape, where would the attorney's be who draw all of this up, their stenographers and any other needed employees to keep an office up and running, then how about the printers, the paper companies, the office equipment manufacturer's, telephone answering machines, live and recorded help? The cars to take them to and from work, the buildings they are in, with all of their other furnishings. It is's a vast industry, and every time Rich runs into a backwards policy or person enacting such policies, he believes and say's it's job protection, all at our expense. Without that senseless merry-go-round of government convoluted red tape, a lot of them would be without jobs. Looking out for number one again? A vast Red-Tape Conspiracy??? Ha, maybe he's right?

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace

By
Jimmy Carter

Stop The Band-Aid Treatment
By
Jimmy Carter

There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians.

08/01/06 "Washington Post' -- -- The Middle East is a tinderbox, with some key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.

This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed this past weekend and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago. As before there were expressions of "deep regret," a promise of "immediate investigation" and the explanation that dropped leaflets had warned families in the region to leave their homes. The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners. Yet yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected a cease-fire.

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we in the international community owe them our strong leadership and support.

Former president Carter is the founder of the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14313.htm

[lotech]

You're welcome and if you were a girl, I would send you some clothing. I tried to do that when Katrina was new news, but no takers, I guess they had lots of new clothing items given to them by lots of manufacturers, and by private individuals as well, so I had no one wanting what I had offered, not one person, which was a surprise.

Anyway:

Rich says the thing going on with this silly red tape thing the government is so fond of wrapping us all up in, is this: It keeps many of their offices open and their people at work. It's like going out to buy light bulbs, they, the lightbulb manufacturers took out the long lasting element in them, replacing it with aluminum, just so they can keep their factories open and profitable. Every month, new bulbs were needed it seemed, not the three to four years (and longer, as our friends had one at their store that was over 80 years old and left it lit out in front of their store, never turning it off) the brass filament ones lasted. They were not making it with Brass, and some manufacturer went under their bulbs lasted so long. Nothing needed replacing nor fixed to work better. Not complaining about their need to keep things profitable, but that is going on with government as well, because if there weren't all of this red tape, where would the attorney's be who draw all of this up, their stenographers and any other needed employees to keep an office up and running, then how about the printers, the paper companies, the office equipment manufacturer's, telephone answering machines, live and recorded help? The cars to take them to and from work, the buildings they are in, with all of their other furnishings. It is's a vast industry, and every time Rich runs into a backwards policy or person enacting such policies, he believes and say's it's job protection, all at our expense. Without that senseless merry-go-round of government convoluted red tape, a lot of them would be without jobs. Looking out for number one again? A vast Red-Tape Conspiracy??? Ha, maybe he's right?

I tend to agree with the notion that bureaucracies have survival instincts more powerful than those of any other monster.

The light-bulb theory, which I've seen elsewhere as well, I think is more of an "urban legend". The actual filaments can't be made from brass or aluminum; their melting points are far too low.
The base(the part with the threads on it), which used to be made from brass, is now, almost always aluminum. The reason is an economic one; the profit margin on an inexpensive manufactured item like light bulbs, is low; the price of brass, per pound is significantly higher than aluminum and aluminum is lighter, so you get more actual material per pound. When the first aluminum base bulbs came out, those companies slow to switch may well have gone under, but it would have been because they couldn't compete, price-wise, not because their product was too good.
I feel sure that if brass bulbs really did last longer, one manufacturer would make a line of bulbs with that feature, advertise the reason it was better and wipe the floor with any competitors that didn't follow suite.

Rich's take on the mechanisms driving the exponential expansion of red-tape, I think, has much merit. I've long thought that the reason so many routine transactions require the services of a lawyer is because most of our lawmakers are lawyers, and the reason the tax system is so complicated and fraught with danger, is because those bureaucrats who the lawmakers entrust to write the tax codes (Internal Revenue Service? What service?) are all accountants. In or out of government, there's plenty of high-paying jobs for these guys.

[Saundra Hummer]

Lotech, the thing about the light bulb company going out of business is true I believe. I'm pretty sure I read about it at one time or another this past year. They were making such a good product that it wasn't being replaced often enough to keep the company afloat. They talked about other companies doing that as well in the beginning. I'm sure that happened with more than a few other companies as well so now, like with appliances, they are geared to a ten year replacement, not that they won't and don't last longer, as we have appliance's which were bought 13 years ago and they are running fine, but our washer went out, a part wore out and it is has a worn area which makes it bang terribly loud, luckily we have my mothers and fathers which we bought at the sale they had. We had to turn to it.

I know that aluminum wiring has been banned here where we live in all new buildings, it just isn't allowed, as it was causing fires, terrible ones. They say it just melted????

The place where I used to buy the long lasting bulbs, wish I could find them again, told me they lasted longer because of the brass filliment, the aluminum ones we were getting which were Sylvania lasted a total of three weeks, at least with the ones we were using a lot.

Anytime we run into craziness with the government, and we have a lot, Rich just looks at me and says, "Job Security", and he's dead serious. It just irritates the heck out of him, saying if he did such as they do, he wouldn't have a job, he'd be fired and he'd deserve to be. Ha.

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * * * *

Sadly, the Plural of "Fiasco" Requires No "E"

By
Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 01 August 2006

But the world desperately needs an "E" for EXIT from the march of folly toward a wider Middle East war that is increasingly likely to result from plural US foreign policy fiascos - in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, for starters; in Syria and Iran for the next stage. Fortunately, Webster's does allow the insertion of an "E" and that's precisely what we must now do. We need to make a prompt exit from the endless string of fiascoes that have the Middle East marching to calamity.

If we do not take a sober look beyond the carnage of the last few weeks and weigh the reaction of still others in and outside the region, I fear there will be no exit. Perhaps it would be wise to start with a brief review: Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?

Ideologues and Amateurs

Let's begin with the new people and policies that President George W. Bush brought in with him when he took office on January 20, 2001. Who urged on him what Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings calls "the huge mistake of giving Israel a blank check?" Who played the leading roles in encouraging Bush to let slip the dogs of war on Iraq?

Honors for the leading role in the category of fiasco goes, ex aequo, to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," as described by Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret.). At an award ceremony, the cabal no doubt would offer copious thanks to key members of the cast - first and foremost, ideologues Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The Oscar for best actress in a supporting role goes to Condoleezza Rice.

It was five and a half years ago that Rice was formally initiated into the neo-conservative brotherhood as an auxiliary. Her most important service was greasing the skids for the brothers to try to shoehorn into reality their ambitious but naive dreams of using war to ensure total US/Israeli domination of the Middle East. At the new administration's first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001, then-national security adviser Rice stage-managed formal approval of two profound changes in decades-long US policy toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Thanks to Paul O'Neill, confirmed as treasury secretary just hours before the NSC meeting, we have a first-hand account.

The neo-cons had already gotten to the new president, for he began with the abrupt announcement that he was ditching the policy of past presidents who tried to honestly broker an end to the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Rather, the president said the US would now tilt sharply toward Israel. Most importantly, Bush made it clear that he would let then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon resolve the conflict as he saw fit. The US would no longer "interfere."

Powell: Dead Man Walking

According to O'Neill, Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed "startled," and warned that US disengagement would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. Bush shrugged dismissively, adding, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things."

After his requiem for the decades of US sweat and blood expended on the effort to work out a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the president turned immediately to Iraq. Rice led off by reciting the received wisdom of the neo-cons (I still wonder how many of them actually believed it...) that, "Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region." Whereupon, at her request, then-CIA Director George Tenet displayed a grainy overhead image of a factory in Iraq that he happened to have with him. Tenet thought the factory "might" be associated with a chemical or biological weapons program, but that association could not be confirmed. No problem. The conversation immediately turned from this typically Tenet-ative "intelligence" to the question of which Iraqi targets to begin bombing.

O'Neill, just inducted into the cabinet but not into the neo-conservative brotherhood, was understandably nonplussed. He says he found it all quite curious and left the meeting convinced that, for reasons never fully explained, "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus."

The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neo-conservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the January 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (#3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush

Dr. Rice Becomes Dr. No

There is a certain poetic justice in the fact that Rice, now secretary of state, is reaping the whirlwind. She has been trapped in the extremely awkward position of having to say "No" to a cease-fire to stop the burgeoning violence, and then being mocked by the Israelis who openly violated the cease-fire they had promised her.

Still an innocent abroad, Rice has loyally played piano accompaniment for the neo-con hit song, "Reshaping the Entire Region." She has, for example, described the violence in Lebanon and Israel as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." On Friday, President Bush declared, "This is a moment of intense conflict ... yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."

Bush's remark elicited uncharacteristically acerbic ridicule from Richard Haass, who served under Bush as head of policy planning at the State Department. (Yes, this is the same Haass who in July 2002 begged Rice for an appointment with the president, whom he wanted to warn of the folly of invading Iraq. Rice reportedly told him, "The decision's been made; don't waste your breath.") Referring to Bush's remarks on Friday, Haass, now head of the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's optimism, according to a report by Peter Baker in yesterday's Washington Post. "That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time," said Haass. "If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"

It is far from funny. Rather, it is amateur-hour again at the White House, with Rice acting as the president's personal secretary under instruction to do what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons tell her to do. The results have been entirely predictable. Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has US stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing US setback from which it will take decades to recover. The ramifications are region-wide; but looking at Lebanon alone, one of my former CIA colleagues observed:

"The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes for the former are being dashed."

Meanwhile Back in Baghdad
-
More "Last Throes"

In terms of those killed, Iraq was even more violent than Lebanon over the past week, but Western media put Iraqi developments on the back burner.

-Last Tuesday, President Bush told the press, "Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops." Bush observed that: "Conditions change inside a country. And the question is: Are we going to be facile enough (sic) to change with [them]." Some 4,000 US troops are being sent from elsewhere in Iraq to reinforce Baghdad. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted on July 28 that this "reverses last month's decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad ... and represents a dramatic setback for the US and the Iraqi government." Highly respected military analyst Anthony Cordesman has expressed the same view.

Secretary Rumsfeld approved General George Casey's request to extend the Iraq tour of a 3,700-strong Stryker brigade, which had been scheduled to return to the US this summer. And the Pentagon announced that the number of US troops in Iraq rose last week to 132,000 - the highest level since May. In a command performance in June, General Casey reportedly gave Bush a plan for withdrawing 7,000 troops before the mid-term elections - a plan that may now be overtaken by events.

Whether he intended to or not, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, also fielding questions from the press, virtually redefined the mission of US troops. Addressing what he called the "new challenge," Hadley said, "This isn't about insurgency. This isn't about terror. This is about sectarian violence." The number of sectarian killings has doubled since the start of the year. Press reports indicate that many Sunnis are even afraid to go out to retrieve the bodies of relatives in Baghdad's overflowing morgues, lest they too become prey to Shia militia. The very large unanswered question: Is that why our troops lie exposed in the middle - to stop Iraqis from killing one another?

Richard Armitage, who was Secretary Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department, warned that bringing in more troops at this late stage may prove to be "too little too late, and that the US will turn into a bystander in an Iraqi civil war it does not have sufficient resources to prevent." Western press reports suggest that this may already be the case; with virtually everyone below the rank of general admitting that lack of troops is a major problem. At the same time, it is universally recognized that requesting more troops would sound the death knell for one's career.

One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional US forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with US troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IUDs. US officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the US green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Colonel Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of US supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area.

Former adviser to the US occupation authority in Iraq, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, has said, "The Shia-led Interior Ministry is out of control." There is a strong move afoot in the Iraqi Parliament to replace the interior minister.
Otherwise, all is going according to plan - or so the Bush administration and FOX News Channel would have us believe. It has become increasingly difficult to put a positive spin on all this. Now and again, out of desperation, a PR person will reach for the all-too-familiar chestnut: "We have not once been defeated in battle."

Many years ago, Army Colonel Harry Summers learned the hard way not to use this one. At the end of the war in Vietnam, Summers received orders to negotiate with North Vietnamese Army Colonel Tu the terms of the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam. Summers could not resist reminding Tu, "You know you never beat us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu paused for a moment: "That may be so," he said. "But also irrelevant."

Many of us in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been writing and shouting for 33 months that this war is UNWINNABLE. It is now time for Americans interested in justice, sanity and peace to draw the appropriate conclusions and summon the courage to stick our necks out. For it is simply not right to ask our troops in Iraq to play referee between factions and "stay the course" for us, on the off chance we might get lucky and "reshape the entire region." -------- Ray McGovern is on the Steering Group of VIPS. He draws on his experience as an Army infantry and intelligence officer and a 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080106A.shtml -------

[lotech]

Sandi: I don't think one company could hurt itself making lightbulbs that lasted forever, not until it had driven every other company out of business with it's superior product.

Aluminum wiring was a bad idea from the beginning, for two reasons: Aluminum has a high coefficient of expansion relative to brass, copper or any other likely conductive material and the film of aluminum oxide that begins forming as soon as aluminum is exposed to air, is a very good insulator.
The heating and cooling of the wires and the fixtures causes unequal expansion in all mechanical joints in the wiring, causing the joints to loosen. Loose joints = poor connections = more resistance = heating of the joint = greater unequal expansion, until the resistance is so great, the heat produced melts the wire, starts a fire, or both.
The poor conductivity of the oxide coating on the wire adds to the resistance in the joints, speeding the cycle.


Aluminum wiring is how the Vietnam War killed people in the United States.

I'll bet you've never heard that.
The price of copper went so high, as a result of high demand for making military ammunition, aluminum wiring became an accepted alternative, in the late '60s, early '70s.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

[Saundra Hummer]

Thought I'd try to pull that site up Lotech, but can't find it, however here is an interesting one with readers comments, and some supposedly long lasting lightbulbs. I need some as we go through them like crazy, I think a lot of the problem is power surges, which the withstand a bit better. I'll see if I can find the story, but it may not even be up on the web anylonger.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/02/lightbulb_20_Lightbulb 2.0: Double the Life, Halve the Materials
February 13, 2005 05:44 AM -
In Design Boom's RE-think RE-cycle competition, Mahendra Chauhan and Sanjay Rajput from India propose a novel, extremely TreeHugger way to double the life of the common lightbulb.

Their concept: a typical lightbulb is 35 grams, 0.5 grams of which is the tungsten filament. The tungsten fails, the bulb is pitched, 35 grams of materials out the window. Add an extra filament and 2 extra contacts and when the first filament fails, you can rotate the bulb 90 degrees and get a whole other lifetime from the same bulb.

Old way: 35 grams. x number of hours. Effort to buy, change bulb.
New way: 35.5 grams. 2x number of hours. Less effort to "change" bulb.

Now that's what we're talkin' bout people! Nice work Mahendra
and Sanjay! And good for ::DesignBoom for making this contest happen.

::Contest Entry Here

One thought: It looks to TreeHugger like you could just as easily
have 3 filaments and 3 sets of contacts. That would triple the life
of the bulb. Is this thinking flawed? Please comment below.

Like this kind of thinking? Check out some of our recent posts
by John Laumer.

Getting more life from your coffee bodum

Lifecycle thinking and your multi-function Swiss-Army knife

Building your own hybrid desklamp



24
Comments
Similar stories from Technorati » Treehugger / prototypes /
Comments
The average incandescent bulb lasts around 300 hours. Doubled, this would be 600. The typical fluorescent lasts 10,000 hours and uses half the energy. Its a nice idea, but the math doesn't really add up. What about working on a cleaner-burning candle?Posted by: Severn
.
there's no reason why it won't work. However, it just won't be applied to the mass market anytime soon other than a "gimmick" or audience appeaser.

However, what is not commonly known is that the filaments that all light-bulbs have inside them are designed to be "time-dependent", there's a built-in obsolesce. Each filaments are specifically created to fail at a certain X amount of hours.

Yes, as amazing as it is, those light bulb companies can easily design light-bulbs that would run forever, but it doesn't make a great economic practice/sense for them. They would be literally putting themselves out of business.

The money is in replacements of the individual light-bulbs.

It doesn't require a lot of engineering ingenuity to develop a fail-proof filaments. In fact, it has already been done, patented, and hidden away. It all is dependent upon the very material used to drive the current/heat (the filament itself). The answer is just to simply swap the material itself with a stronger form of alloy with a single cell lattice. Job done.

think of it this way. .

if you were going to take an aluminum paper clip, and bent it continuously , it will eventually snap apart, right? That same concept applies to the Filament. Now. . imagine you had a paper clip made out of rubber, you would just keep on bending it . .will it snap? . .no. . why? . .different properties, different characteristics, and different results :)

I'm an engineer btw :) Any engineer with a basic knowledge of material science will tell you this :)

WILLIAM
If you really wanted some interesting light bulbs. Look no further than LEDS. They last 500K hours. If you can put them in a cluster, you have LED cluster that's as bright as an incandescent bulb, that sucks 1/8th the power of a typical fluorescent. They're nearly indestructible and emit almost no heat.
Posted by: William


automotive bulbs often have two filaments, one for high beam, one for low... No reason you could not have two equal filaments.
Posted by: jimf |


"Yes, as amazing as it is, those light bulb companies can easily design light-bulbs that would run forever, but it doesn't make a great economic practice/sense for them. They would be literally putting themselves out of business."
That's a false economy. Clearly any company which did release an infinite-lasting light bulb, would steal all the business from every other company selling light bulbs. It would be the _other_ companies which went out of business, before the company which did it.
Posted by: Trejkaz
.
I agree with 100% William...
Instead of spending time re-inventing the light bulb, non-filament, solid state devices are the future of lighting.
Bulbs are cheap, easy and readily available, but filaments based lighting creates light as well as heat.
As we all know, heat equals loss of power.
LEDs emit very little heat aren't bothered by heat, cold or vibration. LEDs don't produce RF, UV or EMF "and" within this year will be as efficient as incandescent and fluorescents.
Although pricing for LED devices often scare away consumers, expect cost and energy requirements to decrease as output increases.
I await the day when filament based lighting will be phased out, but most likely won't live to see it.
Posted by: Mike Hollibaugh
.

Actually, they've said that if you take a UK bulb that normally withstands 250V current, and use in the US with only 120V, the bulb should last indefinitely. I think the math was around 1000 or more years... So if you want an everlasting bulb, just import from the UK.

Posted by: Chris Chung | February 14, 2005 06:24 PM | flag a problem


It's not going to work most of the time.

The reason most of these bulbs go out is the vacume or the gas thats inside is leaking.
Posted by: Low
.
Multi filament lamps aren't new (think tri-lights). Rotating the bulb to change filaments would require an adapter socket (in North America at least) and it could be tricky to use.
Flourescents are a better idea to save money and minimize bulb changing; halogens if colour balance is important or if flouresents won't fit.
Posted by: George
.
Heat. Simple. The long life bulbs were made from great items that withstand heat. Having two items in the bulb will allow you to swap heat source. But while the other one is waiting arounf for its day as the sun, it will be subject to, yes, heat. Reduction in the overlife of the spare is the result. Edison had a bulb that is still going. Why? Heat Management!
LED lights are already here and will be cost effective before long.
Posted by: Steve
.
Well, you always hear about how company X could make a bulb that lasts forever but they won't because they want to be able to sell you more bulbs later --
You hear this about incandescent bulbs and it is an outright lie. While you can make very long lasting incandescents, they have serious drawbacks making them unappealing for either the manufacturer or the consumer. They will either be very low lumen, very fragile, very expensive (due to materials), or take a very long time to warm up to their full light output.
If you want a "forever" bulb, buy LED fixtures/bulbs. If you want the best tradeoff for economy without an initial purchase price that breaks the bank, go with CFL. If you want the widest selection of bulbs, go with incandescent/halogen/whatever.
I'm all for thinking different about the lightbulb, and I applaud the designers for thinking it up -- it's creative; however, the idea is half baked at best:
1) The design would not work in many (maybe most) light sockets. Requiring a specific socket design with the contact either on a centerline or offset around the ring limits the existing sockets this would work with. In other sockets, it may be impossible to prevent both filaments from having contacts at the same time - meaning twice the light; twice the heat; half the life. There's no way to argue economy if you have to replace your fixtures just to make the bulb work.
2) Bulbs fail mainly due to heat, oxidation, or vibration. Both filaments are going to be worn due to heat whenever the other one is on. If you hit a bulb hard enough or vibrate it long enough to break one of the filaments, you'll likely break them both. If a bulb has a very slow leak, poor seal, etc. or othrwise allows oxygen into the bulb, the filaments are going to burn out faster. Both of them will.
3) It already exists. 3-way bulbs contain two filaments that are activated either seperately or together at each of the three light levels. They require special fixtures, but essentially so does this design.
A practical implementation of this idea would be to produce an adaptor to screw onto the bottom or a 3 way bulb to activate one or the other filament seperately from a normal (non-3-way) base; however, the economics don't actually stack up.
Posted by: John Laur
.
Umm, ok, twice the light, half the materials, UNTIL you run into every house on the planet and rip out the existing light sockets and toss them in the land-fill.
To be a good solution, you must take into account existing infrastructure.
Let's work more on efficient flourescent or LED lighting. Try to get the cost of LED lighting down and more people will use it.
Posted by: Anton |
.
Are you guys stupid.
Normal light bulb socket
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Adaptor socket sold with the lightbulb
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
New bulb with 2 filiments or three.
Then just have the option to buy the lightbulb with or without an adaptor.
ROFL at throwing out all the current sockets.
Posted by: Mike
..
look, the problem with this idea is it doesn't solve the main gripe people have with incandescent bulbs. I don't give a flying rat's ass if I have to change a bulb in my desk lamp. What pisses me off is when I have to change a bulb in my stairwell. If I have to get up on a ladder to give this bulb a half-turn then wtf am I actually getting? This design offers people nothing in the situations they actually care about: bulb longevity in hard-to-reach places. It will fail.
Posted by: Anonymous
.
omg i have this great idea where you put 7 filaments in the lightbulb;
i call it lightbulb 7.0, and it's 3.5x cooler than your idea
Posted by: rofltoffle |
...
Dual filament bulbs used to be quite common in the US, with a light fitting that allowed you to use (say) 40W only, 60W only or both 40W+60W as a three-way dimmer.
But I'd guess the economics favour long-life fluorescents today, and white LEDs soon.
By the way, you can always extend the life of a burnt-out bulb by putting it in the microwave (Google for details first, can be dangerous if done incorrectly.)
Posted by: Andrew Yeomans
...

ou may have cut the cost of materials by approximately 50% by doubling the life of the bulb (which still doesn't stand up to the efficiency of CFL and LED lighting, as others have pointed out), but you've done pretty much nothing to the cost of labor for bulb replacement, which is one of the major costs of incandescent technology. You still need a guy to come by every X hours to give the bulb a turn, where X is the same as it was with a more traditional incandescent bulb design.
Posted by: Cheng-Jih Chen | ebruary 15, 2005 08:51 AM | flag a problem
...
Wow, who would have thought a lightbulb to sollicit so much conversation... how many treehuggers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Technically, a second filament would be subject to the same stress as the first, even while standing idle. So chances are the second filament wouldn't last nearly as long as the first once put to work. The design objection to fluorescents to me had always been its brash whiteness. But today you can get fluorescent that are tuned to mimick the yellowish glow of incadescent. In fact the way to really spare the bulb, is to revert all lights to DC, as it is the constant AC flicker that stresses bulbs the most. Incadescents can run on either AC or DC without modification... but fluorescents, because of their electronic ballast, need to be designed for either one or the other. Most mobile homes and boats all run on DC power. Tesla never advocated AC for inside homes or office... ONLY to allow the electricity to travel long distance. Reverting back to DC once at destination would save an immense amount of energy... ALL computers for example, have a built-in transformer that alters the 110 volt AC current into DC current. There's a big statue of Tesla near the falls in Niagara. I'll never forget the tour guide saying he had invented alternative currency... as if the only thing she was thinking about was how to spend her pay check in Canada!
Posted by: RemyC | February 15, 2005 06:28 PM | flag a problem
...
All the efficiency arguments are accepted. Just a technical point; you only need one extra contact for the two filament solution, that is three contacts not four.
One contact can be common to the two filaments.
Posted by: Les | February 21, 2005 05:27 PM | flag a problem
...
I would like to know, what lightbulb company can make a lightbulb that would last for 40 years and be located in the family bathroom, where it is turned on and off 3-8 times a day conservatively speaking, not to mention the condensation. If you can't build one then someone can. Because I own a lightbulb that is approximately 40 years old and has been in constant use since purchased in the early 60's. I'm sure someone out there who builds lightbulbs would like to see this bulb to duplicate it, if you would like to see this lightbulb please contact me, 1-604-295-3632 British Columbia, Canada.
Posted by: tony yliruusi |
...
That a real cool idea.
Let lots of it come.
it is high time more of Indians and world citizens participate in the design boom competions.
a develping country and for that matter all countries and the underdeveloped need to save.
Hope to one in the corner shop in due time.
Posted by: venkatram naidu |
...
William is talking toffee.
An infinite incandescent is of course possible - just reduce the voltage.
But then the efficiency drops so low as to completely negate any saving on replacement light bulbs.
CCFL and, eventually, LEDs are the way to go - not conspiracy theories about magic filament materials etc.
Posted by: Anonymous |
...
I have been working with common 40 and 60watt incandescents for a little over three years now and have found a single problem that seems to be constistent and very common with with most of the major manufacturers. I have been able to overcome the built in, planned obsolescence with some experimenting. My problem now is to find a maufacturer who will work with me to get it to market. My modification can be incorporated in the assembly of the bulb with very minor changes in the production process.
Posted by: bob w. |
...
CFL's are presently the optimum choice for lightbulbs. They are cheap (prices are between $0.99 and $9.99) and some of them (not all) produce a remarkably high quelity white light. In comparison, LED's are are expensive. However, the greatest drawback of LED's is the poor quality of light produced. It tends to be very cold and bluish. Morever, the light is highly directional.
Posted by: Robert Sczech |
...
I've written about this before and thought it had been put to rest by now, but I guess not. Think about the last 100 times you changed out an incandescent bulb: were you reading when it faded out, or did it go *pop* when you flipped the switch? 99% of the time, it was when you flipped the switch. The problem isn't heat, it's a sudden change in temperature. The filament heats up quickly, but not evenly, so part of it stretches more than the rest and *pop*. It isn't leaking gas, or heat exposure. To solve this problem, you could make the filament thicker and restrict the current. That's the secret behind the Centennial Light, a lamp that has burned since 1901. The problem? It's 4 FREAKIN WATTS!!! You can't even tell that it's on if the other lights in the room are on.

http://www.centennialbulb.org/photos.htm

Planned obsolesence? Only if idiots that like to lose money are running Philips and GE. If they had a long lasting light bulb, they would have brought it out to compete with CFLs by now. Where is it?!?!
The lamp described in this article is okay, but I'd prefer a CFL and, when the prices drop, an LED. They can tweak the effective color temperature and directionality of LEDs, but at $200+, who cares? The two advantages that this incandescent has over a CFL is that it requires fewer resources to manufacture (CFLs still use trace amounts of mercury, IIRC, as well as the fluorescing gas, and remember that you are still going to need 2-3 of these 2x bulbs to outlast a CFL) and incandescents can be used in common dimmer and sensor-controlled sockets. But the resources to operate a CFL are still much lower, so I would guess (without running numbers) that the CFL is the winner over its lifetime. If you don't need the control circuits, use a CFL and fuggetaboutit.
Posted by: Eric H |

Commenting is Closed
Comments are now closed for this entry - if you would like to reopen commenting or have something else to share, please email tips at treehugger.

TrackBack
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lightbulb 2.0: Double the Life, Halve the Materials:

» Two Filament Lightbulb Concept from Gizmodo
Despite common cartoon knowledge, it's actually quite difficult to have new ideas about lightbulbs. That's why this concept from Mahendra Chauhan and Sanjay Rajput is so surprising—it obviously took twice as much brainpower to conceive it. The id... [Read More]

[B]Go on-site to see designs, etc, and more articles about who knows what. SRH

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/02/lightbulb_20_do.php

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . .
SOLDIER: 101st Keyboarder Refuses to Answer Hypocrisy

By
David Sirota

The New Republic was one of the strongest and most aggressive voices pushing for the invasion of Iraq. Their editor, Peter Beinart, led the charge, attacking Democrats who dared to question the move. He and the magazine have yet to seriously consider how easy it is to advocate for a massive military operation based on lies when the advocates themselves never have to face the blood-and-guts consequences of their advocacy. Now, of course, the New Republic and Beinart would like everyone to forget their record, as Beinart pushes a new book trying to position himself as a "liberal" foreign policy guru and a chest-thumping "hawk." But at least one Army lieutenant catches Beinart and his magazine in some dishonest and grossly self-serving editing.

Here's an excerpt from a piece by Second Lt. John Renehan in this
week's Chronicle of Higher Education:

"In 2004, shortly before I left for basic training, The New Republic ran a piece in which Peter Beinart, then the magazine's editor, bemoaned the increasingly narrow demographics of those who serve and the consequent emergence of 'two countries' -- one that serves, and a second, more-affluent one that thinks of service as a thing done by other Americans. Notably, Beinart admitted his own mixed feelings on being a member of the nonserving elite, wondering aloud what he might say when a child of his someday asks, 'What did you do in the terror war, Daddy?' Impressed, I wrote a letter to Beinart praising his frankness and noting my own decision to join the military -- one
prompted by similar callings of conscience. Then I offered him what I called a 'public-spirited challenge': One of The New Republic's own should serve, and the magazine should write about it...It was a naïve sort of thing to write. My girlfriend took a look at the letter and said, 'You know they're never going to print this, don't you?' I did. But they did print it -- with a notable omission. My 'public-spirited challenge' had been excised, leaving only praise for Beinart." The netroots have labeled people like Beinart and his "hawkish" friends in the punditocracy as members of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade - authors/insiders/operatives who are "very enthusiastic about war,
provided someone else fights it." The fact that members of the 101st would resort to selectively editing an Army Lieutenant's sincere letter to the editor in order to dishonestly heap praise on themselves and avoid facing the tough questions about their behavior tells you all you need to know about how unprincipled these people really are. In their comfortable bubble, war is all just a fun little political game based on Washington's false definition of "strength" as a politician willing to sit in their guarded, air conditioned Beltway office and call in airstrikes and ground assaults - regardless of the
consequences for the targets or America's national security.- - - - - - -
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=CCFAEB09-E0C3-F090-A4F430CF1A9919A9

{http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=CCFAEB09-E0C3-F090-A4F430CF1A9919A9}
---

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Leader turned informant rattles Muslims
Toronto Muslims debate duty to help track suspected terrorists after a religious leader helped officials arrest 17.
By Rebecca Cook Dube
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
A BRAVE MAN
HAS HE SIGNED HIS OWN DEATH WARRANT?
SRH
TORONTO
The surprise announcement by a prominent Muslim leader here that he was an informant who helped authorities arrest 17 Muslims on terrorism charges has raised questions in the Muslim community over the ethics of informing versus a responsibility to stop violence.

Since outing himself as an informant who infiltrated and trained with the suspects, Mubin Shaikh has come under harsh criticism by some Toronto Muslims and sparked a debate about how far citizens should go in aiding police investigations, even as he has been hailed as a hero in the mainstream media.

The men, ranging in age from 15 to 43, were arrested last month after buying three tons of ammonium nitrate, a common bomb-making ingredient, and are alleged by police to have planned to blow up Toronto buildings and storm Canada's parliament. Then, earlier this month, Mr. Shaikh revealed himself to several media outlets as a mole who infiltrated the group at the request of the police.

"I wanted to prevent the loss of life," Shaikh told the Toronto Star newspaper. "I don't want Canadians to think that these [suspects] are what Muslims are. I don't believe in violence here. I wanted to help, and I'm as homegrown as it gets."

Before this, Shaikh was a well-known conservative leader in the Muslim community. He runs a shariah arbitration center and is a fierce advocate for Islamic law, in Canada.

"Whatever the source of his motivation, he did his duty as a Canadian citizen," The National Post newspaper wrote in an editorial. "And he has taught a lesson that others in the Muslim community would do well to heed."

But that view is not shared by many in Toronto's Muslim community. Some wonder whether Shaikh couldn't have dissuaded the terrorism suspects, most of whom are younger than he, from violence. Some accuse him of entrapping the suspects. Some question his motivation - Shaikh claims he was paid C$77,000 (US$68,000) for his work and is owed another C$300,000. Others simply scorn him as a betrayer.

"He was not just an informer in terms of ratting out certain people, he was actually fishing," says Aly Hindy, imam of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre, a mosque several of the suspects attended in Scarborough, an eastern suburb of Toronto. Mr. Hindy said Shaikh's deep knowledge of Islam - he studied for two years in Syria - helped him gain sway over the youngsters.

For his part, Shaikh told the CBC that the suspects had already chosen their path and needed no encouragement from him. After taking the unusual step of identifying himself as an informant, Shaikh has retreated from the public eye and could not be reached for comment.

The question of entrapment often arises in investigations involving undercover informants, experts say. Some of the 17 defendants' attorneys are claiming Shaikh instigated the terrorist plot rather than merely observed. In the US, informants in Muslim communities have been used often since the 9/11 attacks including in a Federal Bureau of Investigation case involving seven men accused of being Taliban sympathizers in Portland in 2002.

"If the police lose control of their informant, they lose control of the investigation," says Alan Young, a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. "In organized crime, very often you need informants to penetrate the inner circle ... sometimes they're necessary and sometimes they're a disaster."

Some Toronto Muslims say they support the idea of reporting suspicious behavior to the authorities, but they draw the line at Shaikh's extensive undercover work.

"All citizens have an obligation to report a terrorist plot to the police should they find out about it. In fact, they have a duty to do so," Safiyyah Ally, a Toronto graduate student, wrote on her blog ( www.safiyyah.ca/wordpress). But posing as a member of a group is different, she wrote.

"It becomes particularly problematic when a prominent member of a community spies on other individuals within the community," Ms. Ally wrote. "It wasn't right for someone of his stature to infiltrate himself within a group of youths with the intention of spying on them and secretly reporting their activities and ideas to the police."

Ally's posting touched off a storm of comments on her blog, ranging from predictions that Shaikh would burn in hell to calmer voices cautioning against a rush to judgment. Ally raised concerns about what the use of such informants might do to Toronto's Muslim community of 300,000.

"Our community is fragile enough as is, and our leaders are our moral anchor.... We cannot have communities wherein individuals are paranoid of each other and turned against one another," she wrote.

Hindy said he believes that would-be moles at his mosque already report to police when he makes controversial statements. "It looks like people are starting to be afraid of each other," says Hindy.

That distrust is a common side effect in a community where law enforcement frequently uses informants, says Alexandra Natapoff, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on the use of informants in the US drug war.

"There's a very corrosive effect in urban communities when the government makes snitching a central law enforcement tool," says Professor Natapoff. Informants can be a useful tool for criminal investigations, Natapoff says, but it's easy to slide into ethically dangerous territory.

"One of the things we should be worried about is that it will become more like the war on drugs, and law enforcement will become more dependent on informers, and informers will drive investigations rather than investigators picking their targets," says Natapoff.

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

from the July 31, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0731/p06s01-woam.html

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Moderate Western Muslims, speak up!
Do we really need social research to condemn Islamofacism?
By
Rondi Adamson

TORONTO - In the months following 9/11, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said that rather than constantly ask ourselves, "Why do they hate us?", we should instead ask, "Why don't they see us for who we really are?"

I thought about that following the arrests of 17 Canadian terror suspects last weekend. Most were citizens of Canada, born and bred, or residents. The police who announced the dragnet were careful to say that the young males did not represent any specific ethnocultural group - though all are Muslim.

Toronto's mayor, David Miller, after commending the excellent work of Canada's security forces, wondered aloud why young people might get involved in terrorist activities. We need "strategies to try to prevent that from happening again," he said. His earnestness awed me. Can he truly believe there is some "thing" Canadians can do (hold a "Hands Across Canada" event?) to prevent this kind of occurrence?

Canada is not France. Canada's Muslim population is not marginalized out of fear and contempt, not left alone to manage its own affairs. Even though a Toronto mosque had its windows smashed following the arrests, that sort of thuggery and stupidity is not systemic or common. Canada's Muslims are not prevented from attending good schools or holding high-powered jobs. Nor are they, for the most part, unwilling or unable to fit in peacefully and productively. So the mayor's concern was misplaced. His comment should have been something along the lines of, "I wonder what Canada's Muslim leaders/moderate Muslim citizens can do to prevent this kind of thing in future?"

In countries like Canada, or England, or Spain, where citizens have been shocked by the news of home-grown cells, I believe more needs to be asked of Muslim religious and community leaders. Western Muslims are a powerful potential ally in the broader "war on terror." It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. But we need Muslims themselves to admit that most of the terrorists who threaten us are Muslim.

Aly Hindy, a high-profile imam in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough, called the arrests "an attack on the Muslim community." He went on to say that, "We are abusing our boys for the sake of pleasing George Bush." Rather than speaking out against extremism, or entertaining the notion that perhaps his country's security forces know what they're doing, Hindy called the charges against the men "home-grown baloney."

Even moderate Canadian Muslim groups, willing to show faith in Canada's justice system, are mitigating their statements. The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) praised the work of Canada's spy agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But then they scolded the Canadian government for not funding "academic research to diagnose this serious social problem and provide scientific solutions to it." A scientific solution to Islamofascism? Bring it on.

The group also chastised Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper for portraying events "as a battle between 'us' and 'them.' " Following the arrests, Mr. Harper stated that "we are a target because of who we are. And how we live." One wonders - do the members of the CIC not consider themselves part of the "we" Harper referred to, when he spoke of Canadians? If so, that is indeed revealing.

The Muslim Canadian Congress fared only a tad bit better. They praised the police, and expressed dismay that members of their community might be guilty as charged. And then they managed to blame President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and even Harper for the fact that any such terror cells might exist. So far, only the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN) has managed to issue a condemnation of terror, and praise of the police, without tacking on a "but," a "Bush," or a "Canadian troops in Afghanistan."

I was happily surprised at CAIR-CAN's press release. I shouldn't have been. We must expect that Western Muslims will wholeheartedly condemn Islamofascism, without any conditions placed on that condemnation. Without that, we may reach a point of divisions too deep to mend.

• Rondi Adamson is an award-winning Canadian journalist.

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

from the June 06, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p09s01-coop.html

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

* ** * ** * ** *
Bush Walks Right Into Castro's Trap
By
David Sirota
A few years ago, I read the landmark biography of Fidel Castro by New York Times reporter Tad Szulc. That by no means makes me a Castro or Cuba expert - but it does hammer home to even the casual reader that Castro's primary tool in holding onto power ha been his ability to pump up the threat of what he portrays as U.S. imperial ambitions and a supposedly corresponding threat to Cuban sovereignty. His basic line has been, "Keep me in power and the Revolution going so as to prevent the U.S. from invading, or exerting total control over Cuba." This manipulative message is nationalist to its core - he is saying that
Cuba can only hold onto its distinct cultural, historic and economic roots if America is prevented from overrunning the country. Now, with news of Castro's illness and feverishg talk that his reign may finally be ending, the question of how to deal with and debunk his message becomes critical to whether we will see a democratic Cuba or not.

Let's be clear: Castro is a dictator who has used horrific acts to hold onto power, and a democratic Cuba is in the long-term interests of the Cuban people, the United States and the world - that is not up for debate. But whether you agree with Castro's fundamental nationalist message about U.S. imperial ambitions or not, it's clear that he has been effective in using it to keep power. And thus, that begs a very important question: why is the Bush administration walking right into his trap?

Open today's New York Times, and you will see that the Bush administration is now publicly bragging that once Castro dies, America is planning for a full-on take over of Cuba. In one story, we find out that "Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, made it clear on Tuesday that the United States would take an active role in shaping events on the island if the Cuban leader dies." That is the kind of declaration easily interpreted/spun by anti-democratic forces in Cuba as no-holds-barred diplomat-ese for the very imperialism Castro has been warning his people about for the last half century.

In another story, we discover that the administration is now announcing that if Castro dies, "the United States would also send special monitors and advisers to Cuba in the weeks after a full transition began." In the wake of the Vietnam War, which infamously started out with U.S. military "advisers," again - this is clearly fodder that could be easily spun to confirm Castro's own message. And it is especially stupid and destructive to our long-term
goals/credibitlity when, at the same time our government is haughtily strutting around making these proclamations, the White House is also saying "it viewed attempts by Venezuela or other countries to influence the transition in Cuba as unwarranted intervention."

In political campaigns, the worst thing a candidate can do is publicly walk into their own stereotype. If, for instance, there are unconfirmed rumors out there that a candidate is a philanderer and is too-slick by half, the worst thing that candidate can do is get caught philandering and then lying about it, because it confirms the negative suspicions the public may have already had. If there are suspicions out there that a candidate waffles or stands for nothing, the worst thing that candidate can do is publicly waffle on a big issue (think John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" line on Iraq).

The same thing goes in the situation with Cuba. The stupidest thing American officials can do is publicly walk into Castro's portrayal of our ambitions. By doing that, we are confirming the negative suspicions that many Cubans must have, considering they've been hearing about it over and over and over again for the last 50 years.

Here's the thing - obviously, it is in America's interest to see a truly democratic Cuba, and our government should support that wholeheartedly. But there's an effective way to support a Cuba's transition to democracy that doesn't VERY PUBLICLY walk into Castro's caricature. Right now, the Bush administration is PUBLICLY walking into Castro's own well-honed message, showing just how utterly arrogant and incompetent the people running our country really are. Our government is quite literally giving Castro (if he survives) and those around him fodder to say: "See, we told you so, so keep us in power, because we have been right." Put another way, the
administration's arrogance could very well imperil a transition to democracy in Cuba, because it is very publicly giving anti-democratic forces in Cuba a rhetorical weapon to hang onto power.

As I've written before - Iraq has shown that the definition of "strength" when it comes to national security is not being a politician sitting in a comfortable air-conditioned Washington office and flippantly putting American troops in danger by calling in airstrikes or invasions half way around the globe. Similarly, the situation in Cuba should remind us that "strength" is not a
politician puffing out his chest and pigheadedly walking into the very caricatures our enemies have been peddling, so as to potentially alienate indigenous populations that may have otherwise been sympathetic to our goals. That's what's called "weakness" - and the more such weakness is peddled as "strength" by politicians and the media elite, the worse off America will be.
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=D0A9B9CD-E0C3-F08F-9B0250186F7568AD

{http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=D0A9B9CD-E0C3-F08F-9B0250186F7568AD}
--

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Under the influence of politicians, masses of people tend to ascribe the responsibility for wars to those who wield power at any given time. In World War I it was the munitions industrialists; in World War II it was the psychopathic generals who were said to be guilty. This is passing the buck.
The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these same masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by genuine freedom fighters; the latter that attitude held by power-thirsty politicians." : Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism


~~~

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
—General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fetch, Heel, Stall

By
Maureen Dowd

07/29/06 "New York Times" -- -- Oops, they did it again. That pesky microphone problem that plagued George W. Bush and Tony Blair in St. Petersburg struck again at their White House news conference yesterday. The president told technicians to make sure his real thoughts would not be overheard this time, but somehow someone forgot to turn off the feed to my office. As a public service, I'd like to reprint the candid under-their-breath mutterings they exchanged in between their public utterances.

THE PRESIDENT: "The prime minister and I have committed our governments to a plan to make every effort to achieve a lasting peace out of this crisis."

"Actually, we talked about our plan to keep using fancy phrases like 'lasting peace' and 'sustainable cease-fire,' so we don't actually have to cease the fire. Condi had a great one! Didya hear it, Tony? She said, 'The fields of the Middle East are littered with broken cease-fires.' Man, can she talk, and she plays piano, too!"

THE PRIME MINISTER: "The question is now how to get it stopped and get it stopped with the urgency that the situation demands. ... I welcome very much the fact that Secretary Rice will go back to the region tomorrow. She will have with her the package of proposals in order to get agreement both from the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon on what is necessary to happen in order for this crisis to stop."

"I thought it was quite clever, George, to stall by sending Condi to Kuala Lumpur for that imminently skippable meeting of marginal Asian powers. And her decision to tickle the ivories while Beirut burns was inspired. The Asians love a good Brahms sonata. And she called it a 'prayer for peace'! Just brilliant. But her idea of a series of Rachmaninoff concerts at every layover on the way to the Middle East could look too conspicuously like dawdling."

THE PRESIDENT: "Hezbollah's not a state. They're a, you know, supposed political party that happens to be armed. Now what kind of state is it that's got a political party that has got a militia?"

"Uh-oh! I mean, besides all those Shiite leaders we set up in Iraq who have THEIR own militias. Oh, man, this is complicated. What about those Republican Minutemen patrolling the Mexican border? Or Vice on a hunting trip?"

THE PRIME MINISTER: "Of course the U.N. resolution, the passing of it, the agreeing of it, can be the occasion for the end of hostilities if it's acted upon, and agreed upon. And that requires not just the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon, obviously, to abide by it, but also for the whole of the international community to exert the necessary pressure so that there is the cessation of hostilities on both sides."

"And the whole of the cosmos! We can call for an intergalactic study group to act upon and agree upon and adjudicate - George, I can keep the verbs, adjectives and conditional phrases going until these reporters keel over."

THE PRESIDENT: "My message is, give up your nuclear weapon and your nuclear weapon ambitions. That's my message to Syria - I mean, to Iran. And my message to Syria is, you know, become an active participant in the neighborhood for peace."

"It's so hard to keep all these countries straight! And which ones are in the Axis? I hate it when Condi leaves town. Tony Baloney, just blink twice when I mention a bad country and once when I mention one we like and sell arms to. And while you're at it, heel, poodle! Har-har. Play dead! You crack me up."

THE PRIME MINISTER: "I've spoken to President Chirac, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, the president of the European Union, the prime minister of Finland and many, many others."

"See? I'm no poodle. I'm here to keep the names of our allies straight. And I can stand up straight. Bush, old boy, that's not posture. That's Paleolithic Man."

THE PRESIDENT: "And so what you're seeing is, you know, a clash of governing styles. For example, you know, you know, the, the, the notion of democracy beginning to emerge - emerge - scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, and those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them, and so they respond. They've always been violent. ... There's this kind of almost, you know, kind of weird kind of elitism that says: well, maybe - maybe - certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free."

"Tony, I've fallen and I can't get up!"

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14333.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
When You Care Enough To Do The Very Least

By
Ted Rall

08/02/06 "Information Clearing House" --- -- NEW YORK--Are we the world's policeman? Or are we an empire? The rest of the world has already made up its mind about us. The president of the Pew Research Center, whose latest poll of foreigners finds they hate the United Stats more than ever, says: "Obviously, when you get many more people saying that the U.S. [is as much of] a threat to world peace as...Iran, it's a measure of how much [the war in Iraq] is sapping good will to the United States."

But we Americans remain deeply divided over American values and intentions, and it's high time that we got our story straight.

In 1975 Philip Agee published his explosive memoir of his career as a CIA operative, Inside the Company. The former black ops specialist provided proof for what critics had long suspected, that the United States government had assassinated popularly elected foreign leaders and propped up brutal right-wing dictatorships in countries such as Ecuador, Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina throughout the '60s and '70s. Published in the wake of Watergate and the forced resignation of Richard Nixon, disgust for the dirty dealings described by Agee contributed to a reformist wave that fed Jimmy Carter's successful 1976 bid for the presidency.

Upon taking office Carter declared "the soul of our foreign policy" to be concern for human rights. Carter recalled in a 1997 interview: "I announced that human rights would be a cornerstone or foundation of our entire foreign policy. So I officially designated every U.S. ambassador on earth to be my personal human rights representative, and to have the embassy be a haven for people who suffered from abuse by their own government. And every time a foreign leader met with me, they knew that human rights in their country would be on the agenda. And I think that this was one of the seminal changes that was brought to U.S. policy. And although in the first few weeks of his term my successor Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy and sent an emissary down to Argentina and to Chile and to Brazil--to the military dictators--and said, 'The human rights policy of Carter is over,' it was just a few months before he saw that the American people supported this human rights policy and that it was good for his administration. So after that he became a strong protector of human rights as well."

The media and the public interpreted Carter's human rights-based foreign policy as welcome, radical, and sweeping. There were worrisome inconsistencies: Carter's State Department continued to arm and finance the violent dictators of Haiti, the Philippines and Iran. Nevertheless, the CIA was subjected to budget cuts and Congressional oversight. Subsequent U.S. military involvement in Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq were wholly or in significant part marketed as attempts to liberate the oppressed and protect human rights. Carter and Reagan convinced Americans of all political stripes that defending the helpless, stopping genocide and overthrowing tyrants were our country's basic duties.

We still do. Even though 63 percent of Americans say they approve of their own government's use of torture, 86 percent continue to believe that "promoting and defending human rights in other countries" as a U.S. foreign policy goal is "important." An August 2002 Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll found that 81 percent think that "the impact the U.S. has on the rest of the world [on] democratic values and human rights" is a positive one.

If we're so nice, why do they hate us so much?

The trouble with putting human rights first is that we have do it all the time, in every case, even when it costs us economically. Integrity requires doing what is right even--especially--when it hurts.

Before Jimmy Carter, American foreign policy was a straightforward and cynical realpolitik. We fought in South Korea and South Vietnam as if we were moving pieces on a Cold War chessboard instead of blasting children to bits; the despotic regimes we defended there were more brutal than their enemies. Afterwards, we became hypocrites. We went into Somalia, which controlled a strategic port of entry for oil tankers, but not Rwanda, which had no significant natural resources. We backed Saddam Hussein when Iraq granted lucrative oil concessions to politically connected multinationals and attacked him when he didn't.

A true human rights-based foreign policy would require "regime change" warfare against the biggest evildoers in the world, including those willing to do business with us. What we have now is a Chinese menu pick-one-from-column-A-and-one-from-column-B mishmash. We do whatever we want, then come up with a justification--human rights, WMDs, imminent danger--after the fact.

People liked us better when we didn't pretend to be nice.

Ted Rall is the author of "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.

Copyright © Ted Rall - Visit his website www.tedrall.com

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14336.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A Soldier Maimed by War Now Questions the Mission

By
Brian MacQuarrie
The Boston Globe
Wednesday 02 August 2006
Sergeant Brian Fountaine, 24, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington this week, was injured in June while on patrol near Baghdad.
(Photo: Jay Premack / Boston Globe) Go on-site to view photo, and/or any links

Washington - President Bush came and sat by the side of Sergeant Brian Fountaine, a 24-year-old tank commander from Dorchester, a gung-ho soldier who had lobbied to be deployed a second time. Now Fountaine was among the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, his legs amputated below the knees after an explosion June 8 ripped apart the Humvee in which he was riding.

The president chatted about the sergeant's beloved Red Sox, but made no reference to the war, the soldier said.

If the topic had come up, the president might not have liked what Fountaine had on his mind. In a dramatic change of heart, Fountaine now considers the war a military quagmire in which American soldiers are caught in a deadly vise between irreconcilable enemies.

In his view, troop morale has plummeted, suicide has increased, and the sacrifices being made in American blood and treasure suddenly seem questionable.

The war began with the justifiable goal of toppling a reckless, dangerous dictator in Saddam Hussein, the soldier said. But as the country slides toward civil war, Fountaine added, the goal of a democratic Iraq seems more distant by the day.

"You have to wonder, what exactly are we doing?" Fountaine said. "In my opinion, [Iraq] is a country that has been at war with itself and with other enemies for thousands of years. And we're supposed to make them happy? I don't think so. I don't see it happening."

When asked if history will justify the life-altering sacrifice he has made, Fountaine paused for several seconds, lowered his head, and slowly replied: "If in 10 or 20 years, if Iraq is in the same spot and America is still losing boys over there, then, no, I think my sacrifice will be as futile as anyone else's."

That sacrifice has been profound, excruciatingly exacted from Fountaine's body by two large bombs on a dusty road a dozen miles north of Baghdad.

The pain has been both physical and psychic. On June 30, while visiting the Marine Corps War Memorial in a wheelchair he was still learning to use, Fountaine lost control and fell over. Nothing he experienced in the explosion outside Taji -- not the searing burn, not the loss of blood, not the experience of binding his own mangled legs with tourniquets -- equaled the humiliation of that moment.

"It was like a hammer to the face," Fountaine said this week as he sat on his hospital bed. "I just sat there for about 5 minutes, and I said, `How does one go from being a combat-hardened tank commander to being a poor wretch on the ground?' "

That journey began in April 2001 when Fountaine enlisted in the Army, fulfilling a childhood dream to follow his father, a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam era, into military service.

"I was patriotic before Sept. 11 happened," said Fountaine, a 2000 graduate of Whitman-Hanson Regional High School. "It doesn't take a tragedy to make me realize I'm proud to be an American."

His father and mother, Paul Fountaine and Roberta Quimby, are separated and take turns visiting their son in a convalescent home on the Walter Reed grounds, each staying for 10 days at a time.

The rotation, clearly, is a boon for the sergeant, whose room contains several Red Sox caps, loaves of bread, cans of Spam, get-well messages, and a carefully arranged display of medals. One of those medals, the Purple Heart, was not discovered until Paul Fountaine rummaged inside his son's travel bag at a hospital at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where Brian Fountaine woke after several days of unconsciousness. Until that discovery, Brian did not know he already had received the Purple Heart, which is awarded to combat-wounded veterans.

The elder Fountaine listened quietly as his son spoke to a reporter about the US mission in Iraq. But he said he would gladly serve in Brian's place and that, as a soldier, "all you can do is do what your country tells you."

When he enlisted, Brian's plan was to serve two years and then join the Boston Fire Department, where his father, a 26-year firefighter, is assigned to Rescue 2 in Egleston Square. But a zest for military life and steady promotions drove the younger Fountaine to reenlist during his first tour in Iraq, where he served from mid-2003 to mid-2004 with the Fourth Infantry Division.

During his first deployment, Fountaine said, his unit routinely came under attack from mortars and rifle fire. But he volunteered for mission after dangerous mission, he said. Although the potential for death or injury was everywhere, he added: "I accepted the fact that I was a soldier. And I expected this to happen, either a loss of limb or a loss of life."

During his next tour, when the two bombs detonated under the Humvee carrying Fountaine, it was the fifth time that the soldier had survived an improvised explosive device, the military's name for the makeshift bombs used by insurgents. Fountaine knew, as soon as he found himself face-first in the dirt beside the truck, that he had been hurt badly. The sight of his mangled feet and fractured legs, spewing blood as his wounded driver screamed in agony nearby, gave Fountaine a gory glimpse of his future.

"I knew I would become some sort of an amputee," said Fountaine, massaging the stumps of his legs, amputated 10 inches below the knees. "I won't be able to feel the grass between my feet or the sand under my toes, but the important thing is I still have my life."

He said he expects to receive prosthetic legs this week, and to continue arduous daily therapy to ease the transition to life outside the Army. He still has nightmares, Fountaine said, and he occasionally forgets that he does not have all of his legs.

"When you swing your legs over the side of the bed, you wonder why your feet don't hit the floor," Fountaine said. "And then you remember: It's because you don't have feet, stupid."

A whitewater-rafting trip to the Grand Canyon is on Fountaine's schedule for late this month, courtesy of the Wounded Warrior Project, which provides services for seriously wounded military personnel and their families. Fountaine said he hopes to be leaving Walter Reed within months and to live with his father in Dorchester for a short while.

Despite his reservations about the course of the war, Fountaine said he would return, if he could, to serve the remainder of his tour with the First Brigade Combat Team of the Fourth Infantry Division. The bonds forged in war between soldiers, he said, are reason enough to sacrifice one's life and limbs for the good of the unit.

"Those guys over there are my family just as much as that guy over there is my father," Fountaine said. "I wish I could have stayed there, and I wish I could come home with them."

Despite the incessant drumbeat of bad news, Fountaine said there are small positives that occur every day in Iraq, whether soccer games between soldiers and children or offers of water to thirsty farmers.

"Regardless of everything that's going on and the anger you may have," Fountaine said of the war, "... just know it's a lot of regular guys, just like you, who have volunteered to serve their country."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206G.shtml
~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . .

Signing Off on a Constitutional Crisis

By
Barb Guy
The Salt Lake Tribune
Sunday 30 July 2006

After an especially eye-popping bill at the store, I hit upon an idea. While signing my name on the credit card receipt, I added a little statement: Signatory cancels the above debt; will not pay.

Then I did the same at the gas station. Later, when signing a contract for a freelance job, I put this: Signatory will not do the work detailed above but payment is due immediately.

Then, drunk with my newfound power, I flew to Italy and bought a lovely seaside place on Capri. I studied enough Italian on the plane so I could write non che gonna pay you per questi house. Can you believe they went for it?

Just kidding. Only a deceitful person or an idiot would try such underhanded stuff, right? Well let me tell you where I got the idea: our president. When signing a bill into law, President Bush often writes in, "Just kidding."

These signing statements really contain numerous lengthy paragraphs of dense legalese but the bottom line often is: I'm signing this bill into law but I don't really mean it. I alone will decide whether to really carry out the intent of this bill.

So signing a bill into law, a fundamental part of the United States' operation, an event every American kid learns about in school, has gone from a clear-cut process to an ambiguous and corruptible (or downright corrupt) action.

Some will say, and rightly so, that President Bush is not the first president to do this. But with all the previous United States presidents combined over 225 years, this executive method of "just kidding" was used to question about 600 laws. So far, depending on who's counting and how they count, George Bush has employed this duplicitous tactic to undermine 500 to 800 laws since 2001.

The American Bar Association became so concerned they set up a task force to investigate. They'll present their report on Aug. 7 at the ABA's annual meeting, but the 34-page report was released July 24. The ABA's task force, composed of conservatives, liberals, Democrats and Republicans, concluded that President Bush is doing some very creepy stuff with these statements.

The report is online at: http://www.abanet.org/op/signingstatements/aba_final_signing_statements_recommendation-report_7-24-06.pdf

Joyce A. Green, whom the ABA calls a "concerned and public- spirited Oklahoma lawyer" has built a Web site that meticulously provides the text of all President Bush's notoriously difficult-to-locate signing statements: www.coherentbabble.com/signing statements/about.htm.

This is the way it's supposed to work: A law makes its way through both houses of Congress and lands on the president's desk. He signs it and it's the law. Or he vetoes it and the veto can be overturned by a super-majority of Congress.

Those were the days. It's no longer that simple. President Bush doesn't even inform Congress when a signing statement precedes his signature. They just hear that he signed the bill. Members of both parties and both houses are learning they need to read the fine print, but they've learned too late. A lot of folks think the president is using these signing statements as a gutless way to veto legislation that he opposes. Many people believe he is bringing about a constitutional crisis.

When signing Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's anti-torture law, the president inked in "just kidding." Many Americans feel this brought shame on the United States and shows how far-reaching and devastating these little statements can be.

Our country is special in no small part because our founders hit upon a clever three-branch system of government to keep any one branch from effecting a sinister takeover. To review, these are the legislative (Congress) and the executive (the president and his team) branches and the judiciary (our courts).

All three branches do work that can include interpreting the Constitution, but the final say on constitutional matters belongs with the judiciary. That's the deal our founders set up. But President Bush, by wielding the signing statement along with his pen (usually to enhance his ability to wield his sword), is trumping the judiciary and mangling the Constitution, deeming himself mightier than either one.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is deeply alarmed. He called President Bush's statements "a very blatant encroachment" upon Congress's ability to enact laws.

The Decider is quietly taking apart the way America does things. In the past six years he has reinterpreted the environment, science, education, truth, national security, nation building, reasonable searches and patriotism; now he's altered what a signature means.

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence did not have "just kidding" in their hearts; they knew their signatures were solemn vows. I only wish George W. Bush would carry on that honorable tradition. --------Barb Guy is a freelance writer and public relations consultant in Salt Lake City and a regular contributor to these pages.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080306M.shtml -------

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The "Band of Brothers" Unravels
By
Martin Bashir
ABC News
Wednesday 02 August 2006

Soldier accused of civilian murders defends actions.
Pfc. Corey Clagett believed that the matter had been resolved.
After two internal inquiries evaluating a mission that had taken place in northern Iraq on May 9, the 22-year-old and three other soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division expected to return to their duties without a stain on their characters.

Within a month, however, three of the four had been arrested, accused of premeditated murder, and placed in a US military jail in Kuwait.

On Tuesday, the four appeared before an Article 32 hearing that would determine whether they should be court-martialed. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty.

From "Hero" to Prisoner

Speaking by telephone from his prison cell, in an exclusive interview with "Nightline," Clagett defended his actions and expressed anger toward the military for pressing charges against him.

"I was trained to do the right thing," he said, "and I did do that. And it's like I was a hero one day - and I was being treated like that one day - and now I'm in a prison facility in Kuwait."

The transition became all the more astounding when it emerged that his accusers were not from the Iraqi populace, but from his own battalion - the tightly knit and fiercely loyal "band of brothers."

Clagett, along with Sgt. Raymond Girouard and Spc. William Hunsaker - all members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion - have been accused of deliberately releasing three Iraqi men they had captured, in order to kill them.

Another soldier, Spc. Juston Graber, has admitted to carrying out the "mercy killing" of one of the detainees after the initial shooting.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker, however, vigorously deny the charges, saying that they only fired after the Iraqis broke free and started to attack them.

Rules of Engagement: "Kill All Military-Age Males"

The truth of what happened on that morning in May has become the subject of bitter dispute between former comrades who will find themselves on opposite sides of the ongoing military court proceedings.

The mission itself, like most combat tasks in remote areas of Iraq, was dangerous and intense.

According to Clagett, the briefing was clear.

"I was told that we were going into an al Qaeda and an anti-Iraqi force training area. And that when we were coming in, I was to expect fire.... Before we got on the ground, they were gonna shoot at the birds. They said we were gonna go in hot."

In their sworn affidavits, the three accused soldiers, along with others in the unit, say they received unusual but unequivocal rules of engagement for the task ahead. They say that they were given repeated and explicit orders to "kill all military-age males."

From his prison cell, Clagett explained how they prepared for the mission.

"We did rehearsals on the 8th of May and.... It got passed down to my lieutenant commander and he told us and then my platoon leader and my lieutenant he told us, then the platoon sergeant told us, then the squad leader told us. It was just relayed through chain of command."

What were they told?

"We were told that everybody on this island was hostile," Clagett said. "They were known al Qaeda insurgents, and we're going to kill all military-aged males, so be prepared."

Nightline: So you were told specifically to kill all military-age males?

Clagett: Correct.

Nightline: Were you ever told on any other mission that you were to kill all military-age males? Did that ever happen prior to this event?

Clagett: No.

Nightline: Never?

Clagett: Never.

When the soldiers first landed, close to the Syrian border, they encountered no resistance whatsoever - the place seemed empty.

Eventually they came upon a house where a man was looking out of the window. He was shot immediately.

They then advanced to a second property where they found three men hiding, using women and children as human shields.

According to Clagett, the male detainees were eventually separated. Zip ties were attached to their wrists. As Clagett tried to reinforce their cuffs, however, he says he was attacked by one of the detainees.

"I just got blindsided on my left side, and I just got hit in the face.... I spun around, staggered a little, spun around. I lost my vision.... Came back to and I saw this guy running and I just picked up right in between both of them and I just fired.... He did [have] hostile intent towards me."

"Because he just attacked me and all that ran through my head for those couple of seconds. So I engaged his target. With his hostile intent [this] gave me authorization to kill this guy. Then I know for Hunsaker, when I checked him out, he was cut on the face and on the arm and he received hostile action so that gave him [the] right to kill that guy."

For about four weeks after the killings in May, this was the account on record. Last month an entirely different version of events was given after three soldiers swore new affidavits.

One of them, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, a member of the 3rd Battalion, said that he had witnessed a deliberate plot to kill the three Iraqis and that the only cuts sustained by members of his division were self-inflicted in order to bolster their story.

In his statement he says that he didn't initially tell the truth because of "peer pressure, and I have to be loyal to the squad."

Lemus also recalled Clagett suffering a form of post-traumatic stress days after the killings.

"Three days later he told me he couldn't stop talking about it. As if it bothered him.... He was really stressed because when he slept the few hours he did, he dreamed about it over and over."

We put this to Clagett during our telephone interview.

Nightline: Do you recall telling him that you couldn't stop thinking about the shooting? And that you felt ill as a result?

Clagett: Yes, I did.

Nightline: Why did you tell him that?

Clagett: Well, I'm human. I'm not one of these guys who is like, 'Oh, I killed someone.' I felt bad because even though he did attack me and I had a right to shoot him, I still felt bad because I had to take two guys' lives and that affected me in my head because I am a really caring person. And with the thought of me killing two people that hurt me even though it was for the right reason, it hurt me.

Nightline: Is it possible that you are really feeling deeply guilty about it and that's why you couldn't stop thinking about it?

Clagett: No, I definitely did not feel guilty.... I did not feel guilty because [of] what he did. I just acted accordingly of what he did to me.... So I mean I just followed my original rule of engagement.

Other soldiers have also come forward to challenge Clagett's account.

Spc. Micah Bivins has said that "the cuts on Hunsaker's face were fishy and awkward. They could have been done with a paper clip," supporting the allegation that the injuries were self-inflicted and part of a conspiracy.

Graber, the fourth accused soldier, says Hunsaker told him that he wanted to "kill the detainees."

There is one aspect of the division's conduct that both sides appear to agree on: that there is a competition between battalions as to how many Iraqis can be killed.

Bivins, in his statement responding to a question about whether the rules of engagement had anything to do with the large number of killings, said, "Yes, because there is a list. The high value target list has persons on it who are confirmed bad guys and they are to be killed on sight, after confirmation it is actually them."

Again, we put the question to Clagett.

Nightline: Is it true that amongst certain divisions of American personnel in Iraq there is a list, a tally, of how many high value targets are killed in Iraq. Is that true?

Clagett: Yes. It is true.

Nightline: Do you think having a list like that is helpful? Doesn't that generate a sense of competition?

Clagett: Yes, it does. There pretty much was a competition. Everyone is saying there wasn't but there was.

The scene is now set for a legal showdown between men who, until recently, were comrades on the battlefield.

The tight cords that once maintained discipline and an absolute commitment to the division have begun to unravel among the "band of brothers."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206R.shtml

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Banking on War

By
William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 02 August 2006

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-
Dwight D. Eisenhower
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Only the dead, said Plato, have seen the end of war. As true as this may be, it does beg the question: why? Why is there so much conflict in the world? Why are there so many wars? Ethnic and religious tensions have been casus belli since time out of mind, to be sure. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ruptured a framework that held for almost fifty years, bringing about a series of conflicts that are understandable in hindsight.

There is a simpler answer, however, one that lands right in our back yard here in America. Why so much war? Because war is a profitable enterprise. George W. Bush and his people can hold forth about the wonders of democracy and peace, and can condemn worldwide violence in solemn tones. Until the United States stops being the world's largest arms dealer, these words from our government absolutely reek of hypocrisy.

Mr. Bush and his people did not invent this phenomenon, of course. The United States has been selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to the world for decades. In the aftermath of September 11, however, American arms dealing kicked into an even higher gear. The Bush administration, in 2003, delivered arms to 18 of 25 nations now engaged in active conflicts. 13 of those nations have been defined as "undemocratic" by the State Department, but still received $2.7 billion in American weaponry.

One example is Uzbekistan, a nation with an astonishingly deplorable record of human rights violations. Thousands of people have been imprisoned and tortured for purely political reasons, and hundreds more have been killed. Still, that nation received $37 million in weapons from the United States between 2001 and 2003.

In 2002, the United States sold almost $50 million in missile technologies to Bahrain. In the same year, the United States sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of missile technology, rocket launchers, tank ammunition, fighter jets and attack helicopters to Egypt. The United States has sold millions of dollars worth of weapons to both India and Pakistan, two nations that have been on the brink of war for years. This list goes on and on.

Analyze the list of the top twenty companies that profit most from global arms sales, and you will see American companies taking up thirteen of those spots, including the top three: Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. These arms dealers act in concert with the Department of Defense; they exist as a sixth ring of the Pentagon.

The Associated Press reported last week that business for the arms industry is, to make a bad pun, booming. "Northrop Grumman, the world's largest shipbuilder and America's third-largest military contractor," reported the AP, "said second-quarter earnings rose 17 per cent, as operating profit at its systems and information technology units overcame a decline at the company's ships division. Raytheon Co., the fifth-largest defense contractor, reported second-quarter net income jumped 54 per cent, buoyed by strong military equipment sales."

Beyond the missiles and the tanks and the warplanes, there is the small-arms industry. This is, comprehensively, far more deadly than the large-arms sales being made. A report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences describes the deadly situation:

Since the end of the cold war, from the Balkans to East Timor and throughout Africa, the world has witnessed an outbreak of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict characterized by routine massacre of civilians. More than 100 conflicts have erupted since 1990, about twice the number for previous decades. These wars have killed more than five million people, devastated entire geographic regions, and left tens of millions of refugees and orphans. Little of the destruction was inflicted by the tanks, artillery or aircraft usually associated with modern warfare; rather most was carried out with pistols, machine guns and grenades. However beneficial the end of the cold war has been in other respects, it has let loose a global deluge of surplus weapons into a setting in which the risk of local conflict appears to have grown markedly.

The Federation of American Scientists prepared a report some years ago detailing the vast amounts of small arms delivered to the world by the United States. "In addition to sales of newly-manufactured weapons," read the report, "the Pentagon gives away or sells at deep discount the vast oversupply of small/light weapons that it has in its post cold-war inventory. Most of this surplus is dispensed through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. Originally only the southern-tier members of NATO were cleared to receive EDA, but following the 1991 Gulf war, many Middle Eastern and North African states were added; anti-narcotics aid provisions expanded EDA eligibility to include South American and Caribbean countries; and the "Partnership for Peace" program made most Central and Eastern European governments eligible for free surplus arms."

"Around 1995," continued the report, "large-scale grants and sales of small/light arms began occurring. In the past few years (1995 - early 1998), over 300,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns and grenade launchers have been offered up, including: 158,000 M16A1 assault rifles (principally to Bosnia, Israel, Philippines); 124,815 M14 rifles (principally to the Baltics and Taiwan); 26,780 pistols (principally to Philippines, Morocco, Chile, Bahrain; 1,740 machine guns (principally to Morocco, Bosnia); and 10,570 grenade launchers (principally to Bahrain, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Morocco)."

We hear so often that this is a dangerous world. It is arguable that the world might be significantly less dangerous if the United States chose to stop lathering the planet with weapons. Much has been made, especially recently, about the billions of dollars in weapons sales offered to Israel by America. This is but the tip of the iceberg.

It is, at bottom, all about profit. We sell the weapons, which create warfare, which justifies our incredibly expensive war-making capabilities when we have to go in and fight against the people who bought our weapons or procured them from a third party. This does not make the world safer, but only reinforces the permanent state of peril we find ourselves in. Meanwhile, a few people get paid handsomely.

In the end, it is worthwhile to remember that whenever you see George W. Bush talking about winning the "War on Terror," you are looking at the largest arms dealer on the planet. We can pursue cease-fire agreements, we can topple violent regimes, but until we stop loading up the planet with the means to kill, only the dead will see the end of war.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206Z.shtml
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Saundra Hummer]

)))))))))O(((((((((
Some Attorneys Voice Surprise
as
Gibson Is Charged Only With DUI


Los Angeles Times
By Andrew Blankstein and Megan Garvey
August 02, 2006
I've had it happen once before, when a very beautiful client was taken to the tow yard three miles away
Prosecutors on Wednesday charged Mel Gibson with two misdemeanor counts of drunk driving but decided there was not enough evidence to pursue more serious charges against the actor-director for belligerent behavior directed at a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy.
Because he is charged only with misdemeanors, legal experts said, the actor could plead no contest without going to court or receiving any jail time. The arrest was Gibson's first in California for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Typically, first-time offenders have their licenses suspended, are ordered to pay fines, attend DUI offender programs and serve three years' informal probation. They may also be required to perform community service.

Officials at the Los Angeles County district attorney's office filed the charges after several days of discussion about whether the conduct detailed in Gibson's arrest report rose to the level of prosecution. In his report, Deputy James Mee said Gibson 'attempted to escape custody' and repeatedly threatened him. The star was clocked going more than 85 mph - nearly twice the posted speed limit - on Pacific Coast Highway about 2:30 a.m. last Friday. A breathalyzer test showed his blood-alcohol level to be 0.12% (the legal limit is 0.08%). In addition to drunk driving, prosecutors charged Gibson with an infraction of having an open bottle of tequila in his car.

Some veteran DUI attorneys said they were surprised that an 'excessive speed enhancement' was not filed against Gibson - a charge that would mandate jail time.

'If you're going 25 mph over the speed limit, that would greatly increase your chances of jail time,' said attorney Jonathan I. Kelman. 'The fact that they didn't file the speed enhancement - that makes me wonder,' Kelman said. 'Ninety percent of my clients out of Malibu would face that enhancement if [law enforcement officials] thought they could prove the speeding.' Under state law, a driver under the influence whose speed exceeds the posted limit by 20 mph or more on streets or 30 mph on highways faces a minimum of 60 days in jail. Paul S. Geller, another defense attorney who specializes in drunk driving cases, said the speed enhancement is a common but not automatic charge. Sometimes, he said, prosecutors use the threat of the charge as a negotiating tool. Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, said Gibson's bellicose behavior toward the deputy made it a borderline case for resisting arrest and making criminal threats, both felonies.

'Prosecutors had to use their discretion. A different defendant, a different situation, you might have seen those charges added,' Levenson said, adding that the charges filed appeared to be appropriate. 'But I think people will be suspicious as to whether he has received celebrity treatment because of the way this case has been handled from the beginning.' The sheriff's Office of Independent Review is looking into whether details of Gibson's behavior were deliberately kept from the media as a favor to the actor.

In announcing the arrest, a sheriff's spokesman said Gibson was taken into custody without incident. Sources have told The Times that department officials debated for hours what to do with Mee's detailed narrative of the actor's behavior, eventually deciding to place it in a locked area in hopes that the public would not get hold of it.

Mee's report described the Oscar-winning actor-director's behavior, including allegations that he made anti-Jewish slurs, blaming Jews for 'all the wars in the world' and then asked the deputy, 'Are you a Jew?'

The details became public when someone leaked the file to the celebrity website TMZ.com.

The disclosure was followed by other revelations about how sheriff's officials handled the case.

On Tuesday, sheriff's officials acknowledged that a sergeant drove Gibson 10 miles from the Malibu-Lost Hills station in Agoura to a Malibu towing yard to retrieve his sedan. 'It would be quite unusual to drive a defendant to a tow yard to pick up their vehicle after being arrested,' said attorney Kelman, who has defended DUI clients for nine years. 'I've had it happen once before, when a very beautiful client was taken to the tow yard three miles away,' Kelman said. 'Otherwise, all my other clients have been told to walk or get a ride.' Then on Wednesday, the district attorney's office acknowledged that Gibson had been released Friday on his own recognizance. On Friday, sheriff's officials said Gibson was released on $5,000 bail. Several sources said that recent statements by Mee, the arresting deputy, and other sheriff's officials were considered when deciding whether to pursue more serious charges against Gibson. In an interview with The Times on Monday, Mee called the incident 'just another routine stop that just got a little escalated . This is just another drunk driving incident. It just happened to be a celebrity versus Joe Blow public.' Additionally, Sheriff Lee Baca, whose department has been criticized for giving the actor special treatment, has insisted that Gibson should only face charges related to the DUI and that his behavior after the arrest should not be an issue in his prosecution.

'Our job is not to [focus] on what he said. It's to establish his blood-alcohol level when he was driving,' Baca told The Times on Saturday.

Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, declined to elaborate on the specific reasons prosecutors did not seek charges beyond those directly related to drunk driving.

'Prosecutors reviewed all of the reports, all the audiotape from the scene, all the videotape taken at the station, all the evidence,' she said. 'And we filed the charges we believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Attorney Lawrence Taylor, who has defended DUI clients for 35 years, said he has seen similar cases thousands of times.

'Except for the comments he made and who he is, this is a very common, run-of-the-mill businessman case,' Taylor said. Gibson's attorney, Blair Berk, declined to comment on the charges being filed. 'I will be the one lawyer not discussing the ongoing case,' she said. Gibson has issued two public apologies since his arrest and said he suffered a relapse in his longtime battle with alcoholism. *
)))O(((
Times staff writers Richard Winton and Stuart Pfeifer contributed to this report.

http://www.topix.net/content/trb/0721497565215899443519748666020125760188

Copyright © 2006 Los Angeles Times, All Rights Reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doctors' hands out for cash
Melissa Fyfe
August 4, 2006


THE biggest investigation into gifts to medical specialists has found they actively ask for gifts from companies worth between $50 and $100,000.

The requests extend to money for nurses' salaries, donations to their departments, computers, microwaves, journals, textbooks, CDs — even funds for a Christmas party.

The University of NSW study asked 823 specialists nationwide what companies gave them and what they asked for. It found that almost all the specialists were offered food and gifts for their office and one in two received personal gifts — including harbour cruises and tickets to the opera — as well as money for conference travel. Fifteen per cent asked drug companies for gifts, money and travel.

"Doctors are sometimes seen as the innocent victims and the villains in the piece are the pharmaceutical industry," the lead author, associate professor of ethics and law in medicine Paul McNeill, told The Age. "In reality it is a two-way relationship."

The survey, published online in the Internal Medicine Journal today, follows recent comments from Australian Competition and Consumer Commission head Graeme Samuel that "these grubby issues" acted "as an unpleasant stain on the professionalism and good name of Australia's medical practitioners".

The study found six specialists asked for money for the salaries of nurses, one being $80,000, while another asked for a $60,000 donation to their department "in return for time seeing (drug company) reps".

Each year, drug companies spend millions trying to persuade specialists to prescribe their pills. The stakes are high because a recommendation from a specialist can add an expensive drug to a hospital pharmacy list and make the drug company handsome profits. Doctors are supposed to prescribe the best, most cost-effective medicines.

The study found that personal gifts offered to doctors were valued up to $40,000 and included wine, flowers, a "spa" dinner, harbour cruises and tickets to events such as the opera. Tickets to non-educational events are banned under the ethical code of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry's leading organisation.

Professor McNeill told The Age these types of gifts, although much less common than free travel and food, could be an indication of something more widespread. Of the one in two specialists offered travel to conferences, two-thirds accepted and most attended the meetings as audience members, not speakers. The authors — who included ethics and medical professors from the University of Sydney and the University of Newcastle — recommended in their report the end of direct payments from drug companies for travel. Industry funds for travel should be distributed through an independent group, the report said.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians recently updated its voluntary guidelines, suggesting that doctors "carefully consider" travel offers to attend conferences. But Professor McNeill said this was not strong enough. "There shouldn't be any equivocation … It is not appropriate," he said.

The study, conducted in 2002, found that doctors involved in research for industry, who are engaged as consultants or who sit on drug company advisory boards, are more likely to be offered gifts, invitations and items of higher value. They were also more likely to accept the offers and ask for things from drug companies. A Medicines Australia spokesman said the study was done before a 2003 improvement to its code. He would not comment on the recommendation to scrap direct drug company payments for travel to conferences.

The study recommended that the Medicines Australia code of conduct be upgraded so that it is consistent with the American industry code, under which direct payments for travel are discouraged.

The Australian industry code also lags behind its British counterpart, which has completely ruled out business class travel for doctors.

"It is worth noting," said Professor McNeill, "that doctors are rather keen on that perk (of travel). One of the things that physicians really enjoy about their job, is that they get to travel business class overseas every year. But for people on the street, travel is a major perk, it is not a small thing at all." Professor McNeill said doctors are uneasy with the situation and were wanting to discuss the issue.
Would we find any differences here in the USA?
SRH
. . . . . . . . . . .
An Australian News Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/doctors-hold-out-for-cash/2006/08/03/1154198268197.html#

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . . . .Anti-Israel bomb threat worry
August 4, 2006 - 8:17AM

The Federal Government will investigate claims that South-East Asian suicide bombers are on a mission to attack Jewish interests in Australia.

Human Services Minister Joe Hockey today said the Government was taking seriously media reports that hundreds of bombers had been dispatched around the world with orders to attack countries that support Israel, such as Britain, the US and Australia.

The plot is believed to be funded in part with cash donations from two unnamed Australian-Indonesian businessman.

"I can tell you that the minister for foreign affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs are investigating what is reported in the papers today and we are treating it very, very seriously," Mr Hockey told the Seven Network.

But Australia had been a terror target for some time, he said.

"That has no impact in so far as these people have targeted us for a long period of time," Mr Hockey said.

"You only need to look at Bali and that was before any major escalation of the conflict in Lebanon and Israel.

"We are a target, we always have been a target and we will be for a very long period of time."

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said the threat was a new one that warranted concern.

"I am concerned that this has sprung up without earlier evidence of action between the (Australian and Indonesian) governments," he said.

The Asian Muslim Youth Movement (AMYM) claims it has thousands of jihadists who are prepared to join the fight against Israel.

A News Limited newspaper today reports that about 200 of these supporters will be immediately sent to attack Jewish targets in countries that support Israel.

AMYM leader Suaib Bidu said his group would also be closely monitoring Australia's reaction towards Israel's current military occupation in southern Lebanon.

"We have a lot of support, including in Australia, from people who don't believe Israel's attack (on Hizbollah) is just," he told The Australian.

Terrorism experts have warned the AMYM was possible of organising such an attack.

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bombers-australiabound/2006/08/04/1154198298155.html

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * * * *

Chamber of Commerce: Credit Where It's Not Due
Ads thanking lawmakers for voting for Medicare Bill include four too many.August 3, 2006
Summary
The Chamber of Commerce rolled out a $10 million campaign to support 20 members of Congress (3 Democrats and 17 Republicans) for having "supported the Medicare Part D law, giving seniors a quality drug plan."

However, the group has had to change the ad for three members who were not in Congress at the time of the vote, and pulled the ad for a fourth member who voted for the bill the first time around, but against it the second. That's a 20 percent error rate.

Analysis

On July 27, the Chamber of Commerce kicked off its 2006 election efforts with a $10 million media campaign touting the benefits of the Medicare Part D plan which provides seniors with prescription drug coverage. The campaign included nearly identical ads in twenty congressional districts thanking incumbents for having "supported the Medicare Part D law" and listing the number of seniors from that state who benefit from drug coverage.

Supports vs. Supported

However, as the Associated Press initially reported, the group changed the ad for two members who were first elected in 2004, and not yet members of Congress when the bill became law in 2003. Reps. Mike Sodrel of Indiana and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are freshmen members who could not have voted on the bill. After the ads first ran, the word "supports" was substituted for the word "supported." Brad Miller, political director for the group, told the AP that he stands by the ads because the members backed the program on the campaign trail and during their first years in Congress.

Chamber of Commerce ad: "Chabot Medicare"

Announcer: Congressman Steve Chabot believes seniors deserve affordable prescription drugs. That's why Chabot supported the Medicare Part D law giving seniors a quality drug plan. Thanks to Steve Chabot close to 1.5 million Ohio seniors now benefit from drug coverage, saving them an average eleven hundred dollars a year. A lot of people in Washington talk about improving healthcare. Steve Chabot is doing something about it.
Announcer 2: Log onto USChamber.com/medicare

On August 3rd, the Seattle Times reported that a similar mistake had been made in ads featuring freshman Rep. Dave Reichert. Local television stations replaced the original ad with the amended version after receiving complaints.

Did He Even Vote for It?

The ads had previously garnered media attention the day after their release because a local station in Ohio had pulled ads supporting Rep. Steve Chabot. As the AP first reported , three Cincinnati-area television stations stopped running the ad at the group's request.

Chabot's votes on the law are a bit complicated. He actually did vote for the bill when it first passed through the House in June 2003. However, when the bill came back after conference with the Senate in November of that year, he changed course and voted against it.

Chabot is certainly being consistent about his position on the bill since then. In March, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer , the labor-affiliated Working America dispatched automated phone calls in his district telling voters that Chabot backed the prescription drug plan -- much to his chagrin. Chabot didn't want to be blamed then, and apparently doesn't want to be given credit now.

by
Justin Bank
Sources
Hammer, David, "Business group pulls ads giving Chabot erroneous credit ," AP. 28 July 2006.

Lester, Will, "Chamber of Commerce's ad campaign," AP. 27 July 2006.

Martin, Jonathan, "Ad Backing Reichert edited for accuracy," Seattle Times. 3 Aug. 2006.

Rulon, Malia, "Chabot blasts critics' phone calls to seniors ," Cincinatti Enquirer. 18 March 2006.

Sidoti, Liz, "Chamber of Commerce Alters Ads After Complaints," AP. 1 Aug. 2006.
This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045.

http://www.factcheck.org

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth: Mark Twain

~~~

We kill because we are afraid of our own shadow, afraid that if we used a little common sense we'd have to admit that our glorious principles were wrong: Henry Miller, The Wisdom of the Heart, 1941

~~~

Have not I myself known five hundred living soldiers sabred into crows' meat for a piece of glazed cotton, which they call their flag; which had you sold it at any market-cross, would not have brought above three groschen?: Thomas Carlyle, "Sartor Resartus"

~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

)))))))))))O((((((((((((

Bombing is backed by most American voters

From
Tom Baldwin
in
Washington

08/04/06 "The Times" -- -- ISRAEL’s military campaign in southern Lebanon is still being backed by most American voters, according to a survey published yesterday that shows public opinion in the US once again sharply at odds with views in Europe.

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 59 per cent believed that Israel’s actions were “justified”, although a quarter of this group stated that the military had behaved in an “excessively harsh” fashion.

In contrast, a recent YouGov/Telegraph poll in Britain showed that only 17 per cent of those surveyed believed that Israel had made an “appropriate and proportional” response to the kidnapping of its soldiers. A Forsa/Stern poll has indicated that 75 per cent of Germans believe that Israel’s actions are “disproportionate” and only 12 per cent approved of the attacks on Palestinian or Lebanese settlements. Such a division across the Atlantic in Western public opinion is similar to that which opened up over whether there should be an invasion of Iraq.

This is, in part, a reflection of the more aggressive stance adopted by American voters after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. John McCain, the Republican senator, spoke for many this week when he suggested that America would respond in a similar fashion to Israel if it faced missile attacks from the other side of the Mexican border.

But support for Israel, which extends to billions of dollars in military aid, has deeper roots within American politics, where there is a long-established and influential Jewish lobby. This emphasises Israel’s post-Holocaust origins, its staunch support for the US during the Cold War and its role as a democracy in a region prone to dictatorship and extremism.

Last week 20 Democrat congressmen reacted furiously when Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, criticised Israel and failed to condemn Hezbollah as terrorists. They called for the withdrawal of his invitation to address Congress and some boycotted his speech.

The bipartisan pro-Israel lobby has, in recent years, been further strengthened by the fervour of millions of right-wing evangelical Christians, at least some of whom believe that the Middle East conflict is the fulfilment of the Bible’s prophecy of Armageddon.

Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador.

Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God” and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement” towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.

“The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . . Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,” Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom”. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.”

The support for Israel of 50 million American evangelicals chimes with the reality of the Administration’s foreign policy, which refuses to tolerate terrorist organisations — or the Middle Eastern regimes linked to them. Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, said recently that evangelical supporters of Israel were now an “important part of the landscape”.

US SUPPORT

43 per cent thinks Israel’s actions justified, not excessively harsh

28 per cent thinks Israel’s action is unjustifed

13 per cent thinks the US should call for an immediate ceasefire

50 per cent thinks the US should continue to align itself with IsraelCopyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.

To view this story and others about this conflict, go on-site to view by clicking on the following link:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14365.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------
More Time To Bomb

Blair and Bush: Killing To Go On Until We Find A Plan

07/29/06

07/29/06 Run Time 6 Minutes

Go on-site to view video and to read, and/or leave your own comments.
Comments (247)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14258.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------

Brzezinski: The Beginning of the End for Israel
By
Daniel M Pourkesali

08/03/06 "CASMII" --- - - What a difference 3 weeks makes. You know the warmongers are in trouble when the Sunni Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, the US-backed prime minister, who until last week would not hesitate to appear in a photo-op [1] with Condoleezza Rice tells her she is not welcome in Beirut unless she demands and sees to an immediate ceasefire before thanking Hezbollah [2], a long political thorn in his side, for its sacrifices to protect Lebanon.

Bush-Blair & Company in their unison support for a barbaric Israeli onslaught on Lebanon have managed to completely turn the proverbial political table around -- on themselves that is. Their adoption of the absurd notion of Israel acting in self-defense and continued insistence that there would be no halt to the offensive unless Hezbollah fighters are driven from the border has not only strengthened Hezbollah but will prove a boon to the anti-Zionist resistance movement in Lebanon and beyond.

Nathan Gardels editor-in-chief of the journal of social and political thought published by Blackwell/Oxford, and Global Services of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate/Tribune in a recent interview [3] with Zbigniew Brzezinski posed this question to the former National Security Advisor to President Carter: "Doesn't military superiority as a blunt instrument lead to eternal enmity, not security?"

Brzezinski responded: "These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well".

He then asks: "Don't the deaths of so many innocent civilians in Qana in the south of Lebanon -- like the massacre in Haditha, Iraq, by American troops -- send a message to Arabs and Iranians that the "new Middle East" coming from the U.S. and Israel will amount to occupation, carnage and bloodshed?" to which Brzezinski replies: "This is precisely why neocon policies are recklessly dangerous both to America and Israel". He then continues to explain that "today it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other. Neither the United States nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution in the Middle East. There may be people who deceive themselves into believing that".

"Public opinion around the Arab world has reacted by strongly supporting Hezbollah and Lebanon" Rami Khouri wrote in a recent Beirut's Daily Star article [4]. "Washington is feeling the pain of its own self-inflicted diplomatic castration, as a consequence of siding with Israel".

Israel's ongoing and indiscriminate bombing of every village, road, bridge and other infrastructure, which has so far killed over 900 people, many of them children, and displaced another million has forged a remarkable unity among both politicians as well as the entire Lebanese population, whether Christian, Sunni or Shia. Those who may have rejected Hezbollah at the outset of this crisis, are now unanimously behind it.

The absurd neo-con invented and Bush-Blair adopted policy of waging wars in order to achieve peace will only serve to create more anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment and strengthen the resolve and increase support for those resisting the US-UK-Israel axis of aggression.

[1] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/2006/64679.htm

[2] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19966759-23109,00.html

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/beginning-of-the-end-for-_b_26247.html

[4] http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=74326

Comments (9) | Go on-site to view or add to them, by clicking on the following link:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14371.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------

Traumatised and afraid
-
300,000 children who want to go home
from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday
4 August 2006 19:08 Home > News > World > Middle East

By
Anne Penketh and Kim Sengupta
Published: 04 August 2006

"I don't want to die. I want to go to school," says Jamal, a four-year-old Lebanese boy scarred by the Israeli bombing of his country. Home for Jamal is now a "displacement centre" in the southern town of Jezzine, where his family fled in fear for their lives.
"We've had our picnic, and we want to go home now," says another child,staying in a makeshift refugee camp in the Sanayeh public gardens in Beirut. "We are bored and afraid and we want to go home," says another.

These are the voices of the dispossessed of Lebanon, the hundreds of thousands of children whose world was changed forever in the seconds that followed the explosion of a bomb. "Mummy, what is a massacre?" another child asks.

About 300,000 Lebanese children have been displaced by Israel's three-week war against Hizbollah - a third of the number of people who have abandoned their homes. In many cases they were ordered out by Israeli army leaflets. They are living in open-air camps, like the one in the Beirut park, or in schools, where many sought refuge. Many children have been housed with host families - in the port of Sidon, 48km (30 miles) south of the capital, 40 per cent of the 22,700 children in temporary accommodation are doing so. The rest are in displacement centres.

Ribka Amsale, an aid worker with Save the Children, visited a school in Sidon yesterday. Children were playing football as their mothers cheered them on. The children seemed cheerful enough, but the stress and trauma are already etched in their psyches.

"Many are undergoing enormous stress in this situation," said Save the Children's Deborah Haines in Sidon. "Although some are out playing, there are issues of safety and security. Many are at a loose end, as their toys and games have been left behind. Their parents haven't got the time or the patience to set things up for the children."

Many of the displaced children are behaving aggressively, getting into fights, in a sign of the underlying pressure that also manifests itself through crying, bed-wetting and bad dreams.

Children placed with host families are not necessarily better off than those in the centres, says Ms Haines. "There are tensions, they have to get used to living with strangers."

Save the Children, which has launched a humanitarian appeal jointly with The Independent, is working with the Lebanese education and social affairs ministries, local non-government partners, and donor countries to assess urgent needs. Save the Children had received 300 telephone calls by yesterday afternoon, pledging an average of £100 a time, thanks toThe Independent's Lebanon appeal, which was launched on Wednesday.

Rania al-Ameri, a Lebanese child psychologist working with young internally displaced people, said: "They desperately need help because they are the ones who are suffering the most. Many children have lost members of their families as well as their homes. They are severely traumatised."

There have been discussions on creating safe places for children to play in. It sounds straightforward, and is relatively easy to organise in the camps, where children can be supervised. But for the displaced living with families, the natural caution of mothers must be overcome by house visits.

Schools have become the displacement centres of choice because of the holidays, which run until 15 September in Lebanon. But the water is of poor quality, the showers - if there are any - are overcrowded, and the lavatories reek of sewage.

In addition to basic necessities such as mattresses, the children need fresh fruit and vegetables for a balanced diet. But "in some of the camps in Tyre, the displaced people need food full stop," said the aid worker Jeremie Bodin of Save the Children. "The stress means that women are no longer breast-feeding, so we need [an] infant-feeding formula, and we need nappies because the children haven't been changed for days." Emerging from his basement, where he has spent the past three weeks, Ali, nine, said: "My father and mother went with my other brothers and sisters to another town. They said they will come and get me when the bombs stop." After another nearby explosion, he said: "Why are the Israelis hitting us? Do they hate us? My cousin told me nuclear bombs are really big. Are they as big as these rockets?"

"I don't want to die. I want to go to school," says Jamal, a four-year-old Lebanese boy scarred by the Israeli bombing of his country. Home for Jamal is now a "displacement centre" in the southern town of Jezzine, where his family fled in fear for their lives.

"We've had our picnic, and we want to go home now," says another child,staying in a makeshift refugee camp in the Sanayeh public gardens in Beirut. "We are bored and afraid and we want to go home," says another.

These are the voices of the dispossessed of Lebanon, the hundreds of thousands of children whose world was changed forever in the seconds that followed the explosion of a bomb. "Mummy, what is a massacre?" another child asks.

About 300,000 Lebanese children have been displaced by Israel's three-week war against Hizbollah - a third of the number of people who have abandoned their homes. In many cases they were ordered out by Israeli army leaflets. They are living in open-air camps, like the one in the Beirut park, or in schools, where many sought refuge. Many children have been housed with host families - in the port of Sidon, 48km (30 miles) south of the capital, 40 per cent of the 22,700 children in temporary accommodation are doing so. The rest are in displacement centres.

Ribka Amsale, an aid worker with Save the Children, visited a school in Sidon yesterday. Children were playing football as their mothers cheered them on. The children seemed cheerful enough, but the stress and trauma are already etched in their psyches.

"Many are undergoing enormous stress in this situation," said Save the Children's Deborah Haines in Sidon. "Although some are out playing, there are issues of safety and security. Many are at a loose end, as their toys and games have been left behind. Their parents haven't got the time or the patience to set things up for the children."

Many of the displaced children are behaving aggressively, getting into fights, in a sign of the underlying pressure that also manifests itself through crying, bed-wetting and bad dreams.

Children placed with host families are not necessarily better off than those in the centres, says Ms Haines. "There are tensions, they have to get used to living with strangers."
Save the Children, which has launched a humanitarian appeal jointly with The Independent, is working with the Lebanese education and social affairs ministries, local non-government partners, and donor countries to assess urgent needs. Save the Children had received 300 telephone calls by yesterday afternoon, pledging an average of £100 a time, thanks toThe Independent's Lebanon appeal, which was launched on Wednesday.

Rania al-Ameri, a Lebanese child psychologist working with young internally displaced people, said: "They desperately need help because they are the ones who are suffering the most. Many children have lost members of their families as well as their homes. They are severely traumatised."

There have been discussions on creating safe places for children to play in. It sounds straightforward, and is relatively easy to organise in the camps, where children can be supervised. But for the displaced living with families, the natural caution of mothers must be overcome by house visits.

Schools have become the displacement centres of choice because of the holidays, which run until 15 September in Lebanon. But the water is of poor quality, the showers - if there are any - are overcrowded, and the lavatories reek of sewage.

In addition to basic necessities such as mattresses, the children need fresh fruit and vegetables for a balanced diet. But "in some of the camps in Tyre, the displaced people need food full stop," said the aid worker Jeremie Bodin of Save the Children. "The stress means that women are no longer breast-feeding, so we need [an] infant-feeding formula, and we need nappies because the children haven't been changed for days." Emerging from his basement, where he has spent the past three weeks, Ali, nine, said: "My father and mother went with my other brothers and sisters to another town. They said they will come and get me when the bombs stop." After another nearby explosion, he said: "Why are the Israelis hitting us? Do they hate us? My cousin told me nuclear bombs are really big. Are they as big as these rockets?"

Go on-site to view more topical and controversial articles.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1212793.ece

http://informationclearinghouse.info/

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------------
The Independent Appeal:
Help save Lebanon's children

Published: 03 August 2006
The Independent's Lebanon Appeal: Donate now Of the 615 people so far confirmed dead in Lebanon, Save The Children says that almost half are children. They make up one third of the 3,225 injured, and about 45 per cent of the nearly one million Lebanese refugees are under the age of 18, according to Unicef.

But despite the shocking images and the harrowing accounts of suffering, there is an acute shortfall of money raised for the children caught up in the conflict. They need help now.

The Independent and Save the Children are launching an appeal for the children of Lebanon, for urgent food, medicine and clothing desperately needed as the violence continues to escalate.

Save the Children stresses that just £1 will buy candles and matches for a family; £10 will help provide adequate hygiene for a child and £50 will pay for food for a family in the short term. But international agencies say the public response has been surprisingly slow to appeals for funds.

Donate now by visiting www.savethechildren.org.uk/independent or call our free emergency donation line 0800 8148 148

The Independent's Lebanon Appeal: Donate now
Of the 615 people so far confirmed dead in Lebanon, Save The Children says that almost half are children. They make up one third of the 3,225 injured, and about 45 per cent of the nearly one million Lebanese refugees are under the age of 18, according to Unicef.

But despite the shocking images and the harrowing accounts of suffering, there is an acute shortfall of money raised for the children caught up in the conflict. They need help now.

The Independent and Save the Children are launching an appeal for the children of Lebanon, for urgent food, medicine and clothing desperately needed as the violence continues to escalate.

Save the Children stresses that just £1 will buy candles and matches for a family; £10 will help provide adequate hygiene for a child and £50 will pay for food for a family in the short term. But international agencies say the public response has been surprisingly slow to appeals for funds.

Donate now by visiting www.savethechildren.org.uk/independent or call our free emergency donation line 0800 8148 148
Also in this section
The young lives interrupted by their nation's call to arms
The family forced to flee Iraq is on the run again
Israeli bomb attack kills 33 as aid effort suffers
Israel extends bombing of Lebanon
Traumatised and afraid - 300,000 children who want to go home

The number above is a United Kingdom Number

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1211692.ece

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Beams reveal Archimedes' hidden writings

By
TERENCE CHEA,
Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

Previously hidden writings of the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes are being uncovered with powerful X-ray beams nearly 800 years after a Christian monk scrubbed off the text and wrote over it with prayers.

Over the past week, researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center in Menlo Park have been using X-rays to decipher a fragile 10th century manuscript that contains the only copies of some of Archimedes' most important works.

The X-rays, generated by a particle accelerator, cause tiny amounts of iron left by the original ink to glow without harming the delicate goatskin parchment.

"We are gaining new insights into one of the founding fathers of western science," said William Noel, curator of manuscripts at Baltimore's Walters Art Museum, which organized the effort. "It is the most difficult imaging challenge on any medieval document because the book is in such terrible condition."

Following a successful trial run last year, Stanford researchers invited X-ray scientists, rare document collectors and classics scholars to take part in the 11-day project.

It takes about 12 hours to scan one page using an X-ray beam about the size of a human hair, and researchers expect to decipher up to 15 pages that resisted modern imaging techniques. After each new page is decoded, it is posted online for the public to see.

On Friday, members of the public watched the decoding process via a live Web cast arranged by the San Francisco Exploratorium.

"We are focusing on the most difficult pages where the scholars haven't been able to read the texts," said Uwe Bergmann, the Stanford physicist heading the project.

Born in the 3rd century B.C., Archimedes is considered one of ancient Greece's greatest mathematicians, perhaps best known for discovering the principle of buoyancy while taking a bath.

The 174-page manuscript, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest, contains the only copies of treatises on flotation, gravity and mathematics. Scholars believe a scribe copied them onto the goatskin parchment from the original Greek scrolls.

Three centuries later, a monk scrubbed off the Archimedes text and used the parchment to write prayers at a time when the Greek mathematician's work was less appreciated. In the early 20th century, forgers tried to boost the manuscript's value by painting religious imagery on some of the pages.

In 1998, an anonymous private collector paid $2 million for the manuscript at an auction, then loaned it to the Walter Arts Museum for safekeeping and study.

Over the past eight years, researchers have used ultraviolet and infrared filters, as well as digital cameras and processing techniques, to reveal most of the buried text, but some pages were still unreadable.

"We will never recover all of it," Noel said. "We are just getting as much as we can, and we are going to the ends of the earth to get it."-------------
On the Net:

Archimedes Palimpsest: http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

))))))O((((((Everyone on Earth Has Royal Roots
By Matt Crenson
Associated Press
posted: 01 July 2006
01:16 pm ET

Actress Brooke Shields has a pretty impressive pedigree—hanging from her family tree are Catherine de Medici and Lucrezia Borgia, Charlemagne and El Cid, William the Conquerer and King Harold, vanquished by William at the Battle of Hastings.
Shields also descends from five popes, a whole mess of early New England settlers, and the royal houses of virtually every European country. She counts renaissance pundit Niccolo Machiavelli and conquistador Hernando Cortes as ancestors
What is it about Brooke? Well, nothing—at least genealogically..
Even without a documented connection to a notable forebear, experts say the odds are virtually 100 percent that every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.

"Millions of people have provable descents from medieval monarchs,'' said Mark Humphrys, a genealogy enthusiast and professor of computer science at Dublin City University in Ireland. "The number of people with unprovable descents must be massive.''

By the same token, for every king in a person's family tree there are thousands and thousands of nobodies whose births, deaths and lives went completely unrecorded by history. We'll never know about them, because until recently vital records were a rarity for all but the noble classes.

It works the other way, too. Anybody who had children more than a few hundred years ago is likely to have millions of descendants today, and quite a few famous ones.

Take King Edward III, who ruled England during the 14th century and had nine children who survived to adulthood. Among his documented descendants are presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor, both Roosevelts), authors (Jane Austen, Lord Byron, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Elizabeth Barrett Browning), generals (Robert E. Lee), scientists (Charles Darwin) and actors (Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, Brooke Shields). Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III.

A slight twist of fate could have prevented the existence of all of them. In 1312 the close adviser and probable lover of Edward II, Piers Gaveston, was murdered by a group of barons frustrated with their king's ineffectual rule. The next year the beleaguered king produced the son who became Edward III.

Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312—a definite possibility at the time—Edward III would never have been born. He wouldn't have produced the lines of descent that ultimately branched out to include all those presidents, writers and Hollywood stars—not to mention everybody else.

Of course, the only reason we're talking about Edward III is that history remembers him. For every medieval monarch there are countless long-dead nobodies whose intrigues, peccadilloes and luck have steered the course of history simply by determining where, when and with whom they reproduced.

The longer ago somebody lived, the more descendants a person is likely to have today. Humphrys estimates that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, appears on the family tree of every person in the Western world.

Some people have actually tried to establish a documented line between Muhammad, who was born in the 6th century, and the medieval English monarchs, and thus to most if not all people of European descent. Nobody has succeeded yet, but one proposed lineage comes close. Though it runs through several strongly suspicious individuals, the line illustrates how lines of descent can wander down through the centuries, connecting famous figures of the past to most of the people living today.

The proposed genealogy runs through Muhammad's daughter Fatima. Her husband Ali, also a cousin of Muhammad, is considered by Shiite Muslims the legitimate heir to leadership of Islam.

Ali and Fatima had a son, al-Hasan, who died in 670. About three centuries later, his ninth great-grandson, Ismail, carried the line to Europe when he became Imam of Seville.

Many genealogists dispute the connection between al-Hasan and Ismail, claiming that it includes fictional characters specifically invented by medieval genealogists trying to link the Abbadid dynasty, founded by Ismail's son, to Muhammad.

The Abbadid dynasty was celebrated for making Seville a great cultural center at a time when most of Europe was mired in the Dark Ages. The last emir in that dynasty was supposed to have had a daughter named Zaida, who is said to have changed her name to Isabel upon converting to Christianity and marrying Alfonso VI, king of Castile and Leon.

Yet there is no good evidence demonstrating that Isabel, who bore one son by Alfonso VI, is the same person as Zaida. So the line between Muhammad and the English monarchs probably breaks again at this point.

But if you give the Zaida/Isabel story the benefit of the doubt too, the line eventually leads to Isabel's fifth great-granddaughter Maria de Padilla (though it does encounter yet another potentially fictional character in the process).

Maria married another king of Castile and Leon, Peter the Cruel. Their great-great-granddaughter was Queen Isabel, who funded the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Her daughter Juana married a Hapsburg, and eventually gave rise to a Medici, a Bourbon and long line of Italian princes and dukes, spreading the Mohammedan line of descent all over Europe.

Finally, 43 generations from Mohammed, you reach an Italian princess named Marina Torlonia.

Her granddaughter is Brooke Shields.

Go on-site to view other interesting items, just click on the link below:

http://www.livescience.com/history/ap_royal_roots.html

[Saundra Hummer]

.............................
Nature's Wrath: The Most Dangerous U.S. Cities

By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 04 August 2006
11:12 am ET

Mother Nature has various ways of reminding us who is in charge. The particular threats and the extent of risk vary greatly based on where you live [See Top 10 US Threats].

While there is no easy way to gauge overall risk of disaster, researchers love to try. One recent study found that in general, the world's population is migrating to coastal areas, where the threat of hurricanes and flooding from rising seas are now well known. Another study found that Americans are following this same deadly trend.

And anyone who lives in California knows that heading for the hills doesn't solve anything, since the very ground under your feet can give way at any time. Residents of the Midwest have their own twisted concerns.

A web site called SustainLane.com each year puts America's 50 largest cities into a natural disaster index with its Sustainable U.S. City Ranking.

At the top of the list are cities relatively immune to the brunt of nature. Near the bottom are those in the cross hairs of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis or some other force to be reckoned with.

This year's list (*=tie):

1. Mesa, AZ*
1. Milwaukee, WI*
3. Cleveland, OH*
3. El Paso, TX*
3. Phoenix, AZ*
3. T ucson, AZ*
7. Colorado Springs, CO
8. Detroit, MI
8. Fresno, CA
8. Minneapolis, MN
8. Philadelphia, PA
12. Chicago, IL
13. Denver, CO
14. Albuquerque, NM
15. Las Vegas, NV
16. San Antonio, TX
17. Nashville, TN
18. Atlanta, GA
19. Omaha, NE
20. Austin, TX
21. Kansas City, MO
22. Arlington, TX
22. Dallas, TX
22. Fort Worth, TX
25. Indianapolis, IN
26. Louisville, KY
27. Washington, DC
28. Baltimore, MD
29. Charlotte, NC
30. Portland, OR
31. San Diego, CA
32. Boston, MA*
32. Jacksonville, FL*
32. New York, NY*
35. Memphis, TN*
35. Seattle, WA*
35. Virginia Beach, VA*
38. Sacramento, CA
39. Columbus, OH*
39. Oklahoma City, OK*
39. Tulsa, OK*
42. Long Beach, CA
43. Houston, TX*
43. Los Angeles, CA*
45. San Jose, CA
46. Honolulu, HI
47. San Francisco, CA
48. Oakland, CA
49. New Orleans, LA
50. Miami, FL
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060804_disaster_cities.html
)))))O(((((

Natural Disasters: Top 10 US Threats: Natural Disasters: Top 10 U.S. Threats
Government officials are evaluating and revising disaster plans around the United States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, just as they did after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. While war and automobiles kill more people than nature, find out what natural disasters top scientists’ worry lists.
-- Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor

Number 10 Pacific Northwest Megathrust Earthquake

Go on-site to view video, just click on the following link:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/top10_naturaldisasterthreats_us.html[/INDENT][/I][/B][/SIZE]

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------
Some Americans Eat Like Ancient Aztecs and Andeans

By Candice Choi
The Associated Press
posted: 21 June 2006
03:55 pm ET

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)—Amid the aisles of spaghetti and canned peas, cereals and breads made with mysterious-sounding grains like amaranth and quinoa are sprouting up at major supermarkets.

Wheat is still king of this country's whole grains, but the appearance of such alternatives indicates consumers are beginning to expand a niche market once relegated to the obscure corners of health food stores.

"People are realizing there's a benefit to eating a diversity of grains—and these grains have some incredible nutritional properties,'' said Carole Fenster, an author of numerous cookbooks that incorporate wheat-free grains.

Grain of Truth
A look at the nutritional profiles of whole grains per 100 grams:

WheatFiber, 12.2 grams
Protein, 13.7 grams
Iron, 3.8 grams

Amaranth
Fiber, 15.2 grams
Protein, 14.5 grams
Iron, 7.6 grams

Quinoa
Fiber, 6 grams
Protein, 16 grams
Iron, 4 grams

Sources: Whole Grains Council, NuWorld Amaranth

New federal guidelines recommending three servings of whole grains a day have put a spotlight on wheat, but exposure to barley, brown rice and other options has also grown, said Alice Lichtenstein, chair of the nutrition committee at the American Heart Association.

According to the marketing information company ACNielsen, sales of products with whole grain claims on their packages for the year ending April 22 increased 9.5 percent from the previous year.

NuWorld Amaranth, one of the country's main buyers of amaranth, reported a 300 percent increase in sales in the past three years. Bob's Red Mill, which sells alternative wheat-free grains, saw a 25 percent increase in sales in the past year, with quinoa driving the bulk of the growth.

Amaranth, grown for millennia by the Aztecs, has twice as much iron as wheat and is higher in protein and fiber. Quinoa, an ancient Andean crop, has less fiber but more protein and iron than wheat.

It may take some time for the unfamiliar grains to find broad acceptance. The American palate is still adjusting to whole wheat, and amaranth's distinct, slightly nutty taste could take some getting used to.

One reason for the fledgling demand is a growing awareness of celiac disease, which is triggered by gluten, the protein found in wheat. Symptoms range from severe cramping to chronic fatigue and even organ disorders. The condition is believed to affect about 2 million Americans, with others sensitive to the protein.

There is also a growing crossover market of health-conscious shoppers in search of the most nutritious grains, said Diane Walters, spokeswoman for NuWorld.

ConAgra Mills is working with farmers to expand the supply of sustagrain, a type of barley with a 30 percent fiber content, said Don Brown, vice president of business development at the company.

While products made entirely of amaranth and quinoa may not hit the mainstream anytime soon, the demand for such grains as ingredients will likely get a boost as multigrain products proliferate, said Robert Myers, executive director of the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute, a research center in Columbus, Mo.

"Once they get past corn, wheat and oats, they'll eventually get around to picking up grains like amaranth,'' he said.

Alternative grains also benefit from the popularity of organic goods, Fenster said—Whole Foods even has a line of bakery goods devoted to gluten-free diets.

"As people go into those stores, they can't help but notice those products,'' she said.

Supply of some alternative grains is still limited, however. Estimates of U.S. farmland devoted to amaranth, for example, range from 1,000 acres to 3,000 acres—compared with 50 million acres for wheat, according to the Thomas Jefferson Institute.

But the supply of white wheat in the country was also limited until Sara Lee recently launched its white wheat bread, said Cynthia Harriman, director of food and nutrition at the Whole Grains Council. To ensure adequate supply, ConAgra began contracting with farmers about five years before the product launch.

The same thing could happen for other grains that are easy and inexpensive to grow, Myers said.

Go on-site for by clicking on the following link:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_060621_wheat.html --------------------

[Saundra Hummer]

------------------------
History of the Lebanese-Israeli Conflict

By The Associated Press
posted: 17 July 2006
10:00 am ET

A brief history of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict:
Because Israel and Lebanon have never signed a peace accord, the countries remain officially in a state of war that has existed since 1948 when Lebanon joined other Arab nations against the newly formed Jewish state.The two countries have been bound by an armistice signed in 1949, which regulates the presence of military forces in southern Lebanon.

With a large Christian minority in an overwhelmingly Muslim region, mercantile and Westernized, Lebanon was considered the least hostile Arab neighbor to Israel _ and the weakest. The rare skirmishes that occurred were mostly symbolic.

That began to change as Palestinian guerrillas became active. In 1968, Israeli commandos landed at Beirut airport and blew up 13 Lebanese airliners in retaliation for Arab militants firing on an Israeli airliner in Athens, Greece.

Under pressure from staunch anti-Israeli Arab regimes in 1969, Lebanon signed an agreement that effectively gave away a southern region for Palestinian guerrillas to use as a springboard to infiltrate Israel or launch cross-border attacks.

Israel retaliated regularly as Palestinian guerrillas fired on northern Israel, and Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in 1978. A U.N. peacekeeping force deployed and the Israelis pulled out after installing a local Lebanese militia in a border buffer zone, but the attacks continued.

Israel invaded again on a wider scale in 1982 to destroy Yasser Arafat's Palestinian guerrilla movement, which had established itself as a force within Lebanon during the country's civil war that began in 1975. The bulk of Palestinian guerrillas were evacuated from Lebanon, but a new Lebanese guerrilla force, Hezbollah, emerged with the aid of Iran and drawn from the Shiite Muslim community that inhabits southern and eastern Lebanon.

U.S.-sponsored negotiations produced a Lebanon-Israel agreement but that deal died as Lebanon collapsed in another round of civil war.

After a destructive and costly military campaign that lasted for three years, Israeli forces withdrew from most of Lebanon but retained a self-proclaimed "security zone'' just north of its own border.

Fighting inside Lebanon would escalate periodically, including a 1993 Israeli bombing offensive and the 17-day "Grapes of Wrath'' military campaign in 1996 that left about 150 Lebanese civilians dead. At that time, Israel was reacting against guerrilla attacks by Hezbollah against Israeli soldiers inside the occupied zone and against Katyusha rockets being fired by Hezbollah into Israel proper.

Israel left that zone in 2000, but warned that it would return if its security to the north was compromised.

Hezbollah trumpeted Israel's withdrawal as a great victory but claimed that Israel continued to occupy illegally a small, empty parcel near Syria called the Chebaa Farms.

Diplomats mostly see that claim as a convenient excuse to justify attacks against Israel. Nevertheless, the Israeli-Lebanese frontier had remained largely quiet for the past six years with occasional outbursts _ until a cross-border raid July 12 resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others, sparking the current warfare.
Go on-site for other articles pertaining to history and science, archaeology, weather, earthquakes, etc., by clicking on the following link:

http://www.livescience.com/history/060717_conflict_history.html

[the magnificent goldberg]

[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="7"]One recent study found that in general, the world's population is migrating to coastal areas, where the threat of hurricanes and flooding from rising seas are now well known. Another study found that Americans are following this same deadly trend.


Forgetting about America for the moment, a main reason for world wide migration to the coasts is a residual effect of colonialism. Colonialism sought to exploit the colonies for the benefit of the metropolis - ie the colonial power. That meant that all infrastructure had to be designed so as to get goods out of the interior to the coasts as efficiently as possible. Thus all roads lead to Lagos, Dakar, Mombasa, Bombay, Calcutta, Rio and so on. The creation of busy ports created big populations in those places and, subsequent to colonials leaving, these places developed into growth poles because much of the countries' expertise resided there and they have become huge cities attracting enormous proportions of the populations of the respective countries.

This isn't the case in America. There are plenty of huge growth poles away from the coasts. What's happening in America? Is is simply that people are looking for better weather?

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

Forgetting about America for the moment, a main reason for world wide migration to the coasts is a residual effect of colonialism. Colonialism sought to exploit the colonies for the benefit of the metropolis - ie the colonial power. That meant that all infrastructure had to be designed so as to get goods out of the interior to the coasts as efficiently as possible. Thus all roads lead to Lagos, Dakar, Mombasa, Bombay, Calcutta, Rio and so on. The creation of busy ports created big populations in those places and, subsequent to colonials leaving, these places developed into growth poles because much of the countries' expertise resided there and they have become huge cities attracting enormous proportions of the populations of the respective countries.

This isn't the case in America. There are plenty of huge growth poles away from the coasts. What's happening in America? Is is simply that people are looking for better weather?

MG
From what I've seen and experienced, heard about and done, it is because of the weather that everyone flocked to California.

Rich's grandfather never wanted to be in snow again, so he moved to Santa Monica and left behind all he had ever known. Worked on the Santa Monica Fire Department when the fire fighting units were pulled by horses. He even before then worked hauling sand onto the beach in Redondo Beach spreading it with Fresno scrapers, the sand having been hauled in all the way from the Mohave Desert. He never went back to South Bend, Indiania, that's where the Hummer Automobile comes from and it is the family name.

My parents moved to California as they had heard that is where the weather was good, no tornado's, lots of fast growth, all pre WWII, this is going to be where the jobs would be he believed, but it was terribly difficult for my father to find work in things he knew well. He ended up being a crane operator but not until he had worked as horse trainer and property manager for Big Boy (Glenn) Williams the old cowboy movie star. Menial work oftentimes, he even did car detailing and washing for early California monied people. Not much to have written home about, however, after doing so, both of his brothers, his two sisters and their husbands, moved to California. My dad and his brothers all worked for a heavy construction outfit, owned by a man named Joe Denny in Wilmington, California. My uncle Ray's wifes parents, moved from Wyoming, they too were tired of the cold, and worked at Joe Denny's ranch (the one the 49'ers bought as a training camp), in Boulevard, California. Talk about hot and miserable, it was that, but there was the fabulous old tiled roof Hacenda style home with a tile roof and french doors out onto the patio, a sqeeking wind mill which I just loved, just a neat comfortable old average sized home. They grew to love it, and stayed on managing it for years.

Uncle Ray and my Aunt Maurgaritte both moved there later on when the rigors of that life became too much for her mother and father due to their age, Papa (Charlie) and Granny Hale were their names, and were just terrific to be around. Granny in her 80's killed a 6 foot plus rattlenake in her garden with a garden hoe one day, just out her kitchen door, and that upset everyone no end, them asking her what on earth was she thinking? She said that as long as she could see it, she wasn't afraid, it would have been worse she said had she walked out and not known where it had gone to, so she killed it. She said it was better the way she handled it or if it had startled her, her not knowing it was there she could have been bitten or scared so she could have had a heart attack. She was right. They had a shoe box with a lot of rattles in it, just from the ones they had killed around the house.

They kept pigs around the barn area where gigantic bolders were half buried in the ground, a snake heaven, so it was all fenced off and the pigs and the peacocks keep the snakes down in that area.

Loren Hale, my aunts brother managed the Wriggley ranch on Catalina Island for years and years, until the "old man Wriggly" everyone called him affectionally, died and his son took over, he despised Loren, as he and his father were so close, really good friends, and the son fired him or tried to, I don't remember the end of that story, but he lived on Catalina as did my Aunts son Gordon Winkler (adopted by my uncle) until he died, early in life, 27 years old I believe, and I think Loren died there as well, and my Aunt Edith's daugher married the fellow who owned Catalina Pottery & Tile company, and about went nuts living there. Her maiden name was Peggy Sue Stroud. She left.

Our families all gravitated to the coastal areas, mostly due to the fabulous weather, not so much the jobs. This is what we heard from lots and lots of people, but the main thing on the West Coast, was the war effort, and even the military influx. From Washington to San Diego there were ship yards and manufacturers of all sorts of wartime goods, and people moved there in droves, during the beginning of WWII, so many that there were housing units being slapped up everywhere, looking like two story military barracks, filling up with workers involved in the war effort, and then there were housing units being slapped up for the military as well and so it became a crowded state along the coast in California over night, and I have to imagine it was that way up and down the coasts. Ports, sure they were all important, but then, the people working these new jobs in war time defense, etc., just didn't want to leave after the war was over, they loved the weather, they loved the ocean, they just loved California, & they branched out all over the state. So it wasn't the ports so much with the West Coast other than the times during the war, which even had quite a few people selling and moving out as they were afraid of invasions, as much as it was the glorious weather.

Boy do I ever miss how it is in California when we get snow here in Central Oregon, which I admit I love to watch and see, but it's the 14 below zero weather, and lower, and ice 4 inches thick on the ground which makes me wonder, just when did I lose my mind?

[the magnificent goldberg]

Thanks for that lovely story, Sandi. Yes, just when DID you lose your mind?

Reading about those people migrating there before, during and after the war and reminded me of a Woody Guthrie song, which I used to have in the early '60s and have never forgotten these words:

"California is a Garden of Eden
A paradise to live in or see.
But believe it or not
You won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the Do-Re-Mi.

Well, if you ain't got the Do-Re-Mi, boys
You ain't got the Do-Re-Mi.
Well you better go back to beautiful Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee."

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

Thanks for that lovely story, Sandi. Yes, just when DID you lose your mind?

Reading about those people migrating there before, during and after the war and reminded me of a Woody Guthrie song, which I used to have in the early '60s and have never forgotten these words:

"California is a Garden of Eden
A paradise to live in or see.
But believe it or not
You won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the Do-Re-Mi.

Well, if you ain't got the Do-Re-Mi, boys
You ain't got the Do-Re-Mi.
Well you better go back to beautiful Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee."

MG

When the "Dust Bowl" migrants came to California, many of them camped on the beaches down below Laguna, (my Mistake! It was before Laguna at Huntington Beach) and they stayed for a long long time, in tents, make shift tents, out in the open it had to have been miserable. We called it Tin Can Beach. This is no exaggaration, it was hard to see the sand for the rusted and broken into bits tin cans, broken bottles, in small bits, I mean it was an unbelievable site. Most of the cans had rusted, becoming very brittle, it was still dangerous, but the glass was pretty bad, even though after 50 some odd years, and longer, a lot of it had worn down edges, (people now use that type of glass in jewelry,)but it had stayed a place of abuse as there were always people opening tin cans, cooking, drinking from glass milk bottles, soft drinks, throwing out anything they'd used onto the sand or throwing it out into the ocean, and so it was really from the turn of the century that things had been tossed onto the beach and into the water, even the oil field workers threw their leftovers, and bottles out on the sand.

I still can't get over how it is now. My parents were amazed at it when they saw it for the first time, they really couldn't believe that anything could look so bad, and that the oil wells were along such a pretty stretch, even though my dad ended up working in them later, he wouldn't throw things out there, even when the other fellows did.

My uncle John was driving along there one day, and he tossed out a 7Up bottle out onto all the other broken up bottles and tin cans, etc., a policeman stopped him down the road, about a half mile from the place where he had thrown the bottle out and made him walk back to find it and put it back in his car. My uncle told him, he had to be kidding, to look at all the trash, but he wasn't kidding and as hot as it was and as overweight as he was, he had to walk all that way back and bring that bottle back to the policeman. He was so upset, as there was no way he was hurting a thing. If I remember correctly he was smoking a cigar and on the way back tossed the stump of it out on the beach, he was made to go back and pick it up as well. To hear him tell it was so funny. We laughed about that one for a long time.

You can't begin to imagine how it was there. Everyone going by threw out their coke bottles and any other thing they wanted rid of from their cars. That's how bad it was.

A few years later when you'd drive by, there would be huge grating machines, several of them for miles, like ants driving back and forth over the sand, all day long. It seems they did this at night too, but I may be wrong on this part. This went on for years and years, and now that beach looks so pristine. It took years and years to get it clean, but it's beautiful now. All that from the Great Depression as well as from the Dust Bowl refugees.

I wish there were some pictures of it when it was so horrible.

We went Grunion hunting there one night, however we got there early, a few hours before nightfall, and it just had to be seen up close to even be able to understand how full of debris it truly was. We were spooked we would really injure ourselves, especially at the surf edge when the water would work up the less rusted out and less broken up bottle's and other glass. There was a big group of us and if I remember correctly, the second time we had gone there to Grunion hunt, was just to show a relative that you could catch hundreds of fish from the ocean with your hands, they ran right up on the beach for you. I do have to say, it's a pretty sight, them shimmering in the moonlight, people laughing and running catching as many as they could hold onto, a hard thing to do. An odd sight with so many people there, all at night. Only one person we were with got a cut, and it wasn't a bad one, but we never did go back again.

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
American strategists have calculated the proportion of civilians killed in this century's major wars. In the First World War 5 per cent of those killed were civilians, in the Second World War 48 per cent, while in a Third World War 90-95 per cent would be civilians: Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action

~ ~ ~

What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment ... inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose: Thomas Jefferson

~ ~ ~

It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable: Eric Hoffer

~ ~ ~

You see what power is -- holding someone else's fear in your hand and showing it to them!: Amy Tan ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

When the "Dust Bowl" migrants came to California, many of them camped on the beaches down below Laguna, and they stayed for a long long time, in tents, make shift tents, out in the open it had to have been miserable. We called it Tin Can Beach. This is no exaggaration, it was hard to see the sand for the rusted and broken into bits tin cans, broken bottles, in small bits, I mean it was an unbelievable site.

My uncle John was driving along there one day, and he tossed out a 7Up bottle out onto all the other broken up bottles and tin cans, etc., a policeman stopped him down the road, about a half mile from the place where he had thrown the bottle out and made him walk back to find it and put it back in his car. My uncle told him, he had to be kidding, to look at all the trash, but he wasn't kidding and as hot as it was and as overweight as he was, he had to walk all that way back and bring that bottle back to the policeman. He was so upset, as there was no way he was hurting a thing. You can't begin to imagine how it was there. Everyone going by there threw out their coke bottles and any other thing they wanted rid of from their cars. That's how bad it was.

A few years later when you'd drive by, there would be huge grating machines, several of them for miles, like ants driving back and forth over the sand, this went on for years and years, and now that beach looks so pristine. It took years and years to get it clean, but it's beautiful now. All that from the Great Depression as well as from the Dust Bowl refugees.

I wish there were some pictures of it when it was so horrible. We went Grunion hunting there one night, however we got there early, a few hours before nightfall, and it just had to be seen up close to even be able to understand how full of debris it truly was. We were spooked we would really injure ourselves, especially at the surf edge when the water would work up the less rusted out and less broken up bottle's and other glass. There was a big group of us and if I remember correctly, only one person we were with got a cut, and it wasn't a bad one, but we never did go back again.

------------------------
Huntington Beach History Profile
City of Huntington Beach - Huntington Beach, one of the fastest growing cities in the nation during the 1960s, has slowed down quite a bit since it was transformed from a rough and tumble oil town into the third largest city in Orange County.

The community was founded in 1901 as Pacific City on the site of a former Spanish land-grant ranch. In 1904, the townspeople changed the name to honor Pasadena developer Henry Huntington, who made the small city a stop on his Pacific Electric "Red Car" Railway line.

The city's first boom occurred after Standard Oil Co. began drilling for oil in 1920, and a forest of derricks lining the beaches led to the nickname "Oil City."

It gained the unflattering nickname of "Tin Can Beach" early on from the debris found in the sand. Following is a first person account from Ed Sweeny, who used to visit the area at the time:

"During the years that we used to go to 'Tin Can Beach' 1946-1956, it was not uncommon for people to go and stay for a week or two at a time...Our families 20-30 members would go during the summer, when it was so hot in the inland valley, and pitch army tents and stay for a couple of weeks at a time...The men would go off to work every day and come back to the beach afterwards...The adults would sleep in the tents on cots and the kids would sleep out under the stars...we would have camp fires every night...It was so much fun...When the Grunion were running we did the same thing...The kids would end up with cuts all over their feet from all the tin can lids buried in the sand...and of course it was free back then..."

In 1961, the state cleaned up the tin cans and created Bolsa Chica State Beach.

Oil drilling and farming were the major sources of employment in the Huntington Beach area until the 1960s. The economy since has diversified greatly, with some 900 companies employing more than 40,000 people.

Huntington Beach probably is best known for its nine miles of sandy beaches stretching along the Pacific Coast Highway. An annual surfing contest, the OP Pro, attracts some of the top surfers from around the world.

Huntington Beach's famous pier, built in 1914, was shut down in July 1988 after officials found it to be structurally unsafe. Reconstruction started in 1990, taking almost 4 years to complete. Today, it is a blend of old and new in design. It resembles the 1914 pier in architectural style, but its new construction of reinforced steel is expected to make it last through the next millennium.
-------------
See the Huntington Beach Old Photos and Pictures Gallery for History and Information about Huntington Beach.

Go on-site to view photo's, etc.

http://www.stockteam.com/hbpress5.html

-----------------------

[Saundra Hummer]

--------
Scarlet service threat

Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com 08.04.06

Republican GOP might want to eat at home after trying to shaft service workers
08.04.06 - Its my duty as a patriotic American to send up this warning flare to the Republican Congress. Their very lives are in peril. THIS IS NOT A TEST! They have unknowingly stumbled into a dangerous situation that threatens them to a degree of which they are blissfully unaware. The fact that none of them will heed my advice saddens me a little, but not as much as it makes me giggle.

Let me explain. The GOP-dominated Congress just barely missed pushing through a bogus minimum wage bill that also would have finally accomplished their thickheaded goal of eliminating the estate tax... making sure that Paris Hilton gets every damn penny she deserves. Well, perhaps that's imprecise phrasing.

Anyway, that's not the scariest part. As part of the bill, the majority passed, on straight party lines, an amendment to the bill mandating a DROP in the minimum wage for workers that live in the seven states with a higher minimum wage for tipped employees, meaning in California, the pay for bartenders, waitresses, bellmen, and valets would have fallen from 6.75 an hour to 2.65. In other words the minimum wage hike would have cut the yearly pay of tipped employees by about $9,600. Besides being more cynical than dyeing oval shaped rocks and passing them off as easter eggs to contestants in the Special Olympics, this situation would put thousands of Americans at risk. Especially members of our distinguished Congress.

Now, it goes without saying that these privileged lords and ladies have the same working relationship with the service industry that a giant cephalopod has with the gear ratio of Toyota Camry, but my question is: are they out of their Mother freaking minds? Do they harbor a secret death wish? What, exactly, is their long term plan, to never eat in a restaurant or drink in a bar or park their car again? Back in Milwaukee, at a classy joint known as Century Hall, I was Will the Cosmic Waiter for a year and a half, and remain eminently knowledgeable of how very very very long that journey between the kitchen and the table actually is. Many a twixt between cup and lip doesn't even begin to cover the circuitous trip that appetizers may be subject to. Quick and dirty detours are always available. What lies at the bottom of the murky depths of your soup? You don't want to know.

I'm not just talking about ptomaine and salmonella and e coli and Hepatitis C, I'm talking about foreign objects such as grated pencil shavings and excess saliva in the béarnaise sauce. How many of our distinguished representatives are prepared to wear diapers full time to guard against the surreptitious drop of Visine in their Vodka Cran? And good luck getting the bathroom attendant to hand you more paper. You might want to ask the Senator in the next stall for change for a five.

A Republican leader said the bill may be scuttled for now, but plans are to revisit it as soon as possible. Someone, please, for the sake of humanity, warn these simpletons that a minimum wage bill is supposed to RAISE the wages of our neediest. And they do not want to put themselves in jeopardy by even CONSIDERING such a regressive measure. I am only thinking of their welfare at this point. To root out every possible sabotage would be like picking out a pubic hair in a sprout sandwich. Does a dead fish under the passenger seat of your Town Car have any meaning here?

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, former busboy Will Durst carries a bottle of Visine just on the off chance he will meet Senator Doctor Indian Chief Bill Frist.

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

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21193
-------

[Saundra Hummer]

)))))O(((((
Christian right steps up pro-Israel lobbying
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange

08.03.06 - Over the past two decades, as the Christian Right has grown in political power in the United States, there has been parallel growth in support for Israel. A number of organizations made up of conservative evangelical and Jewish leaders have been founded, and millions of dollars have been raised and donated to charities in Israel.

Now, a new group plans to take it up a notch, becoming a significant presence in any political policy debates involving Israel.

In mid-July, while the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict continued to escalate, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) -- an organization founded less than six months ago by Texas evangelist Rev. John C. Hagee, pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and the author of "Jerusalem Countdown," a 2006 book about a nuclear-armed Iran -- rolled into Washington, D.C., for its first major get-together.

More than 3,400 delegates from across the country attended the inaugural meeting.

CUFI kicked off the gathering on July 19 with its "A Night to Honor Israel" banquet at the grand ballroom in the Washington Hilton. The festivities attracted a number of high-profile Israeli and U.S. political leaders, including Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon, retired Israeli defense chief Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

According to a report posted at Israpundit, Hagee read greetings from President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. While Bush urged "God [to] bless and stand by the people of Israel and ... bless the United States," Olmert's letter referred to CUFI's "'bold stand at this crisis time,' and the group's acknowledgment of Israel's biblical 'birthright.'"

The following day, at a well-attended press conference, Hagee said that "The dots are there to be connected, and it is not some big thing called terrorism. It is Islamic fascism … all of the various things and forces that we've seen around the world are not merely hot spots but they are all part of a theme -- a war against Western civilization."

The news conference was followed by a trip to Capitol Hill to lobby congressional representatives.

While other organizations have mostly talked the talk, Hagee's CUFI has set out a bold agenda and it appears to have the resources and political connections to walk the walk:

CUFI aims to not only establish a visible presence in hundreds of cities throughout all 50 states, but it also intends to recruit activists to lobby on behalf of Israel.

In addition, CUFI plans to set up an "Israel Rapid Response" network which through e-mail, faxes, and phone calls will make its voice heard by elected officials.

To move CUFI's agenda from the planning stage to direct action, Hagee brought David Brog -- a Washington insider -- on board as the organization's executive director. The hiring of Brog, who is Jewish, the former chief of staff for Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and the author of the recently published book "Standing With Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State," was a shrewd and politically savvy move.

In a recent interview, Brog noted that he had "admired" Hagee "from afar," and he explained why, as a Conservative Jew, he would work for a Christian organization: "I believe this is the most important thing I could do not only for Israel but for Judeo-Christian civilization today, which is under threat from radical Islam."

In the preface to his book, Brog establishes his religious bona fides by maintaining that he is "not a Messianic Jew or a Jew for Jesus" and that he doesn't "believe that the Messiah has ever appeared on Earth." He writes that he "embrace[s]" his "Jewish faith and seek[s] knowledge of my Creator through the paths and texts provided to me by my Jewish ancestors." He also points out that while he doesn't "observe all of the Halacha [Jewish law], [he does] recognize the Halacha as a central component of my religion."

While many in the Jewish community have certainly appreciated the support evangelical Christians have given Israel, there are many that still have deep reservations about the Christian evangelicals' mission to convert Jews to Christianity, and their adherence to End-Times beliefs that essentially leave Jews behind.

In a press release issued by the Institute for Public Accuracy, the Rev. Dr. Donald Wagner, a professor at North Park University in Chicago and a founding member of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism, pointed out that Christian Zionists see "the modern state of the country-region Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial, and religious support."

Referring to the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Wagner added that "Many of the Christian Zionists may interpret this as a prelude to the battle of Armageddon and the final end-times scenario."

In a late-May interview with the American Thinker's Ed Lasky, Brog stated that "Christians who support Israel do not expect any kind of quid pro quo from the Jewish community. ... Evangelical support for Israel is a genuine expression of Christian love for the Jews and respect for God's promises to them, and it comes with no strings attached."

He then added: "That being said, it is important to note that Christians are human beings with normal human emotions. When they spend a great deal of time supporting Israel and fighting anti-Semitism, they are disappointed when these efforts are ignored by the Jewish community, and when the only time they hear from representatives of the Jewish community is to attack them because of their positions on social issues.

"This cold reception doesn't sway evangelicals from their course of support for Israel. But it does cause a certain disappointment, a certain feeling of rejection, that I think is unfortunate. We in the Jewish community should try to express greater appreciation for what our Christian friends are doing on our behalf."

In the preface to his book, written before he assumed the position of CUFI executive director, Brog gives Christian Zionists his unequivocal stamp of approval, stating that through his extensive research he "became convinced that the evangelical Christians who support Israel today are nothing less than the theological heirs of the righteous Gentiles who sought to save Jews from the Holocaust."

However, in the American Thinker interview, Brog fervently rushes to the defense of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson -- two exceedingly self-righteous Gentiles. In a bit of linguistic jujitsu, Brog admits that the two media-genic televangelists have "over the years, made a few comments which have been perceived as insensitive to Jews," but, Brog argues, those comments were either "wrongly attributed to them," "taken out of context" or they "apologized" for them. Brog also claimed that both "were devoted friends of Israel that were misunderstood by the Jewish community."

They "have devoted their lives to helping Israel and the Jewish people. Time after time they have thrown their significant political support behind Israel." And, "even more importantly, Falwell and Robertson each runs a major Christian university (Liberty University and Regent University, respectively), and each teaches the next generation of Christian leaders passing through their schools to support Israel."

(c) 2006 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21185 ----------

[Saundra Hummer]

*
No guts, no grace
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
08.03.06 - SAN FRANCISCO -- Do you think the Bush administration is going after the press? The San Francisco Chronicle says on the front page this morning, "Cameraman Jailed for Not Yielding Tape," whereas The New York Times is reporting, "U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records." I'm feeling like a bunny trying to outrun a pack of wolfhounds.

Sometimes the press enjoys scaring itself or pretending it is about to be made into a bunch of martyrs. This is not one of those times. We are under full attack now, and it is time to fight. I am not infuriated by the performance of the press so far, but I am disgusted. Bob Novak is the most notable traitor, but others are leaping for political favors as they rush to insist The New York Times shouldn't print the news (and occasionally, quite old news at that). I fail to see how Fox News and other right-wing outlets have so little imagination they cannot picture themselves in the same corner come a Democratic administration. What goes around comes around and all that good stuff, but to set it up so that payback is hell for yourself is tragically, deeply dumb. I have watched the D.C. press corps play courtier to Bush since he openly insulted Helen Thomas, who is not only a first-rate journalist, but a lady as well. Shame on you all. No principle, no guts, no grace.

On another topic, I was talking to a guy named Andy the other night when he observed that unlike President Bush, he had learned first-hand that diplomacy works with skunks. He was speaking of skunks, the striped, tail-up-bad-sign kind, but they seem a perfect metaphor for the rest of what he laughingly calls Bush's diplomatic strategery -- at which point the proper response is to ask, "What diplomatic strategery?" Has anyone seen a foreign policy lately? Does anyone still know what containment means? These are, after all, the people who were against arms control because Bill Clinton was for it.

One feels like Casey Stengel looking at the early Mets: "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?" In the most contemptible act of irresponsibility imaginable, the neo-cons who pulled together to start this war now reject any responsibility for it. Mr. Wolfowitz is busy running the World Bank; it's no longer his business.

The rest of this crew of moral pygmies are too frightened of Dick Cheney to point out that this entire war is a disaster, or a FIASCO as Thomas E. Ricks, author of the new book "Fiasco" puts it. I think the Bush foreign policy -- when in doubt, send Condi Rice home -- is a public relations ploy to keep the Israeli-Lebanese war going long enough so that Americans won't notice Iraq has completely collapsed in the meantime. And it has collapsed. I suggest our military figure out how to get out of there before they lose an entire effing army on the way.

In Washington, the sophomore wienies who now staff the administration are far too terrified of Cheney to speak up, even if they had enough sense to notice it's going rather badly. Oh, for heaven's sake -- send Cheney back to south Texas so he can shoot at caged birds there. The Wizard of Oz had more credibility.

I think they're running around the Middle East looking for a red heifer. (For those of you who don't read your news straight from the Book of Revelations, a red heifer is needed to set off the Rapture. We're working on it.)

Well, if you can't get any global action from this outfit, how about some plain old legislation? Nope. The Republicans' latest effort was to pass a callous imitation of a minimum wage increase ($2.10 an hour over two years) after 10 years with no raise. They may fall over in gratitude. And, in the same bill mind you, this crew of crazed philanthropists insisted on another multibillion-dollar cut in the estate tax. For really, really rich people. Rep. Zach Wamp gloatingly told the Democrats, "We have outfoxed you." Outfoxed? A tiny increase in the minimum wage and a huge tax cut for multimillionaires. Does this make any sense? Does this even make politics?

In a splendid display of incompetence, the Republicans went on to make hay of pension reform plans.

Meanwhile, I have yet another complaint to lodge against George W. Bush. "The man is a moron!" is not political debate. Not helpful. Not even prudent, as his old man would say. But that is precisely what he leaves us saying: "But, he is a complete moron." Someone needs to pick up this discussion and point out that at least he's our moron and say something encouraging like someday maybe he'll learn to pronounce nuclear. We can count on him not to change his mind about stem cell research no matter what people learn. And, the only foreign leader he's necked with is female.
(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21184
----------

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------
The Iraq war is over
Sean Gonsalves
-
Cape Cod Times

08.01.06 - Listening to public debate you get the impression the Iraq war is not over yet. But, it is -- at least in terms of having reached, or passed, identifiable goals.

Regime change? Check. WMD? None there, but check. New "democratic" government? Check.

The president isn't fighting a war in Iraq. He's presiding over an occupation as a civil war unfolds. Of course, it could be claimed, we're still engaged in a global "war on terror." (Remember Afghanistan?) But when you consider the stubborn fact that terrorism is a tactic and not a flesh-and-blood enemy, the confused terminology becomes plain.

And what does "winning" the "war on terror" mean? That there won't be evil in the world anymore? There will be no such thing as nihilistic murder or political violence? The Second Coming?

The Bush administration and many of its supporters have come to realize this vacuous verbiage and try to add a bit more precision to their war rhetoric – a war against radical Islam, a war against Islamo-facism (careful not to say "crusade," though that's exactly what the president called it in an unscripted moment on Sept. 12 standing atop a pile of rubble at Ground Zero).

The foolishness of casting the response to terrorism in apocalyptic terms notwithstanding, the president alone can't be blamed for this kind of predictable and unimaginative thinking. It's embedded in our culture. Any complex social problem, we must "war" against it. War on poverty. War on drugs. War on cancer. War on AIDS. War, war, war is the answer.

Whatever you call the "war on terror," it is a "new kind of war" – not necessarily nation against nation, but a war against a decentralized network of terrorists who don't wear uniforms, as the logic goes.

The gloves come off, international law and civil liberties be damned – out of one side of our mouth. Out the other side, we pay lip service to "the rule of law" because that's what is supposed to separate the civilized from the barbarians.

What's the difference between law enforcement – where the means, and not just the ends, matter – and war, in which "all is fair"?

"War, by definition, is an activity undertaken against a political or social entity, while the terrorist network…is a coalition of individuals. Law enforcement, by definition, is an activity undertaken against just such individuals or networks," is how James Carroll parses it in his book "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War."

Carroll's point underscores why this language thing is so important. "By clothing our response to the (Sept. 11) terrorist acts in the rhetoric of war, we make it far more likely that members of groups associated by extrinsic factors with the perpetrators will suffer terrible consequences, from being bombed in Kabul to being discriminated against in Boston."

Two other problems with war rhetoric: 1) In war, results matter far more than methods. The ends justify the means. And 2), war generates its own momentum. History has shown that war "has a way of inhumanely overwhelming the humane purposes for which the war is begun in the first place."

Law enforcement is the use of force against individuals who violate the law. It targets individual suspects and accomplices. If a crime syndicate takes root in a city, law enforcement doesn't bomb the city's infrastructure and terrorize entire neighborhoods with tanks, helicopters, grenades, house-to-house raids, mass arrests, torture, and other intended and "unintended" consequences that come with war – none of which can be written off with glib utterances of "war is hell" and "collateral damage happens."

The rule of law gives rise to order. War, literally, unleashes chaos, as the semantic history of the word reflects. (The word war can be traced back to the Indo-European root wers, which means "to confuse, mix up.")

We must "do something" about terrorism – is a common refrain. That's true. International law enforcement; not war. Initiating an illegal war to carry out a police action, creates more enemies, not less; And in such an asymmetrical war the civilized/barbarian distinction in the battle over "hearts and mind" is also lost.

Republicans are arguing that we need to "win the war in Iraq" and that Democrats stand for ending the war. Why aren't Democrats saying: We are not calling for an end to the war. The war is over. We're calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq, collective global security through focused police action, the return of the rule of law and the reclamation of our civilized humanity?

(c) 2006, Cape Cod Times

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21172

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . .
-------------------

Governors bristle at Bush Guard proposal

By
ROBERT TANNER,
AP National Writer
1 hour, 21 minutes ago

The nation's governors are closing ranks in opposition to a proposal in Congress that would let the president take control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors.

The idea, spurred by the destruction and chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina's landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi, is part of a House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. It has not yet been agreed to by the Senate.

The measure would remove the currently required consent of governors for the federalization of the Guard, which is shared between the individual states and the federal government.

"Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense," said Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat who had rough relations with the Bush administration after the disaster last year. "You don't need federalization to get federal troops. ... Just making quick decisions can make things happen."

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Republican, said "a whole bunch of governors" were opposed to the idea after the proposed change was brought up in a private lunch meeting.

Some two dozen governors met in Charleston for three days of discussions at the annual summer gathering of the National Governors Association. The association's leaders sent a formal letter of opposition to House leaders last week.

The language in the House measure would let the president take control in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe," according to the NGA.

"The idea of federalizing yet another function of government in America is a, the wrong direction, and b, counterproductive," Sanford said. "The system has worked quite well, notwithstanding what went wrong with Katrina."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_on_re_us/governors_guard&printer=1;_ylt=ApBhdVpNu53egsNUQzNi86dH2ocA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[Saundra Hummer]

************
Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof'
By JAKE TAPPER AND MAX CULHANE,
ABCNews.com
Updated: 06:19 PM EDT

(Aug. 5) -- A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.


YouTube.com
A video spoof making fun of Al Gore and global warming recently ran on the popular Web site YouTube.com. One newspaper suspects a Republican PR firm produced the video.
----------------
----------------
Watch Video: YouTube on Gore | Talk About It: Post Thoughts
Go On-Site To View, It Does Look Professional, But My Sound Is Out So I Can't Hear It
SRH
At first blush, "An Inconvenient Spoof" seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade.

In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness.

But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted this film — listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old — they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients."

Distrust of Mainstream Media

Media ethicists say that if DCI is behind "An Inconvenient Spoof," they should fess up.

"Without the disclosure, it's really ethically questionable," said Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Another question is why would this movie be done in a seemingly unprofessional way, to be shown alongside YouTube's mostly amateur videos, which feature lip-synching, odd performances and funny satires?

"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.


Ana Marie Cox, the Washington editor of Time.com, said Americans have come to distrust the mainstream media.

"They're more likely to believe something that comes straight from the horse's mouth," Cox said.

Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called "Astroturf."

Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films.

"People will become more savvy, and then the people who are making the fake videos will become more savvy about how to cover it up," Cox said.

So next time you're reading something on the Internet from a "real person" pushing a movie or defending an actor's alcohol-fueled rant — be wary. That real person might actually be a hired gun, selling you an idea through deception.

8/05/06

Copyright 2006 ABCNEWS.comhttp://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Saundra Hummer]

----------------------

Reporter: Cheney’s not presidential material

If Vice President Cheney is indeed a “serious darkhorse” candidate for president in 2008, as Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward recently suggested, he probably won’t want to enlist legendary White House reporter Helen Thomas to help with his press relations, even though she has proposed a campaign strategy he could run on.

Thomas, a syndicated columnist for Hearst Newspapers who has covered the White House since the Kennedy administration, wrote in May that Cheney “certainly could campaign on the theme that he has had experience in running the White House.”

Thomas made the suggestion in a column she wrote about President Bush’s not being notified about a terror scare caused by an off-course Cessna airplane until after it was over, according to Editor & Publisher magazine.

Declaring that the incident “again raises the question of who’s running the show,” Thomas also noted Cheney’s central role on Sept. 11 and the widely held view that he is “probably the most powerful vice president in recent times, perhaps in U.S. history.”

But asked this week if she is promoting a Cheney candidacy, Thomas made it clear she isn’t.

“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told The Hill. “All we need is one more liar.”

Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.”

Go on-site to view other articles, links, etc. Just click on link below:

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/072805.html
-------------------

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------
Senate Kills Estate-Tax Cut, Minimum-Wage Hike

By
Jonathan Allen
August 3, 2006

The Senate blocked action on legislation combining an estate-tax cut with a minimum-wage increase Thursday night, robbing Republicans of a legislative victory heading into the August recess.

GOP leaders fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the measure, which also included the extension of a series of expiring tax breaks. The 56-42 vote demonstrated that the three-part package was no sweeter for Democrats than an estate-tax repeal bill that met the same fate, 57-41, in June.

Senators jousted all week over the significance of the package, which became known as the "trifecta" bill.

Republicans painted the measure as a win-win for their side: The GOP would get credit for enacting it or Democrats would pay a price for blocking top priorities of both parties.

"I believe Americans will remember that Republicans worked hard to reach a true compromise here that would raise the standard of living for all American families," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said. "I think they will remember that after years of rhetoric, Democrats proved they were all talk and no action."

But Democrats argued that it would have been a net loss for the public.

"A trifecta is a high-stakes gamble," Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the floor. "There are many more losers than there are winners."

Democrats reiterated their election-year charge that Republicans are presiding over a do-nothing Congress.

"For the last 19 months, congressional Republicans have done nothing for the people," Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. " The little they have done on behalf of special interests and the well-connected has made America less safe and middle-class life more difficult."

"Their strategy is block and blame," countered Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The measure would phase in an estate-tax exemption for estates of up to $5 million -- $10 million for couples – by 2015. Estates up to $25 million would be taxed at the capital-gains rate, which is 15 percent, and the rate on estates over $25 million would fall to 30 percent. The minimum wage would rise from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over three years under the bill, and it included a $4 billion provision for abandoned-mine cleanup efforts.

It passed the House, 230-180, Saturday morning. Republican leaders angered some on their own side by tying in a package of tax extensions that Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) had planned to include in a conference report on pensions.

The move did not appear to affect any Republican votes, but it got the bill off to an inauspicious start in the Senate.

"I will treat the proponents with more respect than they have treated this chairman and the institution of the Finance Committee. I will support this bill," Grassley said on the floor. "The process was lousy and offensive, but the substance is good."

Four Democratic senators – Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) – joined the majority of Republicans in voting for the package. Republican senators Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) sided with the majority of Democrats in opposing it.

Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.) missed the vote. Baucus’s nephew, Marine Corps Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus, was killed in Iraq over the weekend. Lieberman is campaigning in a tight race to win renomination.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) voted "no" for procedural reasons.

The Senate cleared the pension bill after voting on the "trifecta" measure.

Click on the following link to access the site:

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/080206/tax.html--------------------

[Saundra Hummer]

***********DEPARTMENT OF VETERNS AFFAIRS
Democrats threaten to hold their own hearing on vets
By
Elana Schor
November 17, 2005
Democrats on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee are openly rebelling against Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) over his cancellation of Congress’s annual joint hearings with veterans groups, spurring lawmakers and lobbyists to consider breakaway hearings of their own.

Senate veterans committees every winter since the 1950s, and VSOs consider the hearings a prized tradition of dialogue with both chambers on the White House veterans affairs (VA) budget. But Buyer abruptly ended the tradition last week during a “veterans summit” meeting from which two top VSOs were conspicuously absent.

Democrats on Buyer’s committee responded this week with a strongly worded letter, asking the chairman to reinstate the annual joint hearings or risk the embarrassment of hearings led by the minority.

“While it is not clear how you could unilaterally abolish this series of joint hearings with the Senate, you are certainly within the purview to withdraw yourself from such hearings and discourage your majority colleagues from participation,” the Democrats wrote.

Majority staffers on the committee spent several hours yesterday in closed-door negotiations with their Democratic counterparts, attempting to reach a compromise that would avert further political damage.

The turmoil on the House veterans affairs panel comes as Buyer approaches his one-year anniversary at the committee’s helm. Leadership abruptly removed Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) from the chairmanship in January, aggravated by Smith’s outspoken advocacy for greater veterans funding.

Rep. Lane Evans (Ill.), ranking Democrat on Veterans’ Affairs, said he would fight to preserve the hearings in their current form.

“Chairman Buyer did not consult or even inform me before he terminated these hearings. It’s not clear if he even consulted his own Republican members,” Evans said in an e-mail. “What is clear is that it was the wrong decision.”

Democrats have also written to Senate Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), that committee’s top Democrat, asking that senators take the lead in salvaging the joint hearings. Under Buyer’s proposal, the chambers would hear from VSOs separately before Congress receives the president’s budget request, a change that veterans lobbyists say would prevent them from making informed comment on VA budget realities.

Craig said he would ensure that the VSOs receive an appropriate level of access to Congress and charged Democrats with politicizing veterans issues in an effort to tar Republicans as uncaring.

Craig acknowledged, however, that he did not agree with Buyer’s bid to cancel the joint hearings.

“He and I differ a little bit on this issue. … I did not join him in what he proposed,” Craig said. “At the same time, I don’t disagree with him that as we move forward, there is a way to do it better.”

In recent letters to Buyer, the national commanders of leading VSOs have hinted that the chairman is using his post to disenfranchise and silence veterans during a time of war. Veterans leaders also took Buyer to task for his Nov. 7 “veterans summit” at the Army War College’s which allowed only 90 minutes for issues amid a field trip and battlefield tour.

Thomas Bock, head of the American Legion, the largest U.S. veterans group, did not receive an invitation to Buyer’s summit. The Legion was told that the invitation was mistakenly sent to a previous commander, according to the Legion’s legislative director, Steve Robertson.

When Buyer wrote a letter to Bock noting that “it was unfortunate that the American Legion chose not to send a representative,” Bock fired back.

“We will not be talked down to, lectured or treated as if we were superfluous,” Bock wrote, adding that “a modicum of respect is owed” to VSOs and “precious little was paid” by the chairman.

Robertson said the Legion would attend any Democratic-led joint veterans hearing and vowed to hold VSO-led hearings if Congress does not reinstitute the forum for veterans.

“Basically, [Buyer] is saying that all of our hearings have been irrelevant,” Robertson said. “We will schedule our own hearings … but that’s not how the democratic process is supposed to work.


Access link to site by clicking below:

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/TheExecutive/111705_vets.html
***********

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
The Associated Press/BEIRUT, Lebanon
By ZEINA KARAM
Associated Press Writer


Besieged Lebanese turn to Internet

AUG. 6 3:38 P.M. ET Like many of her compatriots, artist Zena el-Khalil has turned to blogging on the Internet to express her longings and fears amid the fighting in Lebanon.

Writing from Beirut, the 30-year-old tells of wanting to have children and worries about Israeli air raids on the capital.

"Word on the street is that Israel is threatening to hit Beirut now. I feel so helpless," she said in a recent entry in her online diary. "I called my husband and told him to come home right away. If I die, I want to be in his arms."

Another blogger, 27-year-old Jamal Ghosn, bemoans the casualties among Lebanese children. "Lebanese children don't hug teddy bears when they sleep, they sleep with Katyushas in their beds, in case you didn't know," he wrote with bitter sarcasm.
Young Lebanese, feeling increasingly hemmed in by the siege of their country, are turning to the Internet to vent anger about the war and express private longings intensified by the death and destruction.

But widespread electricity cuts caused by fuel shortages and Israel's bombardment of power stations have at times shut off even this outlet.

Operating his computer by battery late one night after the neighborhood generator went off, blogger Mazen Kerbej, a 30-year-old musician, quipped: "It's quite funny to write on a laptop connected to the world with a candle next to the keyboard to see the letters."

Lebanese bloggers burst onto the Internet in unprecedented numbers last year following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the subsequent "Cedar Revolution" -- the mass anti-Syria demonstrations that preceded the Damascus regime's withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon after an 18-year presence.

But the bloggers' enthusiasm had subsided as politicians became mired in squabbles over relations with Syria and other issues. But the Web musings have surged again since Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon.

Besides blogging, Lebanese at home and abroad are using e-mails, text messages and other communications to share their feelings and ideas for ending the conflict. Anti-war petitions, cartoons and articles have been flying around the Internet since hostilities erupted July 12.

One e-mail making the rounds in Lebanon carries a picture of an "Israeli checklist" with check marks next to the words bridges, power plants, airports, children and the economy. "Hezbollah" is the only word on the list left unchecked.

Another that has circulated to thousands contains photos of wounded Lebanese infants and children juxtaposed with photos of Israeli children writing "greetings" on artillery shells.

Hanady Salman, managing editor of the As-Safir newspaper, said she never had the time or interest to keep a diary. But when Israeli missiles struck a convoy of Lebanese villagers fleeing the southern village of Merwaheen on the third day of the war, killing at least 15 people and blowing children into nearby ravines, the 38-year-old mother was galvanized.

She began e-mailing pictures of the death and destruction to everyone she knew, hoping to gain attention for what was happening. Sending pictures quickly turned into diary-style e-mails that have become hugely popular.

"It's a great way to get across your side of the story, to reach out to people. I thank God every day that there is the Internet to do that," Salman said. "It makes me feel like I'm somehow contributing, I'm doing my share."

Salman now has about 200 people on her mailing list.

On a recent morning, she wrote: "Last night the air raids were so close, I was almost out of my mind. Israeli fighters were flying so low, I couldn't wait to go home and hug my little baby (we live on the 12th floor, remember?)."

A popular Web site, Electronic Lebanon, is publishing the diaries of Salman and others from across Lebanon, written in English. The site has had more than 479,000 visits and 2,250,000 pages viewed since the start of the war.

While the devastation has fired the desire of bloggers to tell the world of Lebanon's pain, witnessing it firsthand proved too powerful for one.

"I so want to write, but I still have no words," blogger Muzna al-Masri wrote of her Aug. 2 tour of southern Lebanon. "This was Tyre, after all, the lovely city and its beach that I always wanted to call home.

"I still haven't cried, I feel I am not entitled to. If I were to cry, what would I leave to the people that have lost loved ones and houses full of memories?"

Copyright 2006, by The Associated Press.

I lost the link, it's from Business Week.

[Saundra Hummer]

--------------------SUNDAY, AUGUST 06, 2006
beirut, mon amour
ode to Hiroshima:

last night i dreamed that i was at the beach. we were camping out... the whole family was there... then suddenly someone told me that we were at war, and that we had to leave. i got really panicky and my heartbeat started racing... i remember running around trying to find everyone to tell them we had to leave right away. the only way out was by boat. by the time i got to the boat, everyone around me had disappeared.

i was all alone.. it was getting dark. there was no electricity or lights...

the bushes began to rattle and i began to hear really creepy noises... like someone moaning and nails scratching... i decided that i would try and take the trip out on my own. i turned on the boat and then suddenly some family members appeared in front of me.. i was so happy to see them. i ran up to them and hugged them, but as i did, they vanished from sight again.

i was devastated.

i fell to the ground and started to cry.

as i looked up, i noticed blood on my hands and realized that it was coming from me... that i was crying blood.

i leaned over the boat to look at myself in the reflection of the water. the water was a light red and all i could see were dismembered humans in the water.. arms... legs... torsos...

i began to scream and scream... until i woke up.

in some ways, i wish i never woke up. it seems that my reality is even worse than the dream. there are now around 1,000 documented civilian deaths in Lebanon.. the numbers in Israel are beginning to rise as well.

hospitals have begun to shut down due to lack of fuel. by this time next week, they will all be gone... not only will casualties no longer be able to be treated, but what happens to the everyday people who regularly go in for stuff like chronic treatment? kidney dialysis.... chemotherapy...?

what is to become of Maya?

this attack is not going to bring about anything except for more anger and more hate.

you can not make peace through bombs!

there are over 10,000 Israeli troops inside Lebanon right now. the un draft for the ceasefire is not going well.. they are asking that Hizuballah stop firing their rockets but say nothing about the Israeli soldiers leaving Lebanon.

the last time they were here, they stayed for 18 years.

i was only able to visit my father's village in the south a few years ago, after the pull out. it was the first time i had ever been there... i remember how surreal it was. our home had been used as an israeli army center during their occupation. they used to detain, interrogate and torture people in our house. is that going to happen all over again? after the pull out, we knocked down the old house and built a new one.

why is it that israel is allowed to occupy other people's home?

i was in that house a little over a month ago. it was july 1. my cousin's birthday.. now i don't know if i shall ever see it again. did i tell you my husband and i slept outdoors that night, on the patio? it was so quiet and serene... so peaceful...

for those of you who have been leaving messages of peace and love... i am so blessed to be surrounded by so many loving friends.. you have done so much to keep me going... sometimes i am so numb and down that i can not feel your energy... but what happens is that i find myself on the computer typing away and then realize that at least you are providing me with some kind of distraction.. and that is as good as it gets for now...

we have lost all sense of time and life. people wander around, trying to get their daily life stuff done, but we are walking around like zombies.. not knowing where or when this will all end. not knowing if this last breath in will be our last breath out... ever.

i know our neighbors are in pain too... so i wonder why and how this is all allowed to happen. so absolutely pointless.

it has almost been a month now, of this violence.. i have not been able to draw or make anything... i did manage to go to my studio once.. it is still ok, but i had forgotten some jars of glitter by the window, the last time i was there... a month ago... and the glitter had lost its color from the sun! i was so upset... i brought this glitter with me all the way from nyc :)

in the beginning of war, one is concerned about their personal safety... then after a few days, you realize that you are still alive.. so your thoughts then go out to those around you... you start spending your time trying to help others in need... then you reach out and start thinking about all those who are dying or being displaced... you try and help them.. if you can't, you end up spending all your time thinking about them.. writing about them.. then you realize how much time has gone by.. how much you miss your old life... you try and pick up a few pieces.. you try and give yourself some personal time during the day to do the stuff you miss doing... then you start to feel selfish... i went to the studio, but i could not work. i will try again. and again. until something happens.

i have not given up on hope or life. i still believe in humanity. i have not yet learned to hate. i never will.

i am ok health wise... the anxiety attacks have lessened. at least when i get them now, i know exactly what is going on.. and i know that it will pass. it makes a big difference. i try and breath deep breaths... sometimes i can control it, sometimes i can't. sometimes i break down into tears... being taken over by a fearful hysteria... resulting in cold sweats and vomiting... sometimes i am able to snap my fingers, yell out loud to myself "stop it!!" and then move on and try and do something productive or distracting...

as each day goes by, war is becoming a way of life.. and that is so dangerous. people must never get used to this.

today it is Lebanon... but tomorrow, who will be next?

violence begets violence. and all this attack is doing is creating more hate for the west in this region. it didn't have to be like this.

it was only a month ago that i was in the South of Lebanon listening to the radio.. the station was being broadcasted from Israel.. they were playing great music from the 80's... i was listening.. enjoying the tranquility.. and thinking about how similar we were.

a part of me wants to just sleep and wake up when this is all over with... however i am so scared that when i do wake up, things will just be a lot worse.
posted by zena at 8:58 PM 15 comments

Saturday, August 05, 2006
the rules
with all due respect, i will not tolerate any use of foul language on this blog. all comments containing foul language will be deleted. this policy is followed by all international media sites, as well as my own personal standards.

thank you for understanding.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."
Mohandas Gandhi
posted by zena at 1:53 AM 68 comments

Friday, August 04, 2006
And it gets worse
... last night.. last night... i don't even know where to begin from...

it seems the bombs are getting louder. perhaps they are the new ones from
the US expedited delivery.

they hit everywhere last night. beirut, jounieh, roads leading to the
north.... bridges in the north... the only highway left, leading to the
North, the last escape route to Syria, was hit.

we are all trapped now.. waiting... waiting...

the bombs started around 1am in Dahiye... we had some friends over...
everyone was in a state of panic... we waited a bit and then everyone made a
run for it, to go home. one of my friends lives outside of Beirut towards
the north.. a trip that would usually take about 20 min, he made it in about
5. then the bombing started up again... they hit Ouzai which is the southern
part of Beirut. they kept hitting Dahiye... my bed was shaking all night.
the noise was so loud. definitely not like the kind we were hearing before.

i am so drained, my head is buzzing... lack of sleep, lack of food... i am
pulling myself together, but it is not easy.

- new major bridges hit, ghazir, adma, batroun, mameltain, jbeil (all north
of beirut, all Christian areas)
- ouzai (residential area)
- more dahiye (charity institutions, ngo buildings hit)
- the forest in adma is on fire... there is not way to stop the fire, with
the roads cut
- baalbeck was pounded again (there was a helicopter raid a few nights ago,
they landed on a hospital, many civilians killed, several kidnapped,
including a 15 year old goat header)
- masnaa was hit again (that is the eastern road to damascus)
- they hit the electricity power station in the be'kaa; so many people now
without power there
- and the shelling continues in the south; nabatiye, sour (tyr), etc..

we are running out of FUEL. soon there will be no more electricity. soon the
generators will stop working. people in hospitals will die.

The oil spill is a disaster... It has reached as far into Syria, killing
everything in its path.

more and more civilians killed... more and more civilians massacred...

and the world watches on...

i have gotten many emails saying that there are people supporting us..
people behind us.. people out there making a difference... thank you. i
thank you with all my heart.

but, i do know that the majority of the world is also just going about their
everyday business... oh, another war in the Middle East, not our problem...
switch the channel... move on to something else. "Thank God, it's not me..
anyway those terrorists deserve it." they are caught up in their own
everyday problems.. paying bills, taking care of the family, moving on and
up in the world...

... umm can someone tell them i am not a terrorist. please.

everyday there is a new war, so why should this one be any different? it has
become so easy to say the word "war." it has become so easy to generalize
and stereotype. it is on tv everyday... it is no more a shocking event. it
has become a norm... or standard.. and all it does is continue to breed
hatred and violence...

people are making money off this war. people are going to make money off the
reconstruction. is that what is taking so long for the ceasefire to happen?
are they busy negotiating the spoils of war?

... while we sit here in pain and anxiety and sorrow and loss....

war can not be a way of life.

-- this just in, the customs building at the Masnaa' exit from Lebanon to
Syria was just hit. 12 people dead.

Even worse: just in the news. Israel has just acquired a new fighter plane
from America. It is supposed to be undetectable by radar.
posted by zena at 5:47 PM 143 comments

Thursday, August 03, 2006


this is a graffiti piece (in Arabic) i found near my house. it was done almost 3 weeks ago.. at the start of all this... it roughly translates to "Beirut will never die." i have been wanting to post it for a while. i think that for tonight, it's finally appropriate. to those who drew it, and i think i know who you are :), thank you so much.
posted by zena at 1:42 AM 52 comments

beirut will never die
after feeling so helpless all day... not being able to channel any energy into any work, i made my way over to a meeting we were having concerning the oil spill. there were about 10 of us there. i looked around the room and thought about how beautiful everyone was.

here we were gathered in a makeshift office in one of the relief centers... daring to meet up, under the bombs and threats... to talk about our environment and what we were going to do about it.

in the room next door, my sister who is only 24 years old, now head of the medical unit at the relief center, was organizing prescriptions and pills. it is so funny... people call her doctor now. she has a ba in liberal arts. because she has been at the center since day one and took charge of the medicine and distribution, she is now Doctora Lana. :) in a week she learned how to do stuff it takes people years to do at universities!

in the room next to her, people were meeting to set the plan of distribution of milk and diapers for the next day.

despite the threats of Beirut being blown up today, here were people working... here were every day people, coming together to help in any way they could. i was filled with so much love..,being around such passionate people.

something changed tonight. i guess when you are looking at death, straight in the eyes, you find a new kind of courage. you realize how important it is to hang on to what you have. you fight for life with a new kind of passion.

i have spent the last 3 weeks mourning the loss of Beirut... mourning the loss of my dreams and my work.

now, it's time to accept what is happening and take charge of the situation.

beirut, she will never die.
posted by zena at 1:32 AM 34 comments

Wednesday, August 02, 2006
bye bye beirut
just got home.. was driving like crazy... word on the street is that Israel is threatening to hit Beirut now... i feel so helpless... i called Maya, she said that if she dies today that i could keep her dvds that i'm borrowing... i told her the same.

i called my husband and told him to come home right away. if i die, i want to be in his arms...

... my little brother is here with me. he is 20 years old. he is making some tea now. he believes it is going to be ok. we are supposed to be discussing a plan he has to make t-shirts with slogans on them to raise money for the relief shelter he is volunteering at.

this could be my last entry.. maybe...

i have thought of that every time i put up an entry... but today, i am writing it with real fear in my heart.

the violence continues... the hating continues...

how can we stop this? please help to stop this.

i am only 30 years old. i have not had children. i want children. i want to live. i want to grow old with my husband... i want my children to play with my friends children... simple things, i want.

i want to breathe good air again. i want to wake up without my stomach in a knot. i want to stop coughing and vomiting. i want to continue to believe in humanity.

my head is spinning from anxiety.

i will not accept death. it is not my time. there is still so much in life to experience... i want to smile.. and laugh... simple things, i want.

i will not say goodbye... i refuse to say goodbye.
posted by zena at 2:25 PM 36 comments

Tuesday, August 01, 2006
wow. i just realized it is already august. time is flying by so slowly, but so quickly at the same time... is that possible? i have totally lost track of time. every day is simply every day now.
posted by zena at 12:09 AM 38 comments

black dust
there is a black dust that is filling the air. we are breathing it in ... constantly. it has settled on my clothes, in my kitchen... it is everywhere. we are guessing it is from the Jiye power station that was bombed... it is still on fire... it is the power station from which the oil spill originated from.

today i had my first experience at queuing for gas. the shortages have arrived. so many gas stations have shut down. the few that are left have long queues.. i waited for 40 minutes.. and when my turn came, i was give $10 worth only.

i only have a few minutes left before the electricity gets cut. we are running on generator now and they usually turn it off at midnight...

everyone is talking about the depleted uranium in the bombs... it is everywhere now. in the air we breathe.. in the land... it will soon be in our crops... in our water... wow. every time i think that things can't get worse, they do.

i am already envisioning myself with cancer. i can feel it all around me. i don't know if i could be as strong as maya has been.

maya by the way is doing ok. she is now on about 5 different pain killers... they make her funny. whenever i call she answers... "hello. maya's house of pain.. can i help you." hehe. it's funnier when you hear it on the phone.

the sky is so dark tonight. there is no moon. beirut is quiet. death is all around me.
posted by zena at 12:02 AM 25 comments

Sunday, July 30, 2006
beirut update
dear citizens of earth,

please do not post political comments or comments of hate or blame on my blog. though i appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinions, i do not want my blog to be a platform for political debate.

i am an artist, not a politician.

our beautiful world is in such a fragile state right now. let us rise above hate.

remember love.
remember love.
posted by zena at 5:16 PM 72 comments

posted by zena at 3:58 PM 13 comments

chasing oil
yesterday, a few of us got into a car and drove up the Lebanese coast line, northwards...in order to document the oil spill. we took pictures, video, and prepared a map that traced the movement of the oil slick.

though i was on the edge of having a panic attack the whole time, being afraid that at any time, the road, bridge or tunnel we were on could be bombed... it felt good to finally get out of beirut for a few hours... first time in a long time.

what we saw was horrendous. our glorious beaches... all covered in black. bays, rocks, crevices, hidden under a blanket of oil. i can not tell you how big this spill is. we went as far up as Anfe (which is about 10 minutes before Tripoli) before we had to turn back to Beirut in oder to make it to our evening interviews on time. the oil slick continues to travel north, eating up everything in its path. we heard it was reached Syria now.

Byblos (Jbeil) bay is completely smothered. this once picturesque and touristic town, also the oldest port city on Earth, is in ruins. we could smell the oil before we were anywhere close to the bay. this summer, the town was planning to celebrate its 7,000th birthday! there were huge festivities planned... so much went into it... now... nothing but this black plague.

we stopped to speak with a few fishermen. they are completely devastated. they have no means of income anymore. so many of them had fixed up their boats for this summer i hopes of giving tourists small boat trips around the coast. now, that is gone too.

i had a really bad headache all day... we were driving on the coastal road, stopped every few minutes to document.... the smell was so strong. when i got home, i blew my nose and the tissue was all black. i made sure to take a really good shower.

we were going to send out the press release, pics and video today, but we got even worse news...

there had been a massacre in Qana early this morning. history repeats itself. the Israelis dropped a bomb on a building that was sheltering refugees. the news at this point is that 55 were killed. mostly women and children... but the numbers are growing. the news is still fresh. it was only a few years ago that the Israelis did the same thing, except last time, it was a UN building that they hit. and over 100 people were killed. mostly women and children killed... why?? how can anyone be so inhumane?

i think Israel is the only country in the world that is allowed to hit UN posts and get away with it. only a few days ago, an UN post was hit in the South. UN peacekeepers died. to their families, i beg forgiveness. Lebanon is a beautiful country.. full of beautiful people. we all mourn your loss.

this whole attack has been one massacre after another. and still they persist. and still, it continues...

posted by zena at 2:42 PM 99 comments
About Me
Name:zena
View my complete profile

http://www.beirutupdate.blogspot.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------
IRAQ THE WAR AT HOME

In case we all forgot, Americans are still dying in Iraq

Jimmy Breslin
August 6, 2006

By the way, there are many American soldiers fighting in the Middle East.

In case you haven't noticed, they get killed. A lot of them get killed.

I was watching the endless television coverage of Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon killing women and children and then picking up the papers to read almost exclusively of the same thing. I found no picture on television and almost no mention in newspapers of Americans dying.

The dead babies of Lebanon and those dismembered by rockets in Israel are considered to be glorious distractions that allow our government to stroll the hallways that appear to have no blood on the floors.

I made a call to the Defense Department: "How are our soldiers doing lately?"

"We've had a bad month," the man responded.

"How bad?"

"Stay there and you'll see."

There now came faxes detailing American soldiers who died in Iraq since July 1. There have been 50 who died since then.

We list below who they are and where they are from, and the statistic that causes all to retch: the age.

We cannot list the entire number of dead in Iraq, for 2,583 Americans have been lost so far. And counting every day.

There also have been 19,270 wounded, with such injuries as legs blown off, young men with shattered backs being placed in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, genitals lost, brains numbed by flying ball bearings, faces left in half by flames.

The television and newspaper coverage of this has been weak, lazy, fearful. What there is of it, you watch and read with clenched teeth.

Once, on HBO, they showed a young soldier on the table and the whine of a saw sounded as it went through the bone of his leg being amputated. This should be on day and night.

The obligation of reporting is to tell and tell and tell of the deaths and great injuries of young Americans sent to die by old draft dodgers in Washington.

How old was the kid on the table? What could he be? Twenty-two?

He stayed the course in Iraq.

What did it get him? He loses a leg.

Just as he was in his great college appearances, Bush is a cheerleader for any war that can be fought by somebody else's kids.

"I grieve for the children of Beirut."

"My heart truly goes out to the people of Haifa."

The vice president, Dick Cheney, is a serial draft dodger: five deferments, a national record.

The strategy for the Middle East is to keep Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon fighting. Keep all attention on them. If they ever stop, then everybody would look at Americans dying.

"We didn't know," Erin Tinsley, 37, was saying late Friday. "We didn't know what they were here for. Two military women."

Erin was in the hot 10th-floor hallway of the Alfred E. Smith houses on the downtown East Side. Two doors down from her lived the parents of Haiming Hsia, an Army specialist who died Tuesday in an explosion in in Iraq.

"The father let the military women in and then when they came out, he stood there and seemed fine. I thought that they had brought an award for his son."

Erin said she didn't know how long afterward, an hour, maybe two, before the words of the Army officers exploded inside him. He collapsed, and on Friday, somebody from the family said that his wife, the soldier's mother, was unable to cope.

"President Bush took away my son, my only son," the mother had said.

Just this once, there was no poor, helpless family member saying that they were proud that their son had died in this war.

Don't ever say that the young man had died in vain, because that is the icy truth of Iraq that people often cannot handle.

"I grew up with him," Erin Tinsley was saying on Friday. "We went to PS 126 and IS 131. We used to run up and down the hall. Playing soldier. The last time I saw him was in April. He was home, but he said that he had to go back."

Spc. Hsia joined the Army because he couldn't make enough as a security guard to support a wife and baby. He spent three years in the Middle East and wanted to come home for good, but part of the secret of Iraq is that we don't have enough soldiers. He was ordered back.

This time Hsia was in Iraq for a month. Now he returns to the Alfred E. Smith houses in a box.

He is placed on the list with other U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since July 1.


CPL. PHILIP E. BAUCUS, 28, Wolf Creek, Mo. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

CPL. NATHANIEL S. BAUGHMAN, 23, Monticello, Ind. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when his Humvee encountered enemy forces' rocket-propelled grenades during patrol operations in Bayji.

LANCE CPL. ANTHONY E. BUTTERFIELD, 19, Clovis, Calif. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. One of two Marines killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SPC. STEPHEN W. CASTNER, 27, Cedarburg, Wis. With Wisconsin Army National Guard. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Humvee during combat operations in Tallil.

LANCE CPL. GEOFREY R. CAYER, 20, Fitchburg, Mass. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died in a nonhostile incident in Anbar province. The incident is under investigation.

SGT. ANDRES J. CONTRERAS, 23, Huntington Park, Calif. With 1st Combat Support Brigade. Died of injuries sustained when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device in Baghdad.

LANCE CPL. KURT E. DECHEN, 24, of Springfield, Vt. With I Marine Expeditionary Force. Died from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

STAFF SGT. MICHAEL A. DICKINSON III, 26, Battle Creek, Mich. With 4th Psychological Operations Group, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Killed when his dismounted patrol encountered enemy forces' small-arms fire in Ramadi.

STAFF SGT. DUANE J. DREASKY, 31, Novi, Mich. With Michigan Army National Guard. Died at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Humvee in Habbaniya.[/U


STAFF SGT. JASON M. EVEY, 29, Stockton, Calif. With 2nd Brigade Combat Team. [U]Died of injuries sustained when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Baghdad.

CPL. ADAM J. FARGO, 22, Ruckersville, Va. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when his convoy encountered enemy forces' small-arms fire in Baghdad.

STAFF SGT. OMAR D. FLORES, 27, Mission, Texas. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

SGT. ALKAILA T. FLOYD, 23, Grand Rapids, Mich. With 130th Engineer Brigade. Died at Landstuhl Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Mine Protected Vehicle in Ramadi.

SGT. JOSHUA A. FORD, 20, Wayne, Neb. With the Army National Guard 485th Corps Support Battalion. Died during combat operations in Al Numaniyah.

SPC. JOSEPH A. GRAVES, 21, Discovery Bay, Calif. With the 89th Military Police Brigade. Killed in action while conducting combat operations north of Baghdad.

PFC. JASON HANSON, 21, Forks, Wash. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.


SGT. IRVING HERNANDEZ JR., 28, Manhattan. With 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Killed when he encountered enemy small-arms fire during combat operations in Mosul.

LANCE CPL. JAMES W. HIGGINS, 22, Frederick, Md. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died of wounds received during combat in Anbar province.

SGT. MANUEL J. HOLGUIN, 21, Woodlake, Calif. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when his dismounted patrol encountered enemy small-arms fire and a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

SPC. HAIMING HSIA, 37, Manhattan. With 1st Armored Division. Died Aug. 1 during combat operations in Ramadi.

SGT. RYAN D. JOPEK, 20, Merrill, Wis. With Army National Guard's 127th Infantry Regiment. Died in Tikrit of injuries suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy.

PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS EDWARD A. KOTH, 30, Towson, Md. With Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eight. Died after ordnance exploded during a disposal operation at Camp Victory.

SGT. DUSTIN D. LAIRD, 23, Martin, Tenn. With the Army National Guard's 46th Engineer Battalion. Died in Al Qaim of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations in Rawah.

PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS MARC A. LEE, 28, of Hood River, Ore. Lee was an aviation ordnanceman and a member of a West Coast-based SEAL Team. He was killed during combat operations while on patrol in Ramadi.

SPC. TROY C. LINDEN, 22, Detroit Lakes, Minn. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

PFC. COLLIN T. MASON, 20, Staten Island. With 4th Infantry Division. Killed after encountering direct fire while manning a checkpoint in his vehicle in Taji.

SPC. JOSEPH P. MICKS, 22, Rapid River, Mich. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

SPC. DAMIEN M. MONTOYA, 23, Holbrook, Ariz. With 4th Infantry. Died from a non-combat-related cause in Baghdad.

LANCE CPL. ADAM R. MURRAY, 21, Cordova, Tenn. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. JUSTIN L. NOYES, 23, Vinita, Okla. With 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force. Killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

STAFF SGT. PAUL S. PABLA, 23, Fort Wayne, Ind. With Indiana Army National Guard. Killed by small arms fire during combat operations in Mosul.

CAPT. CHRISTOPHER T. PATE, 29, Hampstead, N.C. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

PFC. DEREK J. PLOWMAN, 20, Everton, Ark. With Arkansas Army National Guard. Died from a gunshot wound in Baghdad.

STAFF SGT. KENNETH I. PUGH, 39, Houston. With 4th Infantry Division. Died of injuries sustained when his M1A1 Abrams tank encountered enemy forces small arms fire in Baghdad.

CPL. JULIAN A. RAMON, 22, Flushing. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died during combat operations in Anbar province.

CPL. TIMOTHY ROOS, 21, Cincinnati. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died of wounds received while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

CAPT. BLAKE H. RUSSELL, 35, Fort Worth, Texas. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained from enemy forces munitions while investigating a possible mortar cache during combat operations in Baghdad.

SPC. DENNIS K. SAMSON JR., 24, Hesperia, Mich. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when he came under enemy small-arms fire in Taqaddum.

PFC. ENRIQUE C. SANCHEZ, 21, Garner, N.C. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. 1ST CLASS SCOTT R. SMITH, 34, Punxsutawney, Pa. With 52nd Ordnance Group. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near a controlled ordnance clearing mission in Iskandariya.

STAFF. SGT. CHRISTOPHER W. SWANSON, 25, Rose Haven, Md. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when his patrol encountered enemy forces using small-arms fire in Ramadi.

PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS JERRY A. THARP, 44, Aledo, Ill. With Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25. Killed when his dismounted patrol was struck by a roadside bomb while operating in Anbar province.

CPL. JOSEPH A. TOMCI, 21, Stow, Ohio. With II Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. THOMAS B. TURNER JR., 31, Cottonwood, Calif. With 101st Airborne Division. Died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle in Muqdadiya.

SGT. GEORGE M. ULLOA JR., 23, of Austin, Texas. With II Marine Expeditionary Force. Died from wounds suffered while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. MARK R. VECCHIONE, 25, Tucson, Ariz. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his M1A1 Abrams tank in Ramadi.

CPL. MATTHEW P. WALLACE, 22, Lexington Park, Md. With 4th Infantry Division. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle during combat operations in Baghdad.

AIRMAN 1ST CLASS CARL JEROME WARE JR., 22, Glassboro, N.J. With 15th Security Forces Squadron. Died from a non-combat-related cause at Camp Bucca.

CAPT. JASON M. WEST, 28, Pittsburgh. With 1st Armored Division. Killed by enemy forces using small arms fire in Ramadi.

SGT. CHRISTIAN B. WILLIAMS, 27, Winter Haven, Fla. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. One of two Marines killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nybres064842623aug06,0,3954211,print.column?coll=n y-nynews-print

[Saundra Hummer]

***********
»Helen Thomas: Inveterate First Lady of the Washington Press Corps

Helen Thomas:
The First Lady of the Washington Press Corps

Former White House Bureau Chief Helen Thomas has for years been recognized as The First Lady of the Washington Press Corps. Thomas served as the major journalistic pioneer who almost single-handedly spearheaded the destruction of barriers against women reporters in the media. During her years reporting news at the White House, she provided coverage of every President since John F. Kennedy.

In November, 1960, Helen Thomas began covering then President elect John F. Kennedy, following him to the White House in January, 1961 as a member of the UPI team. It was during this first White House assignment that she began closing presidential press conferences with “Thank you, Mr. President.” She was the only woman newspaper journalist to travel with President Nixon to China during his breakthrough trip in January, 1972. She also traveled around the world several times with Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. During the course of of those years, she covered every Economic Summit. Sources have frequently cited her as one of the 25 Most Influential Women in America.

Ann Coulter, Eat Your Heart Out….

A Video Presentation of Vintage Helen Thomas: Helen Thomas with Jon Stewart


This entry was written by disembedded and posted on July 6, 2006 at 4:37 am and is filed under Media, Video, Political, Cultural, Personalties, *


Go on-site to view this video with Jon Stewart and many others, along with print articles. Just click on the following link:

http://disembedded.wordpress.com/

[lotech]

http://www.masada2000.org/templemount.html

[Saundra Hummer]

http://www.masada2000.org/templemount.html

Go on site to view this article in it's entirety:
http://www.masada2000.org/templemount.html
THE TEMPLE MOUNT
EYE ON REALITY


Israel, Jerusalem, Temple Mount, Islam, Moslem, Muslim, Jewish, History, Intifada, Palestinian Intifada, History of Jerusalem, History of the Temple Mount, Palestine
Below are portions of an article written in WorldNetDaily by Joseph Farah
"B-E-T-W-E-E-N T-H-E L-I-N-E-S"
Myths of the Middle East by Joseph Farah
Wednesday, October 11, 2000

If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right? Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.
What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites." Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem! With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem. So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam?



Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

The latest round of violence in Israel erupted when Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon tried to visit the Temple Mount, the foundation of the Temple built by Solomon.* It is the holiest site for Jews. Sharon and his entourage were met with stones and threats. I know what it's like. I've been there. Can you imagine what it is like for Jews to be threatened, stoned and physically kept out of the holiest site in Judaism?

So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution to the violence. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name.


* Note: We beg to differ with Joseph Farah on this one point.
The violence started the day BEFORE Sharon went up to the Temple Mount.
In fact, the Arab Violence was planned months before after the failed Camp David.
Sharon didnt just go to the temple mount, HE applied for a permit from the waqf,
the ARABS KNEW he was coming and planned the intafada accordingly!
There was nothing spontaneous about the Arab violence!

We appreciate Joseph Farah's honesty and only wish more Arab-Americans would come forward
with the same courage and honesty. Talk about the proverbial "Needle in the Haystack!"

Joseph Farah, a Christian Arab-American journalist, is the editor and chief executive officer
of WorldNetDaily.com, a leading independent news site.

..

FFor Maps, Graphics and Photos Showing
East and West Jerusalem, The Old City of Jerusalem
and the Temple Mount, Click HERE

or...

Go Back to Masada2000.org Home Page Menu

I'm in total agreement that anyone should be able to visit anywhere at all in any country going to any holy sight they wish. If Sharron wished to visit Medina, the holy rock, then he should be allowed to. However, with his past history, he knew exactely what would happen if he were to go to the Temple Mount. His name in the Middle East conjurs up images that I for one would like to never have learned of. Much as our Twin Towers and the other tragedies that happened on Septermber 11th, conjure up images we will never come to terms with, so are the memories of Airel Sharron. If it were planned well in advance, it is the fact that he is so reviled that made it acceptable to many in the area. However, it is violence which is resorted as an accepted method to try to make things better, not the peace table, it is violence which brings in donations and government assistance, not peaceful means, at least not in as bountiful expressions of support as both sides would wish for.

It's not that the Jews, the Israeli's need or will, ever forget the deaths from suicide bombers and other tragic injustices they have suffered as well. But look, just look where all of this is headed. There must be a way to stop this rush towards doomsday. My heart goes out to all who suffer in these conflicts, I just can't stay with only one victim, as there are just too many of them out there, the ones we call the innocents.
SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

--------------------
AMAZING,
IT TRULY IS!
DON'T THESE PEOPLE EVER READ?
SRH
Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD

By
CHARLES J. HANLEY,
AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in IraqPeople tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq..

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.
"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country," said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise.

"These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. "They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis."

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra's announcement in his syndicated column, complained in an interview that the press "didn't give the story the play it deserved." But in some quarters it was headlined.

"Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ..." was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. "Americans are waking up from a distorted reality," read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book — at best uncorroborated hearsay — claimed "56 flights" by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.

"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq — after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections — acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

Americans have heard it. A poll by Kull's WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven in 10 Americans perceive the administration as still saying Iraq had a WMD program. Combine that rhetoric with simplistic headlines about WMD "finds," and people "assume the issue is still in play," Kull said.

"For some it almost becomes independent of reality and becomes very partisan." The WMD believers are heavily Republican, polls show.

Beyond partisanship, however, people may also feel a need to believe in WMD, the analysts say.

"As perception grows of worsening conditions in Iraq, it may be that Americans are just hoping for more of a solid basis for being in Iraq to begin with," said the Harris Poll's David Krane.

Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

http://news.yahoo.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------
MIDDLE EAST:
WAR IN LEBANON PROMPTS INTERNET BLOG BOOM
Beirut, 4 August (AKI) - Young Lebanese are trying to break the isolation brought upon by the war with Israel by expressing their thoughts are recounting their experiences on Internet web logs, or blogs and online diaries. To communicate with the outside world many of the blogs are in English. One of around 15 popular sites that have sprung up since the conflict began on 12 July is LebanonsUpdates which provides a chronology of the fighting and the diplomatic moves afoot to bring peace.

Operated by a group of eight friends in their 20s the site also provides maps indicating areas struck in the Israeli air raids and a list of the dead and injured.

But the blog does not only serve as a source of information.

Through a link, visitors can connect with another site, Samidoun (the resistance fighters) were they can sign up to work as rescuers in the areas targeted in the Israel attacks.

Another blog, SiegeofLebanon works more like a traditional journal of events, informing visitors about the latest petrol shortages and where they may find fuel suppplies.

Personal accounts by people caught up in the violence are also posted on the site.

Some blogs are far more political in tone like LebanonScope, a site collecting anti-Hezbollah opinons. In a recent piece, Samy Gemayel, scion of one of Lebanon's most powerful Christian Maroniet faimilies (Bashir Gemayel, who as a pro-Israeli Lebanese president was assasinated in 1982) accuse Hezbollah, which he describes as "an armed movement wearing the uniform of revolutionary Islam".

Lebanonscope also contains criticism aimed at another Shiite grouping, Amal, lead by Lebanese parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri. The party is described as "corrupt" and as a stooge of Syria.

But some of the country's anti-Syrian politicians are also not spared from the criticism. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, whose Progressive Socialist Party forms part of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's coalition government, is accused of having "supported for 15 years Syria's interference in Lebanon."

The current Lebanese political system, Lebanonscope concludes, "can't guarantee prosperity and peace, and especially cultural pluralism in Lebanon.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=CultureAndMedia&loid=8.0.327876055&par=0#

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------------
WE'RE IN FOR A BUMPY RIDE
HOLD ON FOR DEAR LIFE!
SRH

Syria ready for regional war: FM
Monday, August 07, 2006


* 15 Israelis, 9 Lebanese civilians killed in violence
* UN mulls draft resolution
* Iran, Syria reject draft
* Putin wants immediate ceasefire

TRIPOLI: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said on Sunday that Damascus was ready for regional war and will respond “immediately” to any Israeli attack.

“We will respond to any Israeli aggression immediately,” he said on his arrival in Lebanon for an Arab foreign ministers’ meeting.

Asked by reporters in the main northern city of Tripoli about the possibility of a regional war, Muallem said: “Welcome to the regional war.”
Meanwhile, a Hezbollah rocket killed 15 Israelis, including 12 soldiers, and Israeli bombs killed 11 in Lebanon as the UN Security Council considered a US-French draft resolution to end the conflict.

The soldiers were killed and at least nine were wounded when a rocket struck a group of reservists in the northern village of Kfar Giladi in the deadliest Hezbollah rocket strike of the war. At least three people were killed and 160 wounded in heavy rocket fire on the Israeli city of Haifa.

Nine civilians, a Lebanese soldier and a Palestinian militant were killed, while three Chinese UN peacekeepers were wounded in crossfire between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas.

The draft of the UN Security Council resolution calls for “the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations” – implicitly giving Israel the right to pursue “defensive” operations.

Israel views the draft favourably, a senior government official and Israeli media said, noting that it did not order Israel to withdraw its 10,000 soldiers from southern Lebanon. Lebanon wants the draft UN resolution changed to include an explicit demand for a full Israeli pullout from southern Lebanon, a government source said.

Hezbollah’s two key allies, Iran and Syria, rejected the draft cease-fire resolution – suggesting they back a continued fight by the guerrillas.

The Israeli army said on Sunday it had captured one of the Hezbollah guerrillas who took part in the abduction of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

The US would like a second UN resolution, setting conditions for a permanent ceasefire and authorising an international force in the area, in days and not weeks, US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cautioned that a UN resolution will not stop all the fighting in southern Lebanon but is a first step towards a lasting cessation of violence. Russian President Vladimir Putin told British Prime Minister Tony Blair “of the need for an immediate halt to hostilities” in Lebanon. agencies
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\08\07\story_7-8-2006_pg1_1

An action such as this, threats such as this, is what those among us who don't think war should be an option, what those of us who were hoping for a peaceful resolution are words we hoped we would never hear.

Now what will the chorus sound like when others in the region start with their threats and saber rattling, then what will our own threats be? Then will Venezuela chime in and what will North Korea, and others start adding to this already overflowing powder keg of a situation we in this world live in?

These are the craziest times I can remember. Nothing makes a lick of sense.

What weapons will we use to insure the oil keeps flowing?

A fellow we know says "Kill them all, we need the oil." He was dead serious.
SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------------
Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets
Fliers admit aborting raids on civilian targets as concern grows over the reliability of intelligence
Inigo Gilmore at Hatzor Air Base, Israel
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer

At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah facilities.
Voices expressing concern over the armed forces' failures are getting louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week: 'We gave the army so much money. Why are we getting these results?' Last week saw Hizbollah's guerrilla force, dismissed by senior Israeli military officials as 'ragtag', inflict further casualties on one of the world's most powerful armies in southern Lebanon. At least 12 elite troops, the equivalent of Britain's SAS, have already been killed, and by yesterday afternoon Israel's military death toll had climbed to 45.

As the bodies pile up, so the Israeli media has begun to turn, accusing the military of lacking the proper equipment, training and intelligence to fight a guerrilla war in Lebanon. Israel's Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, on a tour of the front lines, was confronted by troubled reserve soldiers who told him they lacked proper equipment and training.

Israel's chief of staff, Major-General Dan Halutz, had vowed to wipe out Hizbollah's missile threat within 10 days. These claims are now being mocked as rockets rain down on Israel's north with ever greater intensity, despite an intense and highly destructive air bombardment.

As one well-connected Israeli expert put it: 'If we have such good information in Lebanon, how come we still don't know the hideout of missiles and launchers?... If we don't know the location of their weapons, why should we know which house is a Hizbollah house?'

As international outrage over civilian deaths grows, the spotlight is increasingly turning on Israeli air operations. The Observer has learnt that one senior commander who has been involved in the air attacks in Lebanon has already raised concerns that some of the air force's actions might be considered 'war crimes'.

Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a 'refusenik' letter in 2004, said he had spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified aborting missions out of 'common sense' and in the context of the Israeli Defence Force's moral code of conduct, which says every effort should be made to avoiding harming civilians.

Shapiro said: 'Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they're afraid people will be there, and they don't trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.'

He added: 'One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill, which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house, so he shot next to the house ...

'Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.'

So far none of the pilots has publicly refused to fly missions but some are wobbling, according to Shapiro. He said: 'Their target could be a house firing a cannon at Israel and it could be a house full of children, so it's a real dilemma; it's not black and white. But ... I'm calling on them to refuse, in order save our country from self-destruction.'

Meron Rappoport, a former editor at the Israeli daily Haaretz and military analyst, criticised the air force's methods for selecting targets: 'The impression is that information is sometimes lacking. One squadron leader admitted the evidence used to determine attacks on cars is sometimes circumstantial - meaning that if people are in an area after Israeli forces warned them to leave, the assumption is that those left behind must be linked to Hizbollah ... This is problematic, as aid agencies have said many people did not leave ... because they could not, or it was unsafe to travel on the roads thanks to Israel's aerial bombardment.'

These revelations raise further serious questions about the airstrike in Qana last Sunday that left dozens dead, which continues to arouse international outrage. From the outset, the Israeli military's version of events has been shrouded in ambiguity, with the army releasing a video it claims shows Katyusha rockets being fired from Qana, even though the video was dated two days earlier, and claiming that more than 150 rockets had been fired from the location.

Some IDF officials have continued to refer vaguely to Katyushas being launched 'near houses' in the village and to non-specific 'terrorist activity' inside the targeted building. In a statement on Thursday, the IDF said it the air force did not know there were civilians in what they believed was an empty building, yet paradoxically blamed Hizbollah for using those killed as 'human shields'.

Human rights groups have attacked the findings as illogical. Amnesty International described the investigation as a 'whitewash', saying Israeli intelligence must have been aware of the civilians'.

One Israeli commander from a different squadron called the Qana bombing a 'mistake' and was unable to explain the apparent contradiction in the IDF's position, although he insisted there would have been no deliberate targeting of civilians. He said he had seen the video of the attack, and admitted: 'Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human shields ... That specific building - I don't know the reason it was chosen as a target.'

Special reports
Israel & the Middle East
Lebanon and Syria

News blog
02.08.06: Israel's media offensive
02.08.06: Israel's reserve forces
31.07.06: 'They did it again'
21.07.06: An explosive image

Finally something which gives us hope.
SRH

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html

[Saundra Hummer]

-----------------------
U.S. sanctions companies dealing with Iran
8/5/2006 9:00:00 AM GMT

(AFP Photo) The Bush’s administration announced sanctions Friday against seven foreign companies.

Go on-site to view photo's.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12416

The Bush administration announced sanctions Friday against seven foreign companies, including two from India and two from Russia, for high-tech business dealings with the Islamic Republic, The Associated Press reported.

The sanctions, announced in the U.S. government's official journal, the Federal Register, prohibit the seven companies from doing business with the U.S. government or acquiring American high-technology items.

The sanctions are the latest to be imposed under the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000, which includes penalties for sales to Iran of ballistic missile technology and other items that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction program.

The Russian foreign ministry described the U.S. actions as part of unlawful efforts to force foreign companies to follow American rules, adding that the Bush administration is punishing its own companies by taking away their possibilities to cooperate with Russian firms.

But State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey said he was unaware of any formal protest from Moscow.

"This is a matter of U.S. law," he told reporters. "Non-proliferation is, you know, if not the highest certainly one of the highest priorities that we have. We're very serious about it,

"We're serious about following this law, and the decisions rendered here, which were taken after a lot of thorough and careful review, are reflective of that."

As the U.S. government insists on taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council if Iran refused to permanently halt its nuclear activities, or failed to resume negotiations on limiting its nuclear program, Russia continues to engage openly with Iran.

Russia considers its strong ties with the Islamic Republic as well as Syria in its national interests. Its financial gains from cooperation with both countries stand to be very considerable, and this may be just a beginning of future cooperation.

Moscow believes that Western concerns about nuclear proliferation merely reflect commercial interests to exclude Russia from competitive markets.

In September 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated: "According to our information, many Western European and American companies cooperate with Iran either directly or through intermediary organizations in the nuclear sphere."

Also according to some Russian analysts, even in the absence of official contracts, U.S.-Iranian trade turnover was about US$1 billion, which was higher than that of Russia, despite the Russia-Iran strategic partnership agreement.

Prior the Islamic revolution in Iran, Washington and Tehran signed a contract worth $24 billion, which provided for U.S. assistance in establishing eight nuclear power plants in Iran within 10 years.

Related stories...

Iran: Oil could hit $200 if U.S. pursues sanctions
UN resolution steps up pressure on Iran
World powers send Iran back to UN
EU resumes nuclear talks with Iran
“U.S. determined to topple Iran’s gov’t”
U.S. gives Iran ultimatum on Uranium
Iran, Syria sign defense pact
Iran seeks Chinese, Russian support
Iran offers counter-package to nuclear incentives
IAEA finds highly enriched uranium traces in Iran
World powers agree on Iran nuclear package
Iran welcomes U.S. talks offer, but rejects conditions
U.S. conditionally prepared to join Iran nuclear talks
Russia to execute missile contract with Iran
World powers try to resolve difference over Iran
U.S. resorts to blackmail to pressure Iran

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------
War drumbeat drowns out Israeli protesters

By
Jonathan Saul
Mon Aug 7, 2006 12:14 PM ET

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - Waving colorful banners and singing protest songs, a tireless band of Israeli demonstrators is trying to end the war in Lebanon.

Few are taking notice.
"We understand we don't represent the consensus. Everyone is asleep," said Uri Even-Chen, 36, a computer programmer from the town of Ranana, during a weekend street march in Tel Aviv.

Opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Israelis back the war against Hizbollah, sparked when the guerrillas abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

The death, damage and panic caused by Hizbollah's rockets have only hardened attitudes -- more than 2,700 missiles have slammed into northern Israel, killing 48 people.

Those views have been reflected in the tiny street protests.

By contrast, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated at the height of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when the army sought to cripple Palestinian militants living there.

In one of the biggest rallies to date, around 2,000 people turned out in Tel Aviv at the weekend. Many carried communist and anarchist flags and banners belonging to Arab Israeli movements -- hardly the Israeli mainstream.

"The majority who support opposition to the war are from the radical left," said protester Amit Ramon, 42, a high-tech worker. "The mainstream left is no longer left."

Anti-war groups have demanded an immediate ceasefire and negotiations with Hizbollah over prisoners.

At the weekend rally in Tel Aviv, veteran peace campaigner Yael Dayan was booed off a stage for urging the safe return of all of Israel's soldiers fighting in Lebanon, underscoring how far removed protesters remain from most Israelis.

"There is no mainstream political opposition (to the war)," Israeli analyst Mark Heller said. "This is basically seen as a legitimate response to a serious challenge from somebody else."

Anti-war activists remain frustrated that protest groups such as Peace Now have not opposed the government.

The group, at the forefront of opposition to the previous war in Lebanon, insists Israel had the right to respond to attacks on its soil. Other dovish bodies such as political party Meretz have been virtually silent in opposition to the war.

Many in the protest camp have turned on Defense Minister Amir Peretz, a former labor union leader and avowed supporter of negotiations with the Palestinians.

"Peretz wants to be a hero and we are suffering because of it," said demonstrator Yoav Bar, 51, an electrician from Haifa.

Many traditional supporters of bodies such as Peace Now find it difficult to identify with the current anti-war groups.

I supported the anti-war rallies in the 1980s but this is different," Shmuel Adar, 71, from Tel Aviv said.

"This is a defensive war and it is clear that there is an intention to attack and destroy Israel -- just look at the amount of rockets fired."

With Israel possibly set to expand its offensive in Lebanon, opposition still looks feeble but protesters are not giving up.

In the northern city of Haifa, one of Hizbollah's favorite targets, sporadic protests have been held, with very little backing from the city's embattled residents.

"We remain distant voices but what Israel is doing in Lebanon is shocking ... Opposition will build up," said Yoni Yeheskiel, 23, a student at one Haifa rally.
Go on-site to view photo.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-07T161422Z_01_L07734006_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ISRAEL-PROTESTERS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved

----------

[Saundra Hummer]

NO QUARTER
Tired of Spin in the No Spin Zone? Wanting some Hardball but tired of a host that tosses NERF balls? This blog takes no prisoners and offers no quarter on issues of your security in today's dangerous world. We don't care if you agree or disagree with us. We only care that you think about what we write.« The Neocons' Next War | Main | Bush's Middle East Strategery: For Toddlers »

Friday, 04 August 2006
“I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”
"Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq," Raw Story reports on the revelations in the new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, by the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith.

Galbraith reports that the three spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”
Small wonder, with such a pathetically ignorant president, the United States is succeeding only in growing hatred and terrorism, even as Dear Leader thinks he's spreading democracy:

Leslie has been commenting on the demonstrations, particularly that in Baghdad today. Here's one demonstration that hasn't received as much attention:

About 100 demonstrators threw stones and firebombs at the British Embassy in Tehran on Friday, damaging the building but not harming anyone as they accused Britain and the United States of being accomplices in Israel's fight against Hezbollah.
Demonstrators also smashed some of the building's windows as they called for its closure and the expulsion of the British ambassador. (Forbes)


Another story claims that "thousands" demonstrated against Israel in Tehran.

Billmon has some great insights on these demonstrations. From "A Mukhabarat Moment":

... [T]he massive security and military establishments that keep pro-American Arab puppet rulers (like Jordan's King Abdullah or Egypt's Hosni Mubarak) sitting precariously on their thrones are getting quite a stress test right now, thanks to the Anglo-Israeli onslaught on Lebanon.
Regarding the demonstration that Leslie's been mentioning, last night, I caught this report from INN World Report (via Free Speech TV; view video):

Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has organized a "Million Man March" in support of Lebanon's Hezbollah. Chanting "Death to America. Death to Israel," thousands of Iraqi Shia, some wearing white shrouds signifying their willingness to become martyrs, are convoying to Baghdad for a Friday rally. The rally is to be held in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City, which has a population of two million and its own armed Sadr militia.
The rally comes at a very tense time in US–Shia relations, and there are very real fears Al-Sadr's march might spark revenge attacks against American troops.

Already there are unconfirmed reports that US troops have fired on an Al-Sadr convoy on the Najaf–Baghdad road, with one protester dead and at least 17 injured.

Shia and Sunni in Iraq and worldwide are blaming the US for Israel's assault on both Lebanon and the Palestinian Gaza Strip.


The MSM is reporting there were over 100,000 demonstrators (Middle East Times). Amy Goodman says the number was 250,000.

"Demonstrators bearing yellow Hizbullah flags, white shrouds, and portraits of the Shia group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thronged a kilometer-long street in the teeming Sadr City district of the Iraqi capital."

CAPTION: "Iraqi Shia men carry their weapons during a protest in Baghdad's Sadr City August 4. Over 100,000 supporters of radical Shia cleric Moqtada Al Sadr massed in Baghdad Friday to protest against Israel's offensive in Lebanon.
(REUTERS)"

[I]For a truly sobering experience -- more like an ice cold shower than a warming cup of joe -- read Billmon's "The War Party." A snippet:

If the United States were to begin pulling troops out of Iraq now, it would be interpreted correctly throughout the Middle East as an open admission of defeat -- one that would likely lead fairly quickly to a complete American evacuation of the country. (Maybe not literally by landing helicopters on the roof of the embassy, but all in the region would understand the military reality that as the force grows smaller it will become progressively more dangerous to keep it in Iraq.)
Such an outcome could force well Iraq's Shi'a political leaders to snuggle up even more tightly to Iran, if only as a matter of physical survival. If the full-scale civil war everyone seems to expect were to break out following an American withdrawal, Baghdad might even feel compelled to call in Iranian troops. At a minimum, Iran could be left with enormous influence over, if not outright control of, the Iraqi government and its security forces. Access to Iraqi air space would give Iran a direct resupply corridor to Syria, and, through Syria, to Hizbullah. A ground presence could provide Tehran with a direct ground link -- call it the Ayatollah Khomeini Trail -- assuming the Kurds could be bought off and/or intimidated, or the Sunni belt pacified (one shudders to think of what that might involve.)

Presto: one Shi'a crescent to go.

Of course, it might not actually come to this -- or if it did it might not come quickly. But the fact remains that the U.S. Army is the only significant force standing between Iran and it's closest allies, and thus between Iran and Israel. If, as it now seems, Washington and Jerusalem both perceive Iran as the primary threat (and/or target for aggression) in the region, then there is no real distinction between America's occupation of Iraq and Israel's intended re-occupation of southern Lebanon. They are, in essence, both part of the next war.

It seems increasingly probable that that war will come soon -- perhaps as early as November or December ...


"I think we've run out of time," Billmon writes. "Events -- from 9/11 on -- have moved too fast and pushed us too far towards the clash of civilizations that most sane people dread but the neocons desperately want. The Dems are now just the cadet branch of the War Party ..."

Lord help us. Well, if Billmon's speculations come true, I'm blaming CNN's Paula "End Of Days" Zahn and MSNBC's Alison "The Most End Of Days" Stewart. (Has FOX done an "end of times" story yet?)

At least now Bush knows there are different sects of Islam. Perhaps he'll make them fight each other to the death. Nah. He's just venal, not diabolically clever.

Posted by SusanUnPC on Friday, 04 August 2006 at 17:50 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5595916

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”:

» Moral Clarity Vs. Hard Choices from The Agonist
I think the ultimate lesson of the Bush years will end up being something along the lines of: moral clarity is something very easy to acquire, but hard choices are not quite as easy to make. I guess you could say "talk is cheap" or something like that if [Read More]

Tracked on Friday, 04 August 2006 at 23:31

» Two Islamic Sects In Iraq from Liberty and Justice
Combining what we know now, it seems more likely that Bush did know that there are different sects, I quite clearly disagree with the Raw Story on that, but that the White House, quite simply, didn't anticipate the incredible differences and even downr... [Read More]

Tracked on Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 05:50
Comments
those comments about his education appear to continue to haunt us.
the idea that this fellow got through high school is most humorous. to have graduated Yale, goes beyond comedy.

would it matter if an endowment neatly assured his graduation? do we know of any such?

Posted by: oldtree | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 18:43

Well, I'll be damned...Bush is uniting Muslims everywhere. From the INN World Report above: "Shia and Sunni in Iraq and worldwide are blaming the US for Israel's assault on both Lebanon and the Palestinian Gaza Strip."

Bush's incompetence and arrogance knows no bounds. How could Bush possibly imagine that Iraq wouldn't erupt into civil war once Hussein was deposed? Now we know why he couldn't. No one in the administration thought to read up on the history and culture of Iraq. Duh!

I used to think Bush was on al Qaeda's payroll. Now I think he's on al Qaeda's and Iran's. He's certainly done a lot to help them both. God, I hope Israel and Hezbollah get tired of bombing each other soon, and this proxy war between Iran and the US doesn't escalate into all out war.

Posted by: Leslie | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 19:07

IMO, Billmon's been doing the best commenting on the Middle East I've seen. Too bad he isn't in on the councils of the great and powerful.

I think we're facing a perfect storm of inter-related catastrophes -- World War III, Peak Oil, Global Warming, and fragility of the global financial system the chief among them. I'm not sure I agree with Billmon that WW3 is the worst of them. Whichever is worse, it is hard to imagine Bush could do anything more to "bring them on" if he were trying.

I'm tempted to think he is trying, except that there are a lot of neocons who aren't evangelical Christians who agree with him point by point. In any case, like Billmon, I'm pretty well resigned to the inevitable. I just hope there's enough left to put the pieces back together when it's all over.

Posted by: shargash | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 19:27

billmon is partially right... but the Iranian Shiite alliance is already in place in Iraq... and the Bush green light to Israel to take care of Lebanon and Hezbollah is now completing the mission... Iran has serious influence in Iraq only because of the Bush policy and war... and mismanagement of the occupation, and the persistent disregard for the opinion of moderate arabs and muslims in the Middle East...

Posted by: leftymn | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 19:58

So, Chalabi is under investigation for being an Iranian spy. Olbermann speculated on Countdown tonight that maybe he was an Iranian plant from the get-go.

Wouldn't that be rich? The whole tragedy in Iraq may just have been an Iranian sucker play that the neocon morons in the White House swallowed hook line and sinker.

"Ssshhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet! I'm hunting tewwowists!"

Posted by: shargash | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 21:36

I am going from crying to laughing here tonight. You folks make it all worth while to be among you all. I think bush is the figurehead and cheerleader and cheney is the real force behind the curtain. Anyhow, I am simply stunned as to the events of it all and how things are really turning out. Yes Susan, I do think they want the rapture to come right now if not yesterday. I think they are all nuttier than a fruitcake if you ask me.

Posted by: Brenda Stewart | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 22:04

I wish I could say I was stunned and shocked by the implications of all of that. However, with all the incompetance and down right criminal malfeasence that we've witnessed in the last few years its hardly surprising.

I heard someone say something yesterday about possibly allowing the country to break up and move our forces to the Kurdish region. At first I thought this seemed like like a possible temporary solution but after reading just these snippets a thought occured to me. If we did that and the other two regions explode(and you know they will),Iran will move into the shia area with the blessing of the Gov't, whatevers left of it. Then we'll have a situation where we will have to side with the sunni against the shia just to keep a buffer zone between Iran and us. Otherwise the sunnis fall and Iran is right there. Then what?

Turkey hasn't been our friend lately. What if they refuse to let us evacuate our force through Turkey. Or allow us flyover. Think they won't do it? Don't forget that at the start of Iraq they refused to allow us to deploy through Turkey.

Then what?

Posted by: JerryB | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 22:28

apparently, we don't have to know anything about anything because we are americans. we get what we want by sheer virtue of who we are. we don't even have enough interpreters in arabic now because 50+ soldiers who are fluent got discharged for being gay. bet you ten bucks we have no one who speaks farsi cause iran is in the middle east and everyone there speaks arabic, right?

Posted by: betmo | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 23:19

Kurds have a bad aftertaste from the desert storm abandonment as well. A three state solution was deliberately ignored to hide the boondoggle pork-fraud trail.

Putin could probably bid for help there at this time and find open arms welcoming his assistance.

So could China.

Both parties appear to be leaning towards Iran empowerment as well. If the Iraq/Iran merger occurs, the perfume fromt he Niger embassy that signifies the traditional wedding gift of the region will be put to use.

They'll control sizable portions and Syria will capitulate with a continued refugee crisis off both borders. If it falls the coptics and other morderates there lose position.

You think of Syria as hard line, but it's had two buffer states on each side, and two US allies.

Now imagine it with three sworn enemies.

Bush shit his pants on 9-11

The blue dress and DNA stains were grounds for impeachment? What about the shit on his britches?

Poopy McFlightsuit needs to vacate his seat, wipe his drawers, and let a man run things.

That wouldn't be Cheney. He isn't a man either and he is the shot caller. He'll shoot any peace agreement in the face between now and the election. It's all those frauds have to run on, aside from diebold.

Posted by: Mr.Murder | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 23:25
From Lang's blog someone placed in a comment that highlights the failure that starting this war has become.

The person is critical of both sides in his many comments:
"There is a premise in the US/Israel strategy that Hizbullah is a finite fighting force with definite contours and as a result they can be defeated and will go away as a threat.

But what if Hizbullah is an organic force that represents the political sentiment of the Shia in the southern Lebanon and is a resistance force? What if in that role they garner even broader support in Lebanese society and the larger "islamic" society?

Can they really be defeated in conventional terms? Isn't this just a repeat of the 18 year occupation of southern Lebanon with a continuous casualty rate for the IDF occupation force?

The Lebanese Shia are not going away. And as technology gets more democratized they will get access to more sophisticated and longer range rockets and at some point even guided missiles. The value of overwhelming military response as a deterrence will likely decline. The only real deterrence would be a political settlement."

Posted by: zanzibar |

We've been saying the same thing here.


Posted by: Mr.Murder | Friday, 04 August 2006 at 23:52
Shargash is right: The perfect storm of catastrophes.

Posted by: Leslie | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 01:14
Galbraith is another legacy like Plame and Wilson. He wants to cash in and it does'nt matter what happens.

This is alot like no term limits for democrats.

Posted by: penver | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 09:34
Did Bush know that Service Employees International Union was CIA(union) funding 527s that Congress investigated and someone may have also used NSA assets to do this?

This is why it was Porter, Goss.

Posted by: Tyre | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 09:50
Please - say it 'aint so....

M

Posted by: Mac Nayeri | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 09:50

Read an interesting comment about US foreign policy by Molly Ivins. "When in doubt, send Condi home."

Posted by: DSP | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 09:51
I just thought we might take a stroll down memory lane cortesy of Ron Susskind and the NYT Magazine...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30F1EF93A5F0C748DDDA90994DC404482 Posted by: taters | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 11:13 As you liberals have a circle jerk over this mindless blog posting, you may want to stop drinking the 'hate Bush' Kool-aid for 2 seconds and try to focus.

What difference does it make if the entire Bush administration didn't know that there were two different sects of muslims in Iraq before we took Saddam and his sadistic government out?

We (the USA) are there now and we (the USA) have got to win this war. To 'Viet-Nam quit' again is suicide for our country (the USA).

You left wing cowards and traitors had better get your minds right. Terrorist muslims would hate your tri-mester abortions alot more than Pat Robertson's bible classes. Christians might get their heads cut off, but you liberals would get far worse treatment.

Posted by: Hank Dagny | Saturday, 05 August 2006 at 23:15

Susan. Close your ears.

What difference does it make, Hank? You're kidding. Right? Well, I guess it makes no difference now, in some ways. But let's imagine for a second that Bush had a fucking brain, and that he and his fascist, Christian Supremacist circle gave two shits about something other than themselves, it might have made a big difference to the 100,000 or so innocent Iraquis that Bush's swaggering and thuggery have killed, and the hundred thousand or so soldiers that have either died, been maimed, or psychologically brutalized by the agression in Iraq. Which agression, by the way, was the result of Bush's lies and the deceit, cunning and thievery of his circle, prominent among them Dead-Eye, Scooter, Turd Blossom. Hank, you have a lot of unmitigated gall to come here and ask what difference it makes. You make me sick.

Posted by: Canuck Stuck in Muck | Sunday, 06 August 2006 at 00:06
Canuck, it is ppl such as hank that does not care about humanity. Their psychopathy is getting ppl to die. They see themselves the god hand here on earth. In other words they want the decision to make who lives and who dies. They are the one who wanted the decision in the Terry Schiavo case to call the shots, never minding the law and human decency. They are the kinds of ppl who think nor care that others do have a choice or another opinion other than theirs. Back in the days of old they called ppl like them brownshirts for hitler. They simply do not care about the reality of the situation. Their job is to disturb and intimidate and disrupt all of society. They are not even Christians. Look deeply into their psychic. That is the total of the information that we need to understand what and who they are. This hank person and those like him, really do not have a clue as to what Vietnam or war really is like. Ppl such a hank and his likes, are actually to be pitied for they are really ignorant of facts. Such shame, really. Ppl such as what hanks represent, should be questioning their own hearts and souls for their time on earth will be judged by their God, Almighty, and the fact He will not be very kind to them in the end, is what worries me. I want them to go and have a talk with HIm and let Him save their souls for their sake, in the end of time, for them. So just pitty them and pray for them. They are going to need our prayers.

Posted by: Brenda Stewart | Sunday, 06 August 2006 at 10:20

Go on-site to see the numerous comments and links, there are many more:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/i_thought_the_i.html#more

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Each oil jolt has a lesson - if learned
The Monitor's View
from the August 09, 2006 edition
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p08s02-comv.html

If the predictable thing about oil prices is unpredictability, then this week's surprise shutdown of more than half of Alaska's oil production fits the prediction. And each oil shock, from Gulf hurricanes to Middle East wars, yields a new teachable moment - if anyone listens.
The lesson in the Alaska oil shutdown is that complacency in the safeguarding of energy supplies and production facilities can come with big, unexpected costs.

A neglect of corrosion within the Prudhoe Bay pipelines of oil giant BP has forced the British-based company to close 16 of its 22 lines that feed into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The lines had not been inspected since 1992. All the original oil pipelines on Alaska's North Slope - which opened in 1977 - were designed for only a quarter century of use.

The shutdown could mean an 8 percent drop in US oil production for months, and put more upward pressure on gasoline prices, especially on the West Coast. In California, the average price of regular gas is now $3.19.

Complacency isn't just BP's problem.

Relatively lower oil prices during the late 1980s and 1990s led to much neglect of oil facilities as well as a downturn in seeking new oil sources. In 1998, a barrel of oil cost as little as $10, which dampened enthusiasm to find more oil and greatly reduced the world's spare oil capacity. Now, prices are reaching toward $80 a barrel and have risen about 25 percent this year. (That increase was largely due to unrest in Nigeria's oil fields.)

The lack of global oil-pumping capacity has forced the US government to release oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to offset the loss of Alaskan crude.

By now, after so many oil shocks and high volatility in prices since the great shock of 1973, there should be better consistency in developing new oil supplies and also oil alternatives. Perhaps it is uncertainty over what will cause the next oil shock - war with Iran? - that so rattles the oil industry and the many governments that control their oil industries. Russia, for various reasons, has woefully neglected investments in its vast oil reserves and facilities. Only with the latest rise at the gas pumps has Congress rushed to consider opening up petroleum drilling off the coasts of Florida and California.

The world saw a huge investment in exploration and energy efficiency after OPEC bumped up prices in the 1970s. More oil was extracted from each well, and the US reduced its oil use by almost half for each dollar of production in the economy. Fuel economy standards reduced US oil consumption by 17 percent. Such large shifts in attitudes about energy use could be repeated today with prices so high - although Americans are driving even faster, and thus using more gasoline, on US highways. Thirteen states in the West and Midwest now have 75-m.p.h. speed limits.

One big shift in energy thinking is away from predictions of a quick end to available oil supplies and toward a certainty of regular disruptions of supplies. The Pentagon now plans its war strategy around such disruptions. Learning how to adjust to each one, or prevent it, requires a great deal more effort than governments or energy companies now expend. Just ask BP if it should have done more to inspect its pipelines.

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p08s02-comv.html

www.csmonitor.com |

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~The voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent: Charles Eliot Norton

~~~

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.": Thomas Jefferson

~~~

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complaceny to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage.
Sir Alex Fraser Tyler: (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian
~~~~~~~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...................
Bush's disastrous 'democratic fundamentalism'

By
Patrick J. Buchanan

08/08/06 "WND" -- -- Things are as they are, and their consequences will be what they will be. Why, then, should we seek to be deceived?"

Columnist Stewart Alsop, dead now these 30 years, once closed a column with this quote from the philosopher Bishop Berkeley. His column, I believe, was about Vietnam.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9-11, we, too, can see the shape of things to come.

In the ideology of "democratic fundamentalism" to which George W. Bush converted after 9-11, we are simply in a rough patch on the glory road to a democratic Middle East and "the end of tyranny on this earth."

In reality, our situation has never been more grim.

The successful experiment that featured the "freest, fairest elections ever held" in Palestine is dead. Over 125 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is a shambles. The terror wing of Hamas will have no trouble recruiting in the rubble.

The same is true of Lebanon. The "Cedar Revolution" was a Bush success, a beacon of hope. That Hezbollah won a dozen seats only seemed to prove that the elections had indeed been free, fair and open to all.

Now Lebanon is in ruin. The 900 dead, thousands wounded, the million refugees, the smashed infrastructure and the scores of thousands of Westerners who have fled means years before Lebanon recovers, if ever she does. Arab hatred of Israel and America is pandemic.

Hezbollah ignited the hostilities. But it was Israel that escalated to rain destruction on a people and nation that had not countenanced or condoned Hezbollah's provocation, but condemned it.

Think back. Had Reagan done to Lebanon, when half a dozen Americans were seized as hostages, what Israel has done, when two soldiers were taken hostage, Democrats would have denounced Reagan as a war criminal. Conservatives would have begged him to ease up.

Yet, almost to a man and woman, our politicians are falling all over one another to express their 100 percent support of what Israel has done to Lebanon. Even Israelis must feel a measure of contempt for this kind of groveling.

Indeed, in Israel, dissent against the blitzkrieg is rising, and the Olmert regime is being challenged and even condemned by courageous Israelis for letting the air force have a free hand to smash Lebanon.

Moving on to Iraq, where the war has lasted as long as our war on Nazi Germany, Gen. John Abizaid is warning that a descent into civil war is now possible, and Bush concedes that, three years and three months after "Mission Accomplished," the situation in Baghdad is "terrible."

Questions now on the table are: Will America let go? Will Iraq break apart? Americans are not all that far away from a strategic disaster.

Whatever happens to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, the new center of gravity of the Democratic Party is anti-war. Democratic hawks are a dying species. Al Gore now emerges, given his authentic anti-war credentials and emergence as a world leader of the global-warming movement, as the left's best hope for the nomination.

Kerry and Edwards, the 2004 ticket, know which way the wind is blowing. Both have declared that had they known in 2002 what they know today, they would not have voted for the war. Hillary senses the ground shifting beneath her feet. Last week, she scourged Rumsfeld, called for his resignation and denounced Pentagon mismanagement of the war.

Two years and three months before November 2008, the Democratic Party has pulled out of the Bush coalition; two-thirds of the nation considers Iraq a mistake; and a majority wants the troops home.

Can Bush sustain support for the war as the news from Iraq gets worse and worse? For, if this war is lost on the home front, the war will be lost in Mesopotamia.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are fighting in larger units and, colluding with drug lords, killing more Afghans and allied troops than they have in five years. Hamid Karzai reigns in Kabul but does not rule. U.S.-NATO forces are not losing battles, but they are insufficient in number to win the war.

Iran, fearful of Bush in 2003, is now rejecting U.S.-EU bribes and rejecting any suspension of its uranium enrichment program. Bring it on, Ahmadinejad seems to be saying to Bush. As for Pakistan, the Islamists there remain but a bullet away from custody of an atomic bomb.

While all these are trends, none seems to be going our way.

The Israeli-American ace of trumps, raw military power, is still able to defeat armies and destroy states, but it has proven less effective in eradicating guerrillas, and counterproductive in changing Islamic hearts and minds.

If neither U.S. party is willing to show any independence of Israel, if America will not address the root causes of Arab animosity, and if we will not even negotiate with our enemies, we should probably pack up and get out of the Middle East. Before we are thrown out.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14413.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

---------------------Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

By
George Monbiot

08/08/06 "The Guardian" -- -- Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?


www.monbiot.com

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14416.htm

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *
Breaking the cycle of violence
The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we owe them our support.
By
Jimmy Carter

08/08/06 "The Guardian" -- -- The Middle East is a tinderbox, with some key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israelis in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.
This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hizbullah militants in south Lebanon then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Soon, Hizbullah rockets supplied by Syria and Iran were striking northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hizbullah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago. As before there were expressions of "deep regret," a promise of "immediate investigation" and the explanation that dropped leaflets had warned families in the region to leave their homes.

The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, that Lebanon's regular military forces control the southern region of the country, that Hizbullah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners. Yet Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rejected such a cease-fire.

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the UN Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and fails to bring safety or stability.

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known.

There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, US government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

A major impediment to progress is the US administration's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject US assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we in the international community owe them our strong leadership and support.]
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14417.htm

* * * * * * *

[Saundra Hummer]

------------------------
Crocodile tears of leaders as city burns

By
Robert Fisk
------------
08/08/06 "The Independent" -- -- Shortly after 4am, the fly-like buzz of an Israeli drone came out of the sky over my home. Coded MK by the manufacturers, Lebanese mothers have sought to lessen their children's fears of this ominous creature by transliterating it as "Um Kamel", the Mother of Kamel. It is looking for targets and at night, like all the massacres being perpetrated by the Israeli air force across southern Lebanon, you usually cannot see it.

The latest model can even fire missiles. Well, it flew around for a few minutes before it moved south-west over the city in search of other prey. Then an hour later came the hiss of jets and five massive blasts as the southern suburbs received their 29th air raid. The Israelis must be convinced that beneath the rubble of their previous strikes, the Hizbollah have secret bunkers to direct their war in the south, that Hizbollah's television station - its four-storey headquarters a pancaked pile of rubble - must be staying on air because it has ever-deeper studios beneath the debris. I doubt it.

After dawn, I drive out to see friends in the suburbs, among the few Shias not to have abandoned their homes. Hassan and Abbas live in two decaying blocks of chipped stone stairs and damp walls; each lives with only two other families in these rotting eight-storey tenements, their neighbours having sought refuge with Lebanon's 700,000 internal refugees - another 200,000 have fled abroad - in the Druze Chouf mountains or the Christian mountains to the north or in Beirut's slum parks and crowded schools.

"I don't have any other place to go," Hassan tells me mournfully as his two-year-old plays tug of war with a toy Pink Panther. "In the Chouf now, a two-room flat costs $800." Well, the Druze are certainly making money, I say to myself. "Nobody is coming to our help"

We glower at Al Manar, Hizbollah's TV station, in the corner of the room, whose Hizbollah announcer is proclaiming the merits - and demerits - of the Arab foreign ministers meeting to start shortly in Beirut. These wealthy princes and emirs of the Gulf and the utterly boring Amr Moussa of Egypt roared and strutted upon the stage, remaining silent only when Fouad Siniora - Lebanon's sweet Prime Minister - went through another of his public weeping sessions and demanded an immediate ceasefire. Lebanon's proposals must be added to the UN draft resolution, he said between sobs, sniffles and whimpers. Shebaa Farms must be returned to Lebanon. The Israelis must leave Lebanon. Only then can Hizbollah abide by UN Security Council resolution 1559 and lay down its arms.

The ministers decided to send a delegation to the UN in New York - which will have Washington shaking in its boots - and the Saudis agreed to an Arab summit in Mecca, but one which should not be rushed because it must be carefully prepared - which sounded very like George W Bush's equally mendacious remark that a ceasefire had to be carefully prepared. And that will have them shaking in the shoes in Tel Aviv.

It was preposterous, scandalous, shameful to listen to these robed apparatchiks - most of them are paid, armed or otherwise supported by the West - shed their crocodile tears before a nation on its knees. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had already said in Cairo that the Beirut meeting "is a clear message to the world to demonstrate Arab solidarity with the Lebanese people". In the southern suburbs - where they do not take this nonsense seriously - Abbas was telling me of a female neighbour who had supported the rival Shia Amal movement until her house was destroyed by the Israelis. "She told us, 'We are all Hizbollahi now'," And I recall that less than three years ago, we - we Westerners, we brave believers in human rights - were saying that we were all New Yorkers now.

What sent Fouad Sinioura into his bout of crying was a report that 40 Lebanese civilians had been massacred in the village of Houla by an Israeli air strike - 18 people were confirmed buried in one house. Two other buildings in the village collapsed. Yet there are far more terrible fears that hundreds more may lay dead in the ruins of their homes after the Israelis had blasted their villages, hill towns and hamlets.

According to the UN, 22,000 Lebanese are still - dead or alive - in the 38 most southern villages, out of an original population of 913,000. In Mays al-Jabal, for example, 400 civilians are believed to have stayed out of 10,000, though no one knows their fate. The Lebanese death toll - including the conservative figure for Houla - is 932, almost all civilians, although it may well have reached more than 1,000. There are 3,293 wounded.

At lunchtime, I paid a call on Suheil Natour, a Palestinian official in the little Mar Elias camp. His people - the Palestinians and their descendants of the 1948 flight from Palestine - are now hosting thousands of Shia refugees from southern Lebanon, just as those refugees' grandparents once hosted the Palestinians of 1948. This irony is not lost on Natour who points out that the Shias - the largest single community in Lebanon - are now spread over all the country after their flight. "What kind of Lebanon will emerge from this?" he asks me. "How many months have to pass before the Shias feel they belong to the areas of Lebanon to which they have fled - rather than to the wreckage of the homes they were forced out of by the Israelis?"

And when I go home, I find my landlord has treble locked the iron front door of my apartment block, just in case the refugees decide that they belong to his building - or that his building belongs to them.

Day 27

* Israeli attacks kill at least 45 people in Lebanon, mostly in eastern Bekaa Valley and border village of Houla. Five die in strike on crowded area in Shi'ite-dominated south Beirut. Israeli aircraft also hit last coastal crossing on Litani river between Sidon and Tyre.

* UN Security Council vote on a resolution to end conflict is delayed until tomorrow after Arab nations object to draft.

* Three Israeli soldiers are killed in battles with guerrillas in southern Lebanon. Hizbollah guerrillas fire rockets into northern Israel, wounding one.

* Lebanese health minister Mohammad Khalifeh says conflict has killed 925 people. About one-third of the dead have been children under the age of 13.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14408.htm
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
-----------

[Saundra Hummer]

----------------


"Israel Has Made Itself the Least Safe Place in the World for a Jew to Live"
Into the Valley of Death
By TIM LLEWELLYN
August 8, 2006
I am in blood
stepp'd in so far that,
should I wade no more,
returning were as tedious
as go o'er."

Macbeth

Israel's capacity to shed Arab blood has remained undiminished since its creation, winning it territory but no real friends or security and promising it a violent and unrewarding existence. One main lesson of the past three weeks---the first Middle East conflict fought on Israeli rather than Arab lands---is that Israel's aggression can no longer be conducted with impunity.

The tragedies of Jewish history may explain Israel's leaders' actions, perhaps, their endemic paranoia and inability to deal with their neighbors in any other manner than aggressive superiority. What is hard to explain is why the United States and the United Kingdom, this latter newly and firmly in the pillory as Israel's second most loyal and uncritical supporter, and their media, for the most part, fail to ask most of the correct questions about the roots and nature of the horror that has been revisited on Lebanon, and to a much lesser extent on northern Israel (no false equivalence here).

It is not surprising the nascent UN Security Council resolution is being endlessly kicked around like a soggy medicine ball in a back alley. The Shapeless Thing will find itself added to the pile of similar failed discards that have been deployed to try to simultaneously evade, avoid and solve the Lebanese-Israel problem. One stands back in awe as at Balaclava while the French volunteer to lead this latest ride into the Valley of Death.

Consider UN SC 1559, of 2004, which called, inter alia, for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." This unique interference by the Security Council in Lebanon's internal affairs, was jointly sponsored by the US, anxious to diminish Syria, and France, equally keen to reassert itself in an old possession it has never got out of its sentimental old post-colonial heart, to punish Syria for doing in Lebanon what France nor anyone else could, bring security, and to rejoin the top table of nations, as France saw it, after its spat with Washington over Iraq.

The Lebanese Government, Russia and China all opposed (but did not vote against) Resolution 1559, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry representative of the time pointing out presciently that if there were a threat to Lebanon it did not come from Syria. If UN Security Council resolutions are so sacrosanct, we might well ask why all the enthusiasm for 1559 and its successors when somehow interest in 242 and 338, of some 39 years vintage, calling for Israel's withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in 1967, and condemning the acquisition of territory by force, has waned to the point of vanishing?

Any new resolution acceptable to the US and therefore Israel, and which places foreign troops-especially the French, co-authors of 1559---on the Lebanese side of the border only, thus consolidating and promulgating gains Israel has made, will be unacceptable to Hezbollah. Hezbollah will remain after this Israeli onslaught the single biggest and best-armed construct in the fragile consensus of warlords and fiefdoms that holds Lebanon together at the best of times. These are not the best of times. If it does not wish the Lebanese Army to deploy south to the Israeli line, in collaboration with foreign forces there with an enemy's permission and co-operation, such deployment will not happen, certainly not to effect.

If it is tried, in the ensuing chaos Israel will tire of the arrangement and the clashes with Hezbollah will continue at some early future stage in among or over the heads of the unfortunate peacekeepers. Any army volunteering for this mission should dust off the 1983 files, when Hezbollah-inchoate blew the US Marines and the French paras to kingdom come.

Another question no-one asks: is Lebanon a nation-state in the sense the US , the UK and France would have us believe? Is it not rather a provenly frail arrangement that holds together when the going is good (as it was, mostly, under Syrian aegis between 1990 and 2005), with the reluctant co-operation of all the sectarian movements, interest groups and chiefs? And that as the most powerful players in this game, Syria and Hezbollah can build or wreck as they see fit? It may not be a Good Thing or a Nice Thing but it is a long, observable fact of the Levant. Long after Israel has decided to take a rest and/or hand over for a while to some unfortunate patsy of a peace force, Hezbollah and Syria, together and separately, will be at the heart of Lebanon's future.

More questions, rarely asked: we hear this one, a lot: why should Israel tolerate a burgeoning armed force with rockets on its northern approaches? We do not hear asked back, why should Arabs tolerate the most powerful state in the Middle East's history clanking its armor and peering through its intrusive lenses into their territory and sending over bombs, troops and jet-fighters at will?

It can be argued the Arabs have no choice in the matter, but they have now -- Lebanon has chosen how it wishes to resist Israel, quite effectively over the past 10 years or so, and the Arabs of the region are pleased that at last someone has registered with Israel that aggression is no longer dressed with impunity. The Arabs cannot win, they will suffer, but at last it is not without damaging retaliation.

More importantly, what business is it of anyone's how Lebanon defends itself, given its neighbor to the south and its record since 1948?

We hear, from such experts as Fergal Keane of the BBC, writing in The Spectator of August 4, that Iran and Syria "meddle" in Lebanon. Indeed they do, Fergal. The resistance that finally cleared Israel out of South Lebanon after 22 years would not have been formed without them, and would not be sustained today. Do not then the US in strident particular and the West in general "meddle" in the region, by sustaining Israel as the military master of the Middle East? Are we are right to castigate the indigenous peoples of the region for taking a lively interest in their own futures? Does anyone look at maps or read history?

Hezbollah miscalculated three weeks ago (so did Israel). It had not gauged the momentum that had built up behind 1559, especially after Syria so badly overplayed its hand in Lebanon, was deeply implicated in the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, in February and was forced out of Lebanon. Weakness was perceived and the train of war was fired up and set in motion.

By the mid-2000s, Syria was overplaying its hand in Lebanon and it deserved its comeuppance; but anyone who thought Syria would or even could go away was staring into a mirror distorted by wishful thinking. Syria's role in Lebanon is crucial and everlasting, whether the rest of the world likes it or not; Hezbollah IS Lebanon, is OF Lebanon, and cannot be quelled or removed or subsumed: it is not an alien body, like the PLO, which was removed from Lebanon by Israel and Syria, which delivered the coup de grace to Yasir Arafat in 1983. Hezbollah fighters, even if reduced, and so far not much sign of that, grow in Lebanese homes on Lebanese soil. There are tens of thousands of boys now aged ten to fourteen who in five years time will make up numbers and will have been forged in the fury that Israel has so mistakenly and shortsightedly administered.

You do not have to support this view to know its truth and hope that American and British politicians might absorb it, if only in the pragmatic interests of their own citizenry.

Hezbollah and Hamas, beyond Lebanon, have become the voice of the Arab world in lieu of the nation states, kingdoms and republics who dropped the interests of their peoples long ago. Though these Arabs of the Street and their new heroes cannot turn soon the tide of American-Israeli-Western military and political pressure, they have put us and Israel on notice that for the first time in modern history the Middle East conflict is being fought on Israeli as well as Arab land, and that the highly mechanized delivery of death by machine that has been the fate of the Arabs since 1917 -- yes, 1917 -- comes no longer without cost, human and economic, for everyone.

Israel has made itself the least safe place in the world for a Jew to live, a terrible reflection on the calamity of Zionism for its own people and others.

Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East Correspondent, based in Beirut and Nicosia in the 70s,80s and early 90s, covered his first Middle East story in Southern Lebanon in May, 1974. Lebanese Shi'ite villagers were shrieking at Lebanese Army soldiers to protect them from Israeli shells,which were falling all around, and the PLO guerrillas who were provoking those attacks. They could not then and cannot in the future. The lesson of thirty-two years is that these people's only effective protectors were and will remain Hezbollah, whatever hasty arrangements the UN tries to make this week on Israel's behalf. Without Hezbollah, and without a solution to Israel's seemingly irreversible expansion across the region, there will be no solution in Southern Lebanon or anywhere else nearby.

He can be reached at Timllew@aol.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/
-----------

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~
The Lebanon War Exposes Strange Religious Bedfellows
A New Kind of Bigotry
By
GEORGE BERES
Weekend Edition
August 7, 2006

I've not been a target of religious prejudice during my 73 years-- except today, as I identify with growing tragedy in the Middle East.

"Are you Jewish," I'm asked.

No.

"Are you Arabic?"

No.

The questions, natural and obvious, point up the problem: a hidden religious prejudice. It has less to do with bigotry than with simple historic and religious illiteracy among Americans. The impact on me grows because I was born and raised in this country as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I left the institutional church because of its patriarchal prejudices. I've come to recognize something even more destructive common to almost all faith-based sects: the belief they are god's chosen people-- having a direct line to what "god" tells them (or that they tell him?) is the truth.

Few in the evangelical church are free of such misconceptions. If they choose to be what I view as delusional, that's their privilege in free societies. When it is forced on others, it becomes dangerous and unjust.

Victims of such attitudes today are vulnerable Christian minorities in Lebanon and Palestine, where entire societies are being attacked by Israel armed by the United States. Over the centuries, these minorities got benign treatment for their religious faith from Ottoman overlords during a long period of Islamic dominance. There is nothing benign about their contemporary mistreatment at the hands of what they see as Western religion: Christianity with a fundamentalist jaundice, and Judaism colored by Zionist extremism.

It's a misconception to assume Lebanon and Palestine are exclusively Islamic. More than 30 percent of Lebanon is Christian, virtually all of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Most of Palestine's four million people are Islamic. 50,000 are Eastern Orthodox, 25,000 Roman Catholic, 25,000 Protestant and 1,000 Armenian Orthodox.

It has reached the point where the normally uninvolved Archbishop of Greece's Orthodox Church, Christodoulos, said in early August: "Israel's actions within its right to self-defense have long exceeded any rational limit . . . This is not in Israel's interest. Fear God's wrath."

He failed to acknowledge what makes possible such "excessive" actions by Israel: unstinting support from the United States. That is what justifies-- in fact, demands-- I speak out.

The enmity of Arabic peoples toward Judaism dates from antiquity, the days of the pharaohs. That with Christianity is more recent, inspired by the Medieval Crusades, when Knights of Christendon used the cross as a symbol to justify pillage and rape of Muslims defending Jerusalem.

Islam was not the only victim. Eastern Orthodox clergy were slaughtered and their churches looted by Western armies identified more with ambitions of war than goals of Christianity. That does not make it easier for me to understand how avowed Christians from the U.S., with their Israeli allies, can today freely victimize Orthodox Christians as if they did not realize they exist in Islamic lands.

The true tragedy is Israeli policy, approved if not fomented by the United States, that results in death for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, and in retaliation, death for innocent Israelis. Myopia of the U.S., which identifies itself as Christian, is apparent in many Christians being killed, even if Americans callously assume targets are exclusively Muslim.

Though I'm of Greek heritage, I've long valued and interacted with Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians. They were members of St. George Anticochian Orthodox Church, which my family attended in Oak Park, suburb of Chicago. Some of those close friends now face each day with fear for relatives living in Beirut.

Such fear is not rooted in threats from Muslims, although that reailty grows as civil war begins to engulf Lebanon and Iraq. Its true source fuels my identity with the victims, and a sense that I must speak out against actions of my country. My anger and suspicions are directed toward leaders of my country and of Israel who devastate many with preemptive war. Their actions suggest bigotry that threatens me personally.

Irony of this destructive collaboration is that Israel welcomes support of Christian fundamentalists for short-term advantages it offers. All the while, Jews are familiar with historic betrayal at the hands of Christians who have found various ways to disguise their hatred of the so-called "Christ-killers."

Most Jews know that in the long term, their evangalist benefactors are interested only in setting the stage for what they see as the second coming of Christ. That, they believe, can occur only when Israel gains full control of Jerusalem. On that day of "rapture" in the Christian lexicon, the church will offer Jews a choice. As a minister of a church in Eugene, Ore., was quoted earlier this summer (The Register-Guard):

"Jews will have a chance to convert to Christianity and be saved with us. If they refuse, they will be condemned with all other unbelievers."

Few in America realizes how the Eastern Church, along with innocent Muslims, is under attack in Lebanon and Palestine by this rare alliance between Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity. I also am a target, and am overdue in speaking out.

George Beres, retired in Eugene, Ore., once was executive director of the Hellenic Foundation in Chicago in the mid-1970s. He can be reached at: gberes@uoregon.edu

http://www.counterpunch.org/beres08072006.html

----------------

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~
The Lebanon War Exposes Strange Religious Bedfellows
A New Kind of Bigotry
By
GEORGE BERES
Weekend Edition
August 7, 2006

I've not been a target of religious prejudice during my 73 years-- except today, as I identify with growing tragedy in the Middle East.

"Are you Jewish," I'm asked.

No.

"Are you Arabic?"

No.

The questions, natural and obvious, point up the problem: a hidden religious prejudice. It has less to do with bigotry than with simple historic and religious illiteracy among Americans. The impact on me grows because I was born and raised in this country as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I left the institutional church because of its patriarchal prejudices. I've come to recognize something even more destructive common to almost all faith-based sects: the belief they are god's chosen people-- having a direct line to what "god" tells them (or that they tell him?) is the truth.

Few in the evangelical church are free of such misconceptions. If they choose to be what I view as delusional, that's their privilege in free societies. When it is forced on others, it becomes dangerous and unjust.

Victims of such attitudes today are vulnerable Christian minorities in Lebanon and Palestine, where entire societies are being attacked by Israel armed by the United States. Over the centuries, these minorities got benign treatment for their religious faith from Ottoman overlords during a long period of Islamic dominance. There is nothing benign about their contemporary mistreatment at the hands of what they see as Western religion: Christianity with a fundamentalist jaundice, and Judaism colored by Zionist extremism.

It's a misconception to assume Lebanon and Palestine are exclusively Islamic. More than 30 percent of Lebanon is Christian, virtually all of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Most of Palestine's four million people are Islamic. 50,000 are Eastern Orthodox, 25,000 Roman Catholic, 25,000 Protestant and 1,000 Armenian Orthodox.

It has reached the point where the normally uninvolved Archbishop of Greece's Orthodox Church, Christodoulos, said in early August: "Israel's actions within its right to self-defense have long exceeded any rational limit . . . This is not in Israel's interest. Fear God's wrath."

He failed to acknowledge what makes possible such "excessive" actions by Israel: unstinting support from the United States. That is what justifies-- in fact, demands-- I speak out.

The enmity of Arabic peoples toward Judaism dates from antiquity, the days of the pharaohs. That with Christianity is more recent, inspired by the Medieval Crusades, when Knights of Christendon used the cross as a symbol to justify pillage and rape of Muslims defending Jerusalem.

Islam was not the only victim. Eastern Orthodox clergy were slaughtered and their churches looted by Western armies identified more with ambitions of war than goals of Christianity. That does not make it easier for me to understand how avowed Christians from the U.S., with their Israeli allies, can today freely victimize Orthodox Christians as if they did not realize they exist in Islamic lands.

The true tragedy is Israeli policy, approved if not fomented by the United States, that results in death for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, and in retaliation, death for innocent Israelis. Myopia of the U.S., which identifies itself as Christian, is apparent in many Christians being killed, even if Americans callously assume targets are exclusively Muslim.

Though I'm of Greek heritage, I've long valued and interacted with Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians. They were members of St. George Anticochian Orthodox Church, which my family attended in Oak Park, suburb of Chicago. Some of those close friends now face each day with fear for relatives living in Beirut.

Such fear is not rooted in threats from Muslims, although that reailty grows as civil war begins to engulf Lebanon and Iraq. Its true source fuels my identity with the victims, and a sense that I must speak out against actions of my country. My anger and suspicions are directed toward leaders of my country and of Israel who devastate many with preemptive war. Their actions suggest bigotry that threatens me personally.

Irony of this destructive collaboration is that Israel welcomes support of Christian fundamentalists for short-term advantages it offers. All the while, Jews are familiar with historic betrayal at the hands of Christians who have found various ways to disguise their hatred of the so-called "Christ-killers."

Most Jews know that in the long term, their evangalist benefactors are interested only in setting the stage for what they see as the second coming of Christ. That, they believe, can occur only when Israel gains full control of Jerusalem. On that day of "rapture" in the Christian lexicon, the church will offer Jews a choice. As a minister of a church in Eugene, Ore., was quoted earlier this summer (The Register-Guard):

"Jews will have a chance to convert to Christianity and be saved with us. If they refuse, they will be condemned with all other unbelievers."

Few in America realizes how the Eastern Church, along with innocent Muslims, is under attack in Lebanon and Palestine by this rare alliance between Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity. I also am a target, and am overdue in speaking out.

George Beres, retired in Eugene, Ore., once was executive director of the Hellenic Foundation in Chicago in the mid-1970s. He can be reached at: gberes@uoregon.edu

http://www.counterpunch.org/beres08072006.html

----------------

[Saundra Hummer]

.................
A Deterrent to Democracy?
The Malleable US Constitution
By
JOAN ROELOFS
AUGUST 8, 2006

The US Constitution, supposedly born in a democratic struggle against empire, can be manipulated to serve plutocracy and imperialism. Its many silences and ambiguities enable today's shocking domestic and international politics. This is not to deny that it was a great achievement, provided one accepts the premises that 1) a strong national state was desirable, rather than a continuation of the confederacy or an even looser format; 2) the basis for a national (export) economy would be slavery; and 3) territorial expansion was a legitimate and important goal of the new union (whether or not the indigenous or settler inhabitants consented to be incorporated).

Two aspects were remarkable. First, a workable constitution was quickly created. Today, many groups are still debating mission statements and by-laws years after their organizations have ceased to exist. Second, it was an expression of the Enlightenment belief that institutions could be created by humans to serve human needs. Nowadays, despite our formally well-educated population, enlightened attitudes are in recession. Most believe that we cannot alter the capitalist economic system that God has bestowed upon us, or the marriage/family system that all history has proven to be "the best thing," despite the dysfunctionality of these institutions.

Furthermore, the framers knew that the constitution was an experiment. They expected it to be frequently amended and regularly replaced, unlike the Ten Commandments carved in stone. Nevertheless, a population that mostly wouldn't deign to use a 5 year old VCR (do normal people still use VCRs?) considers our constitution sacrosanct, the eternal expression of perfect political technology.

What are some of these silences and ambiguities that are of particular contemporary relevance?

1. Can states withdraw?

Whether a state that has joined the union may withdraw has not been answered definitively. Some would say that the Civil War resolved that matter, but only for those who believe that might makes right. The spirit of contract law, which hovered over our nation's creation, suggests that parties may opt out. Perhaps a penalty would be assessed, e.g., a state may have to return HUD grants, buy the post offices, and forego the missile shield. We tend to think that the South was wrong on the withdrawal issue because we regard slavery as an abomination. However, what about Vermont, where a secession movement is now brewing for quite different reasons?

2. Who or what is to enforce the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't specify which institution is to interpret and enforce it. The Supreme Court soon asserted that it was the one, and across time immemorial (not a Enlightenment approach for conferring legitimacy) most have assented. Paradoxically, the proclamation of this enormous power was a by-product in a case (Marbury v. Madison) where the Court ruled that Congress couldn't legislate an itty-bitty extra power for the Court (a writ of mandamus) because it wasn't written in the Constitution. Court decisions following politics rather than logic were as common in Chief Justice John Marshall's day as they are in ours; there was no golden age. People often ignore the contradictions and forced interpretations because they like the result, but when the outcome offends they bewail decisions that are just as political.

Those who argue that the Supreme Court should be the sole interpreter are faced with several problems. Executive or legislative actions, however questionable, don't come before the Court unless they evolve from a criminal or civil law case. Although many are concocted for the purpose, some are difficult to shove into this mold. Those involving violations of international law are likely to be thrown out by a lower court, or rejected by the Supreme Court. There is little constitutional compulsion to resolve problems, however enormous. All treaties are included in "the Supreme law of the land," yet it is hit or miss whether they are enforced, even though state court judges are stated to be "bound thereby" (also to the US Constitution and federal laws).

The requirements of "standing" (right to initiate a case), jurisdiction, pertinence, etc., prevent issues from getting into or very far in the system. Thus, when a conservative Republican Congressperson tried to challenge Clinton's war on Yugoslavia, on the grounds that Congress had denied a declaration of war, the U S Circuit Court said there was no case, because, among other reasons, Clinton didn't usurp Congressional power to declare war, he just made war (Campbell v. Clinton).

It is important for captured persons to obtain Constitutional rights to due process, but when the whole war is illegal, the Court is not much help. Indeed, all wars (and threats of war) are illegal according to the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the US. Yet the US Constitution still provides for war to be declared, although it is a formality rarely observed.

When Congress or the President assert a right to interpret the Constitution, they have a leg to stand on; the Supreme Court is also self-selected. States also have a reasonable claim, especially since the Supreme Court is the institution with the fewest connections to citizens or localities.

3. What powers does the President have?

Does "executive power" include the prerogative? Several powers granted in Article II imply that he/she is to be an elected king/queen, and Congress has lavishly support the additional balls and palace establishment. Kings and queens in the bad old world enjoyed a prerogative-the right to take any action (when they decided there was an urgent necessity) without prior legislation or consent of the legislative branch. Presidents have often done just that (notably Lincoln), even though there is a constitutional provision for them to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions, and Congress has always been willing and able.

Presidents have administrative duties in foreign affairs, but are they to decide foreign policy? There is no such grant, and it would seem that policy-making is entirely a legislative function. Many in Congress deemed George Washington's Neutrality Proclamation a usurpation, yet thereafter presidential foreign policy making was rarely challenged.

Presidents have used their ceremonial function of "receiving ambassadors" to deny recognition to de facto governments, which are considered legitimate by international law. Now covert action facilitates presidential control over foreign policy, often for activities that violate the UN Charter and our laws. It is reasonable to assume that Congress has ceded its power because it doesn't want to know what the US is doing.

The role of Commander in chief is modeled after that of the old kings (and George Washington) and presumably permits a president to lead a charge up San Juan Hill. But does it allow the Pres to make war; invade; bomb; or arm contras in Algeria, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Nicaragua, etc., if Congress has not declared war? Our courts usually dismiss attempts to resolve such questions.


4 How does one become a candidate and get elected?

Some demographic requirements are imposed on aspiring officeholders, but the Constitution does not say how one becomes a candidate, or what are fair ways to contest elections (originally decided by popular vote for House of Representatives, state legislatures for Senate, and electoral college for President and Vice-President). These are crucial matters if democracy is to be a reality. The old-boy network, well stocked with Freemasons and self-selected eminences, had been the recruiting ground for national politicians and constitution-writers up to that time. According to Aristotle, the ancient Greek political experience showed that elections favor rich and elegant types, including those able to buy instruction in spin. Democracy required selection by lot, whereby all citizens had an equal chance of serving in any office. Our Constitution-drafters were well versed in Greek political history, yet left the elite system intact. They also incorporated the states' definitions of political rights. As in the great Athenian "democracy," women were ineligible for office, but here, the native tribes were also excluded; in Athens, only natives could be citizens. Slaves and free blacks were also omitted from the concept: "all men are created equal."

For a while, political parties provided some democratizing of both the selection and election processes, enabling low status white males to become representatives. Now, most candidates (except some wealthy self-financed ones) are sponsored by a combination of corporate, union, interest group, local business, and small amounts of political party funds. You can read the details for everyone, including unsuccessful candidates and minor parties, on www.opensecrets.org That's who gets represented, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.


5. What about the state-federal division of functions?

This was never clear cut, although the understanding was that the federal government would have only enumerated powers and the states would have the rest, unless prohibited. That meant that states would decide on their own civil right and liberties, including voting rights; education; health; welfare; safety; morals; religion; slavery; and business, labor, agricultural, and environmental regulation. The national government often oozed out of its enumerated powers, and the federal interstate commerce power led to many boundary disputes.

Amendments, especially the 14th, created a potential democratization of our system, but also ambiguity, which was used to the hilt by elites to prevent state regulation of business and labor. Even today, one can make a reasonable case that the "due process clause" doesn't give the national government control over abortion law or school prayers. The matter of rights is a large one, and will be discussed in a future dispatch.

Because of its silences and ambiguities, the Constitution can be twisted by the powerful to serve their purposes. In addition, it can be completely ignored, as there is no compulsory enforcement. What will fix it? A radical reconstruction might help. It could not even begin unless there is a massive citizen education project, starting in kindergarten. How about creating a democracy (here) as a goal for the United States? That could be a focus of education, state and local government, and even reality shows. Perhaps some day democracy would trickle or spurt up, or maybe the Vermont project is the best recourse.

Joan Roelofs is a professor emerita of political science in Keene, NH. More information on this subject may be found in her Foundations and Public Policy: the Mask of Pluralism. Other books are Greening Cities: Building Just and Sustainable Communities, and a just-published translation of Victor Considerant's Principes du socialisme: Manifeste de la démocratie au XIX siècle. Email: joan.roelofs@verizon.net

http://www.counterpunch.org/roelofs08082006.html

[Saundra Hummer]

......................
Lieberman defeat a win for 'Netroots' politics?

By Caroline McCarthy, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: August 9, 2006, 11:15 AM PT
It may have been frequently described as a referendum on the war in Iraq, but last night's Connecticut Democratic primary battle could also be considered an indicator of the Internet's future as a political tool.

Buzz about the political blogosphere and its potential power reached the national scene during the 2004 presidential race, when former Vermont governor Howard Dean made a name for himself with a campaign that was largely run online. Dean's defeat in the primaries, however, led many to believe that perhaps the Internet's potential as a campaign tool was overrated.

But now that 18-year incumbent and one-time vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman has failed to win the Democratic nomination for Connecticut's Senate seat thanks to millionaire cable-TV executive and political novice Ned Lamont, candidates from across the political spectrum may be looking at the "Netroots" more seriously.

Lamont's campaign had an official blogger, regular support from liberal mega-blog DailyKos, and a YouTube group called "Nedheads" that currently ranks 13th in membership on the popular video site. And most Lamont supporters are eager to paint Lieberman as quite the technophobe, a task made easier when the senator's official Web site mysteriously crashed on primary day. Lieberman's campaign suspected the work of malicious Lamont followers; liberal bloggers laughed it off and suggested that perhaps Lieberman's staff hadn't anticipated the amount of bandwidth they'd need to handle election-day traffic.

A Netroots turning point?
According to Lowell Feld, the official "Netroots Coordinator" for Jim Webb, the Democrat who will be challenging incumbent Republican Senator George Allen in Virginia this November, last night's primary was a sign that the blogosphere (or Netroots, a truncation of "Internet grassroots") has established itself as a powerful force in electoral politics.

"The enthusiasm and interest in (the Lieberman-Lamont primary) was incredible," says Feld, a Lamont supporter, citing the various blogs as well as major news sources that experienced bandwidth problems during the primary as a consequence of Internet users trying to find out the race results. "That shows you something right there."

"The Lamont campaign is the best example to date of a tech-savvy campaign," says Zack Exley, who worked at liberal political action committee MoveOn.org when it first emerged during the 2004 elections and later did work for John Kerry's unsuccessful presidential bid before branching out into nonprofit work. A tech-savvy campaign, he says, is one that "understands that the purpose of technology in politics is to get boots on the ground in the real world, and to actually sway voters and turn out voters in reality," a point sometimes missed by campaigns grounded in the online realm.

Lamont's best online tactic, according to Exley, was his first one: The Greenwich businessman's initial campaign announcement said that he would run only if 10,000 volunteers and donors pledged their support. "I think that was the most innovative thing that he did online," Exley observes, "and it really allowed his campaign to start so much faster than it otherwise would have. It allowed him to almost immediately generate powerful grassroots and financial support for his campaign." Exley thinks we'll see other politicians adopt that model, including those in the 2008 presidential primaries.

Besides the blogosphere's strength as a recruitment tool, it can help a candidate by simply being loud enough to attract the attention of the mainstream media, Feld said. "The interest (within traditional media) was enormous," he said. "Why was the interest so enormous? Sure, Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate in 2000, but was it that interesting of a race inherently? Once the Netroots really got in there and started publicizing it and getting enthused about it, it certainly ratcheted it up a few notches."

Yankee Group analyst Jennifer Simpson describes the Netroots as an emerging strategy for bringing together and publicizing already-existing political sentiment. "What we are beginning to realize about blogs is that they represent some feelings that are already out there. By making those feelings available on the Net, you are able to spread them." Prominent blogs, such as DailyKos on the left and RedState on the right, "can really begin to influence who's doing what." But Simpson is reluctant to make assumptions. "It can be very hard to assess the exact power of blogs," she said.

When asked about future implications, Simpson maintains that it's too early to tell, and stresses that a statewide primary election is very different from a national election like the presidency. The "blogosphere" represents "an ongoing and expanding array of tools" for political campaigns, she says, but national campaigns will need to reach a much wider audience and consequently will have to rely on both traditional and new media.

But that won't diminish the enthusiasm among the pro-Lamont crowd, excited over not only their victory but also the potential to further shake up the establishment. On both sides of the political spectrum, Lowell Feld says, "the Netroots is very difficult to control. It's a force, an independent force. You can try to guide it and shape it, but it doesn't necessarily succumb to that at all."

Go on-site for this and other items pertaining to the internet, web safety issues, reviews, etc.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6103833.html?tag=nl.e589.......................... .

[Saundra Hummer]

..................................
Bush is Trying to Scrap the War Crimes Act So He Can Violate the Geneva Conventions Legally from Now On
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 08/09/2006 - 12:21pm. Analysis
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

George Bush's stubborn lawyer cronies are at it again, according to a story today in the Washington Post. Instead of complying with the Supreme Court's simple insistence that Bush exercise even a basic degree of human decency and follow the laws he swore to uphold, the Bush Administration has a different solution: just change the law.
The controversy is over the War Crimes Act of 1996, which made illegal any "grave" breach of the Geneva Conventions. Bush's proposed changes limit the scope of punishable crimes to torture, murder, and rape, but declares open season on "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment of prisoners, including "outrages upon personal dignity".

Keep in mind that all of this has been going on for years despite the Act, which has never led to a single prosecution. If the changes go through, one can only imagine how much worse things will inevitably get. According to one legal expert, the "entire family of techniques" used in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib Ghraib would still be perfectly legal under the proposed changes. Most disturbingly, the exemptions would apply directly (but not exclusively) to politicians, which gives top officials even broader discretion over what to allow interrogators to get away with.

Since the Justice Department has never invoked the law anyway, all this will really accomplish is further infuriation of not only Arabs but also alienation from most of our allies, who tend to be far more progressive on such things. More significantly, it could well drive our opponents on the battlefield to fight to the death rather than surrender to a potential lifetime of inhumane punishment. Remember that the Nazis were all too glad to surrender to Americans rather than face Soviet prisons, and many Iraqi's even surrendered to news crews in the 1991 Gulf War. Why? Because they knew they would be treated reasonably as POWs. More widespread prisoner abuse will very directly put out troops in more danger and cost more lives as insurgents get more desperate to avoid capture. They might also be more be more ruthless if they should happen to capture one of us.

Part of the debate stems from the Geneva Conventions' broad and ambiguous provisions, such as what exactly is considered impermissibly "humiliating." There is certainly plenty of overlap with what could reasonably be called "torture." But that's where a moral compass comes in handy, which is a device sorely lacking in Bush's arsenal. The proposed amendments ultimately seek to decrease - not expand or even clarify - the War Crime Act's scope.

Last week at hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said, "I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion." Part of what we consider decency is respect for the views of others. We can tolerate Hindus not eating beef or Orthodox Jews not working during the Sabbath without doing it ourselves. We know full well what deeply offends Muslims, and it's exactly what Bush is trying to allow more of. Besides, much of the most egregious abuses we have seen would be humiliating to anyone.

The Geneva Conventions were implemented for good reason, and as long as we are signatories we should follow them.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Go on-site to view by clicking on the following link:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/087............................

[Saundra Hummer]

.................................
August 9, 2006

John Dean
John Dean has the dubious distinction of serving as Nixon's White House counsel during the Watergate crisis.

But, unlike other Nixon loyalists, Dean tried to warn Nixon that something was rotten in Nixonland by telling the commander-in-chief that there was a cancer on his presidency.

In recent years, Dean has emerged as a fair, insightful critic of the Bush Administration. As an attorney, his basis for fault-finding and alarm is the executive branch violations of the rule of law.

Dean writes with credibility and caution. He doesn't jump to conclusions. He looks at the evidence before him and astutely analyzes its legal implications.

His new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," goes a step further. In it, he awakens us to the threat of a government that is ruled by individuals who are authoritarian in their worldview. This is not true conservatism, he argues, because true conservatism values individual liberty and the Constitution. This is something far more dangerous.

John Dean could have stepped out of the limelight and enjoyed his career and family life. But he didn't because he is a patriot concerned about the future of his country.

He is letting us know how much the rule of law is at risk under the Bush Administration.

For that, he more than deserves this week's BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice Award."
* * *Nominated by David MacRonald of Graham, NC

Go on-site to access the links to download and to read BuzzFlash.com articles.

http://www.buzzflash.com

Click the > to play. Right-click (PC) or CTRL-click (Mac) HERE to download
http://www.wingsofjustice.com/06/08/woj06032.html...................................

[Saundra Hummer]

***************
Pesticides in sodas rekindle Indian ire
Coke and Pepsi face bans and government takes heat following a study last week.
By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
FROM THE AUGUST 10, 2006 EDITION

NEW DELHI – After investing more than $1 billion in India over the past decade, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have found themselves once again in the center of a debate over pesticide residues in their products and corporate responsibility to protect customers.
Surveying Coke and Pepsi products from around the country, the Center for Science and Environment found pesticide residues in the products of the two soda giants - which together dominate more than 90 percent of the growing Indian soda market. The report, coming three years after CSE's first study found pesticide traces, shines light on India's weak food-safety laws, and threatens the profitability of two of India's biggest foreign investors.


PESTICIDE PROTEST: Indian children held anti-soda posters during a demonstration Saturday in Amritsar.
NARINDER NANU/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

"This is not a battle for Coke and Pepsi," says Sunita Narain, director of the CSE in New Delhi. "This is a battle for a gutsy regulator. If the government is dealing with a large, powerful company that can get away with murder, it does not build confidence that it will deal with the other areas of food safety."
The debate over Coke and Pepsi in India is a story of a long love-hate relationship. Loved by the newly prosperous Indian middle class as a hip Western accessory, and distrusted by religious conservatives and old-style leftists as symbols of Western domination in a globalized world, Coke and Pepsi have a way of inflaming passions. For environmentalists, Coke and Pepsi are useful tools to prod the Indian government into more rigorous food-safety regulation in a country where water contamination and increased pesticide use are growing matters of concern.

"Big companies make big news. Big companies of mighty nations make bigger news. I personally do not think that this reflects anti-Americanism of the middle class," says Rajeev Bhargava, a political science professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. "The Indian middle class ... panics very easily when it comes to matters related to health."

In a country that has long debated the wisdom of drinking cold drinks in the summer - traditionalists say that hot drinks are more cooling, since they cause one to perspire - a report showing the existence of pesticides at high levels was almost certain to cause revulsion.

In 57 samples of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo drinks produced in 12 Indian states, the CSE found the average amount of pesticide residues to be 11.85 parts per billion (ppb), 34 times higher than the permitted limit set by the Bureau of Indian Standards. These standards by the BIS have been drafted but not implemented.

Already, Coke and Pepsi are feeling the heat. Three years after a similar report by CSE found pesticide residues up to 24 times the acceptable standards found in the West, the two soda giants have lost customers. Coke, which claimed in 2005 to have some 60.9 percent of the market share, reported a 10 percent drop in unit case volumes sold in the first quarter of this year. Pepsi, which has a 36 percent market share, seems to be weathering the storm better, because of its concentration in the fruit juice and sports drink markets.

Coke and Pepsi are not the only contaminated food products, however. A previous study by CSE found pesticide residues in many bottled water brands sold in India, and a committee set up by the Indian Ministry of Agriculture also found pesticide residues such as DDT (dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane), HCH (hexachlorocyclohexane) and BHC (benzene hexachloride) in everything from milk and baby milk powder to honey, fruit jam, and fresh fruit.

The problem has as much to do with agricultural practices encouraged by the Indian government - a focus on boosting yields with pesticides and chemicals - as it does with growing demand for water. Across much of India, tube wells have lowered the water table, leaving those pesticides that have trickled into the groundwater at ever-increasing concentrations.

"It is suspected that most of our water bodies and soils are contaminated with these chemicals or with their degradation products," wrote the All India Coordinated Research Project on Pesticide Residues in their 2000 report. More than 60,000 tons of pesticides are used in India, recent studies show - 70 percent of them insecticides including DDT, a substance that spawned the modern US environmental movement because of its links to cancer and birth defects.

With protesters defacing Coke and Pepsi signs in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), burning Coke cans in Calcutta, and even force-feeding the sodas to donkeys and camels - presumably a sign that the drinks are only fit for animals - the industry has responded with a media blitz saying their products are safe.

"The soft drinks manufactured in India comply with stringent international norms and all applicable national regulations," says the Indian Soft Drink Manufacturers Association. The industry body pledged to abide by new standards that have been drafted, but not "notified" - that is, not enforceable - by the Bureau of Indian Standards.

"Ultimately, the onus is on manufacturers to clean up the pesticide residues which are coming in the agricultural products and the water supply," says Deepak Jolly, a senior spokesman for the Indian affiliate of Coca-Cola. "We say, let the government come up with notified standards [of pesticide residues]. There are no notified standards now. But we are confident that we will not only meet them, but we will exceed them [in promoting safety]."

In the meantime, some of the market is already shifting away. Government canteens and schools have already banned Coke and Pepsi in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Punjab. Karnataka imposed a partial ban, and Kerala has completely embargoed the sale and manufacture of the drinks.

Rajeev Bhargava, the political scientist says that Coke and Pepsi have a much tougher battle than cleaning up the pesticide residues. They must reverse a perception that these cola superpowers are more interested in profits than in customer safety.

"A lot of people would say, 'Would they dare market a product with such high levels of pesticides in foreign countries?' And the answer is clearly, no," says Mr. Bhargava. "My guess is that public memory is short and colas will be back, but they must bring their Indian house in order."

GO ON-SITE TO ACCESS STORY, PHOTO'S AND LINKS, JUST CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING ONE

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0810/p06s01-wosc.html
.............

[Saundra Hummer]

Terrorism & Security

US neocons hoped Israel would attack Syria
Israel considered expansion of conflict in Lebanon 'nuts.'
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
posted August 9, 2006 at 12:00 a.m.
The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say Israel's "leadership balked at the scheme."

One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.

After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hizbullah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.

In a July 30 story about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in response to its attacks in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post noted the White House interest.

The IDF was also concerned about a possible Syrian attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack.

Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.


Neoconservatives, or 'neocons,' believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled military power to promote its values around the world. Several prominent neocon columnists have recently written about the need for Israel to take the current conflict beyond Lebanon to include the countries they consider to be Hizbullah's main backers – Iran and Syria.

In his blog for National Review, columnist Michael Ledeen wrote last month that "we have to [go] after [Syrian President Bashir] Assad."

The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to [go] after Assad, and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones). I hope so. But I don't see it. I don't see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with the statement from the State Dept, let's not forget) holding Syria and Iran responsible. Okay, so they're responsible. And then?

There has to be a "then." And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus. Otherwise, it will all rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon, and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It's a war, not a debate.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, also believes the US needs to go after Syria and Iran.

For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions – and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

But Alon Ben-Meir, professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, argues the opposite side, that now is the time to engage, not attack Syria, and that the Bush administration "will forfeit another historic opportunity to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, however remote that prospect may now seem."

The Syrian government knows only too well that the administration is fully committed to a regime change in Damascus. From the Syrian perspective, this, in itself, justifies any effort to thwart the American design. If the administration wishes to see a real change in Syria's behavior, it must first assure President Bashar al-Assad that the United States has no intention of undermining his government. It is absurd to think that any government will cooperate in its own downfall. That said, however justified American grievances against Syria may be, Damascus can also compile a long list of its own grievances. Neither side's complaints against the other can be adequately addressed by public pronouncements or recriminations. Only a direct dialogue provides the clarity to realistically assess each other's intentions.

In a recent piece entitled "Ending the neoconservative nightmare," Ha'aretz columnist Daniel Levy writes that the neoconservative agenda for Israel has actually hurt the country. Israel, he said, found "its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hizbullah's advantage..." Mr. Levy wonders if, after the Israel-Hizbullah crisis is over, Israelis will understand the "tectonic shift that has taken place in US-Middle East policy?"

The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" – centered around Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and others – were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich, and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an aggressive unilateralist US global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended moment in the sun arrived after 9/11.

Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The US press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization."

Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.

Finally, Spencer Ackerman writes in The New Republic Online that a growing split between traditional conservatives (champions of 'realistic' foreign policy) and neoconservatives (champions of 'moralistic' foreign policy) will only become more pronounced over the next few months, as traditional conservatives increasingly rethink the Bush administration's actions in Iraq.

Conservative recriminations over Iraq are igniting all across Washington, with opponents of the war loudly assaulting its leading champions (see Francis Fukuyama v. Charles Krauthammer and George Will v. William Kristol.) But what the Hulsman incident [the dismissal of senior foreign policy analyst, John Hulsman, from the neoconservative bastion the Heritage Foundation last month] reveals is that the war's supporters aren't about to passively absorb criticism and issue public apologies. They are going to fight back against their critics – and an ugly debate will become much uglier.
[I]Also...
'Signing statements' are a phantom target (Boston Globe)
Bush and Condi clash over Israel; president overrules her for the first time (Insight on the News)
UN Risks Igniting Civil War in Lebanon, Qatari Says (Bloomberg)
Twilight of Lebanon's liberals (Salon)
Between two friends (Ha'aretz)
4 months will tell if NATO is beating Taliban: commander (CBC.ca)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/dailyUpdate.html

[Saundra Hummer]

............................
Lebanon’s Descent into Hell
By Mike Whitney
"I know I will die fighting them, then I will go to my God. But I will go to my God fighting like a lion. I will not be slaughtered like a lamb." Ahmed (last name withheld) "Destruction, Death and Drastic Measures" Dahr Jamail. Link Follows:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14453.htm08/10/06 "Information Clearing House" - --- The assassination of Lebanese businessman Rifik Hariri now looks like the hoax that many suspected from the very beginning. Israeli newspapers’ have already admitted that the current invasion had been planned for over a year, so how can anyone still believe that Syrian agents killed Hariri?

Syria had nothing to gain by killing Hariri and everything to lose. Israel, on the other hand, could use the murder as an excuse to push Syrian troops out of Lebanon, invoke UN resolution 1559 to attack Hezbollah, and bomb the country into submission annexing the south according to a Zionist scheme that dates back more than 60 years.

Game, Set, Match.

The UN investigation, which was led by American-stooge Detlef Mehlis, was a pure, unalloyed fraud that never produced a shred of evidence despite the relentless media innuendo and the finger-pointing at Damascus.

Consider the extent to which American NGOs and Israeli intelligence must have worked together to topple the Emile Lahoud government, force Syrian troops from Lebanon, foment the "made-for-TV" Cedar Revolution, and catapult the blubbering "Israel-friendly" Fouad Siniora into the presidency. The scope of the conspiracy is mind-boggling but it gives us some grasp of the impressive level of collaboration between the Washington imperialists and the Tel Aviv Zionists. The calculated destruction of Lebanon is the polluted vision of both parties; they are equally culpable.

So far, the only obstacle to Israel’s plan has been Hezbollah, an organization that has remained steadfast in its preparedness for the inevitable Israeli onslaught. Under the guidance of Hassan Nasrallah, the group has stubbornly refused to be "disarmed" by the American-run United Nations or to evacuate their homeland south of the Litani River. That has forced US/Israel to scrap the pretense of "democracy-building" and resort to the "always reliable" carpet-bombing strategy.

After 4 previous invasions and countless border skirmishes, Nasrallah was wise enough not to trust its war-mongering neighbor to the south. And, of course, events have now proven that he was right. Israel stormed Lebanon with 10,000 troops following a withering month-long bombing campaign, but has had to scratch and claw for every inch of Lebanese soil it has taken, incurring heavy losses in the process. So far, Hezbollah has held fast; giving up less than 8 km of ground to the most technologically-advanced army in the Middle East. It’s been a major "black-eye" for the IDF.

Israel has been limited to doing what it does best; pelting unarmed civilians with American-made ordinance from 30,000 ft. Fortunately, Lebanon is not Gaza where 1 million people are corralled in a desert-gulag waiting for Israel to lob bombs into their midst.

The Olmert regime has already decimated most of Lebanon; setting the nation’s infrastructure back 20 years, triggering an environmental catastrophe on the coast (an 80 mile oil slick), and creating a humanitarian disaster. Still, Israel’s ground-offensive has sputtered to a near standstill, unable to overcome the ferocious resistance of a handful of well-disciplined, fierce-fighting guerillas who are willing to die defending their country. Their performance has been an inspiration to the entire Arab world.

There’s no doubt that Hezbollah is the de-facto National Lebanese Army and the only military force that is willing to defend Lebanese sovereignty. In Beirut, the simpering President Siniora has become a regular embarrassment to his people with his weepy appeals to the international community and Israel. His sniveling recital may be welcome in Tel Aviv, where Arabs are already considered untermenschen, but it detracts from his ability to mobilize his people for the struggle ahead. Siniora would be better off replicating Arafat’s "Kalashnikov-waving" performance at the United Nations some years ago, when he offered the world a choice between the olive branch or endless war. Instead, he persists with his clownish hand-wringing that only gratifies his adversaries and undermines his cause.

Show a bit of spine, man.

Siniora’s task is crystal clear; demand an immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces, deploy his 70,000 troops to the south, and order the immediate conscription of all combat-age men between 16 and 65 years old. These are the same expectations we would have of our leaders in the United States if we were under siege.

Siniora should ignore the UN. The US-British-French ceasefire is nothing more than "neo-colonial" scheme to divide Lebanon by conceding the southern portion to Israeli occupation.

The international community did nothing to discourage Israel’s 18 year occupation of Lebanon (1982 to 2000) and they’ll do nothing now. It is a meaningless debating society meant to provide international cover for imperial adventurism and war crimes; nothing more.

Siniora should resign and hand-over Lebanon’s army under Hezbollah. At least Nasrallah understands what needs to be done when the country is at war.

The Art of Ethnic Cleansing Israeli-style

Can killing innocent people be justified if it saves the lives of countless others?

Isn’t this what happened at Qana?

Israel was warned repeatedly to stop firing on the UN facility at Qana but continued its assault until the building was eventually leveled by an American-made bomb that killed 57. The attack was clearly "deliberate" (as Kofi Annan said) and produced the reaction in the media that would have been expected from such a obvious atrocity.

Did the Israeli high-command know what the public reaction would be when they bombed the building or do they simply take these things in their stride?

Qana was the most successful Israeli operation to date.

Why?

Because it spread fear and terror throughout the south just as it was designed to do; precipitating an immediate and massive migration of some 750,000 mostly poor Shias.

It was the most carefully-calculated, precisely-executed act of terror since 9-11.
No one in the western media would ever dare to accuse Israel of terrorism, but the facts are hard to deny. By pulverizing Qana (as well as by bombing a few fleeing mini-busses full of civilians) Israel triggered a stampede which drove the entire indigenous population northward over the Litani River. At the same time, Israel managed to keep casualties below 1,000, which is a nearly a miracle given the immensity of the devastation.

Wasn’t that Israel’s plan from the beginning; to evacuate the people but keep the dead toll down?

When historians reflect on the IDF maneuverings in the Lebanon war, they will certainly credit Olmert and his staff with the most successful ethnic-cleansing operation in history.

This is new-world, high-tech ethnic cleansing, not the messy Darfur-type, where carnage is splattered all over the screen and terrified villagers are seen scurrying from their homes in a hail of artillery-blasts.

NO, no, no; this is the fully-sanitized, meticulously-executed military operation intended to purge the land of its unwelcome occupants and expand the perimeters of Greater Israel.

Israel has elevated ethnic cleansing to an art-form. The mass exodus was carried out with Germanic-precision and less than 900 total casualties. That must be a record, for those who care to document such dubious achievements.

Civil War on the Horizon

Israel understands Lebanon’s ethnic dynamic as well as anyone. By thrusting 750,000 Muslim refugees into Christian and Druze areas, we can anticipate that traditional antagonisms will resurface leading eventually to another civil war. The blistering attack on the south and cutting off humanitarian aid creates the perfect laboratory-setting for incubating a new round of sectarian violence. This is what Israel wants. In fact, the new world order requires endless cycle of internecine, Muslim on Muslim violence. As Henry Kissinger said, "I hope they all kill each other." American-Israeli foreign policy has never evolved beyond Kissinger’s callous axiom, in fact, it is an apt summary of the racist themes and homicidal doctrine which animates the entire war on terror.

Bush and Olmert agree that the "real enemy" is Arab nationalism and Muslim solidarity; the 2 vital threats to the US/Israeli occupation strategy. The same solution applies to Lebanon as Iraq; divide and conquer; pit one group against the next until the whole society is torn apart in a paroxysm of bloodshed.

Will Israel succeed in inciting chaos and civil strife or will they have to jump-start the process by packing explosives in the trunks of cars and detonating them in marketplaces and mosques like counterinsurgency operations in Iraq? We’ll have to wait and see.

Lebanon is at the beginning of a long descent into hell. Every opportunity for peace has been foreclosed by the Bush administration. The failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to slow the machinery of state terror. The ghastly specter of mutilated corpses crushed beneath the twisted iron and powdery debris of bombed-out buildings only whets the appetites of the imperial warlords. They won’t be happy until the fire they started in Iraq consumes the entire Middle East in a pyramid of flames.
Go on-site to view article and links

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14453.htm..............................

[Saundra Hummer]

..............................
Report: Neocons siphoning secret intelligence to Israel

Are neocons in the Bush administration actually siphoning secret intelligence to Israel in hopes of keeping the war going, the war Rice is ostensibly trying to stop? James Bamford says so.

Countdown - 08/07/06 MSNBC - Runtime 5 Minutes

CLICK PLAY TO VIEW

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14472.htm


Click here for dialup video

You may need to download Windows Media Player 10 to view this video. Its FREE




TRANSCRIPT

A growing body of evidence tonight that the neoconservatives inside the Bush administration who engineered the U.S. invasion of Iraq might now be setting their sights on Iran, the fight between Hezbollah and Israel serving as a conduit, Sidney Blumenthal reporting on Salon.com that, with the president‘s approval, the national Security Agency, the NSA, is secretly providing intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah as it fires Katyusha missiles and other vehicles into northern Israel.

At the same time, Salon reports, hard-liners in the administration believe Secretary of State Rice is not doing enough to push the neoconservative agenda.

Joining me now to discuss that revelation is James Bamford, an expert on the U.S. intelligence community and the author of groundbreaking books on the NSA called “Body of Secrets” and “The Puzzle Palace.” He now has an article on the prospect of war in Iran in the current issue of “Rolling Stone” magazine.

Mr. Bamford, thank you for your time tonight.

JAMES BAMFORD, “ROLLING STONE”: No, my pleasure, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Is the passing of secret intelligence to Israel, with the approval of the president, a clear sign that the administration might be looking to widen the conflict in the Middle East, instead of trying to contain it now?

BAMFORD: Well, it‘s not just intelligence. If you remember, last week there was a major report about how the U.S. was rushing sophisticated weapons to Israel for use in the war. So it‘s clear that the U.S., particularly the Pentagon, is pushing hard on behalf of Israel in this war.

OLBERMANN: Is it Condoleezza Rice herself that the neoconservatives view as a threat? Are they Colin-Powelling her? Or would anyone holding the post of secretary of state prove threatening to this line of thought, because diplomacy really is the antithesis of regime change?

BAMFORD: Well, I think Condi Rice is pretty much a protegee of Colin Powell, who they just couldn‘t stand as secretary of state. And they would prefer to have John Bolton, our ambassador to the U.N., as secretary of state, a fellow neocon.

So they‘re—at every chance they can, I think they‘re going to try to undermine her, and she‘s pushing to get a peace settlement as soon as possible, and I think they would like to delay it as long as possible.

OLBERMANN: By the mere fact, though, that Iraq has not and is not going and doesn‘t seem to be in the future going to be going the way the neocons had planned, does that not detract from their credibility about regime change anywhere else, particularly in Iran, even if it‘s as simple as wanting a do-over? What would make destabilizing that country and the process of that turn out any differently than the process in Iraq has?

BAMFORD: Well, they‘re on an entirely different plane, I think, than most people. And I don‘t think this deters them at all. They‘ve had this goal for years, for a decade, at least. In 1996, they came up with the clean-break plan, which was an outline for how Israel would basically get rid of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and move into Syria, Lebanon, and on to Iran.

I think they‘re trying to carry out this plan. It was written by the person who‘s now the Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney, and the person who was in charge of the war in Iraq, largely, Doug Feith at the Pentagon, in addition to the person who is head of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle.

So this has been a plan that‘s been in the works for a long time. And I think now it‘s their chance to see a possibility for this to come to fruition.

OLBERMANN: Is there an irony in all this, that Hezbollah‘s greatest ally in the region right now might not be Iran, but given that rally we saw in Baghdad today, that it might turn out to be the Arab Shi‘ite majority that we have installed in Iraq?

BAMFORD: Well, that‘s certainly one irony. Another irony is the fact that it was Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the neoconservatives, that was used to gin up all the phony information to help us get into this war so that they could put Chalabi in there as president of Iraq. And now it turns out that the FBI is investigating Chalabi as possibly a spy for Iran.

So the ultimate irony would be if this was a plot all along by Iran, using Chalabi, to get the United States to get rid of their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and make Iraq very convenient for a new Iranian government, a Shi‘ite-dominated government. And that‘s basically what‘s happened.

OLBERMANN: Sooner or later, if you deal with faith-based facts, you‘re going to trip on something. National security expert James Bamford, great thanks for joining us tonight.

BAMFORD: My pleasure, Keith.
Go on-site to link up with article and other topical stories

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14472.htm
...................

[Saundra Hummer]

------------------------


The Grave Consequences of Supporting War in Lebanon

By
Scott Ritter

08/09/06 "Alternet" -- -- With Israel waging an all-out war against the forces of Hezbollah, and the death toll in terms of civilian casualties mounting on a daily basis, the question of a diplomatic resolution to the crisis takes on an urgency that is being felt around the world. Everywhere, it seems, except in Israel and the United States. One should not be fooled by the "false" diplomacy being waged by the United States, fronted by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
The draft Security Council resolution co-sponsored between the United States and France is but a tragic farce, a smoke screen designed to unilaterally protect Israeli interests at the expense of all others that is so transparent no Arab nation takes it seriously (it has been rejected outright by Lebanon, Syria and Hezbollah).

There are several reasons for this apparent lack of concern on the part of the primary belligerent (Israel) and its No. 1 underwriter (the United States). First and foremost is the fact that the ongoing violence being waged against Hezbollah is not, contrary to popular opinion, a knee-jerk reaction to the attack against Israel by Hezbollah that resulted in several dead Israeli soldiers and two taken prisoner. It is rather part and parcel of a long-planned strike designed not only to neutralize Hezbollah, but also its largest international supporters, namely Syria and Iran. As such, Israel (and by extension, the United States) has certain predesignated goals and objectives that need to be reached, and no cease-fire will be willingly undertaken until they are. These include the military destruction of Hezbollah and its political isolation, along with its major supporter Iran.

But as the global hue and cry over the indiscriminate death and destruction being inflicted on the innocent civilians of Lebanon by the Israeli Defense Force continues to mount, drowning out any legitimate counter Israel may have by citing similar indiscriminate loss of life and property caused by Hezbollah rockets, Israel and its supporters in Washington, D.C., recognize that there is a limit to what the world will be willing to tolerate.

Already Israel and the United States are feeling the brunt of a diplomatic backlash resulting from the horrific devastation rained down on the people of Lebanon as a result of Israel's blind rage and America's misguided support of everything that is done in the name of Israel.

This does not mean that America's support of Israel's legitimate security concerns is bad policy; just the opposite. Supporting Israel's right to exist, and its right to defend itself against those who wish to do it harm, is the soundest possible policy a democracy such as America could embrace. But as a nation built on the belief that all humans are created equal, and that oppression of one party by another represents a tyranny that must be opposed, it is high time that the United States learn to differentiate between what constitutes legitimate Israeli security concerns, and what constitutes regional hegemony, tyranny and oppression.

Knee-jerk reactions aside, there is really no foundation upon which Americans can morally continue to support the Israeli actions in Lebanon. Indeed, many Americans, joined by like-minded people around the world, are increasingly taking a position that opposes the Israeli military assault on Lebanon.

There is a difference between being opposed to Israeli action, and having a viable plan on what to do instead. One of the main problems is the fact that Israel (and its supporters here in the United States) have sagely exploited the lexicon of terror, a politically savvy move in post 9/11 America that makes the formulation of any viable opposition to what the Israelis claim to be a legitimate response in the face of terror virtually impossible.

When evaluating the Israeli position on Hezbollah, we should never forget that it was Hezbollah, alone among the forces in the Arab world, that defeated Israel, compelling the Israeli Defense Force to withdraw from southern Lebanon in May 2000 after a disastrous 18-year occupation. National pride, combined with hegemonic hubris born of out-of-control Zionism, prevents Israel from ever accepting this result or forgiving Hasan Nasrullah or his followers for this "crime."

Israel claims the moral high ground in this current round of conflict, citing the July 12 attack by Hezbollah on an Israeli Army patrol that left eight IDF soldiers dead and two captured. The disproportionality of response aside (Hezbollah fires hundreds of rockets into Israel, and gets thousands of artillery shells and aerial bombs in return; Israel's civilian casualties run in the scores, Lebanon's in the hundreds), Israel's claim as the aggrieved party simply does not withstand the test of history and fact.

Hezbollah is a direct byproduct of the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of Lebanon. In the chaos and anarchy that followed, Israel helped facilitate disunity and dysfunction within Lebanon by promoting the interests of the Lebanese Christian minority over Lebanese Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a alike. Hezbollah as an organization grew from this political morass, representing the legitimate aspirations of the Shi'a Lebanese of southern and eastern Lebanon. Albeit largely funded and supplied by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah is not an international organization, but one distinctly Lebanese. Its function has been to liberate Lebanon from Israeli aggression. To call Hezbollah a terrorist organization is not only a misuse of terminology, but also symptomatic of the larger problem that plagues both Israel and the United States when it comes to dealing with the Middle East as a whole.

Israel and the United States have become trapped by the lexicon born of the so-called "Global War on Terror." These two nations have collectively painted in their mind's eye a world of distinct black and white, or good and evil. In doing so, the reality that is the Middle East goes unrecognized, and as such, no viable solution can be found. If Hezbollah were a genuine non-state terror group, one could make an argument that direct military confrontation designed to isolate and destroy that group was viable. But Hezbollah is not a non-state player, but rather a legitimate expression of the legitimate desires of a not-insignificant percentage of the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah is decidedly anti-Israel, as only a group born from the oppression of Israeli occupation of their homeland could be. This has led to fiery rhetoric on the part of Hezbollah and its supporters, which has been exploited by Israel and the United States to paint Hezbollah as an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hezbollah has stated that its goals are the removal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine. Hezbollah also continues to demand the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, some of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 20 years.

It was the prisoner issue that led to the most recent outbreak of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. Following Israel's retreat from southern Lebanon in May 2000, hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners were still held by Israel, which refused to release them. In October 2000, Hezbollah fighters disguised as U.N. soldiers captured three Israeli soldiers, as well as an Israeli reserve officer who was in Beirut on private business. Hassan Nasrullah declared that Hezbollah would exchange the Israelis for the Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. In a deal brokered by the German government, Israel agreed to release 430 prisoners in exchange for the bodies of the three captured Israeli soldiers (they had been killed shortly after their capture) and the Israeli reservist.

However, Hezbollah claims that Israel had agreed to release three specific prisoners -- Samir Kuntar (captured in a raid on an Israeli settlement in which four Israelis died, including a 4-year-old girl), Yahye Skaff (captured in 1978 after an attack on Israel by Fatah guerillas left 35 Israelis dead and over 100 wounded) and Nissim Mousa N'isr (an Israeli-Arab accused of spying on behalf of Hezbollah). Israeli Ariel Sharon apparently reneged on the deal at the last second, prompting Hassan Nasrullah to declare that Hezbollah retained the right to capture Israeli soldiers at any time in order to secure the release of these three prisoners. The July 12 attack by Hezbollah was nothing more than Nasrullah keeping his word.

Contrary to popular opinion, Hezbollah is not an "international terrorist organization." It has not been linked to any acts of terror outside the borders of Lebanon (the current shelling of Israel notwithstanding, Hezbollah claims these are legitimate military actions in response to Israeli "aggression"). The United States and Israel often speak of "Hezbollah terror attacks" outside of Lebanon, but in the end cannot trace these attacks to Hezbollah with anything stronger than circumstance and rhetoric. The reality of Hezbollah is that it is a decidedly nationalistic organization that has gone on record condemning the September 2001 terror attacks against the United States, rejecting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, as well as any killing of innocent civilians in the name of Islam. If it were not for the Israeli angle, the irony is that Hezbollah actually represents the kind of home-grown political party that the United States should be supporting.

Hezbollah is very much a political reality. It is woven into the daily reality of the lives of Lebanese Shi'a, providing medical and education support to impoverished civilians who otherwise would have to go without. Hezbollah has participated in the legitimate political processes of the Lebanese democracy, winning over a dozen seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and holding several cabinet-level positions. The Lebanese government itself recognizes the unique character of Hezbollah, rejecting any notion that it is an illegitimate militia, but rather a legitimate national resistance movement that will continue to exist until Israel stops meddling in Lebanese affairs.

The United States and Israel continue to quote U.N. Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, as well as the disarming of Lebanese militias. However, resolution 1559 does not mention Hezbollah by name, and the Lebanese government itself refuses to categorize Hezbollah as an illegal militia, but rather as a legitimate defender of Lebanese interests. As a result, there is a huge disconnect between the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Lebanon and Hezbollah on the other, in regard to the basic foundational element of any diplomatic resolution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Lebanon. The fact of the matter is, Hezbollah is a reality that neither the United States nor Israel can negotiate away. To attempt to bomb Lebanon into submission as a proxy for its inability to militarily defeat Hezbollah is not only criminal, but counterproductive.

Hezbollah today has the support of nearly 90 percent of the Lebanese population. Hassan Nasrullah has taken on legendary proportions throughout the Arab world, where his and Hezbollah's ongoing stout resistance to Israel's mighty military stands in stark contrast to the impotence of the rest of the Arab world and its leaders.

If anything, the United States should be well-positioned to whisper advice to Israel as to the futility of its current operations in Lebanon. The United States has for more than three years now conducted similar military operations in Iraq, only to find that not only has the vaunted U.S. military been unable to defeat a popular-based resistance, but that the resistance has grown.

Worse, the misguided policies that embrace a unilaterally military solution have destroyed the basic social framework of Iraq, creating a seething morass of anarchy and chaos from which violence erupts that has no center or focus upon which to zero in for a solution. Iraq is very much a dead country, which exists only for the purpose of killing Americans and its own citizens. If Israel were to ponder its folly in Lebanon, it would realize that its actions, if continued, will ultimately result in a similar outcome for the Lebanese -- a society that exists solely for the purpose of killing Israelis and each other. The difference between Iraq and Lebanon is that eventually America will be able to retreat away from the borders of Iraq. Israel will never be able to retreat away from the disaster it is creating in Lebanon today.

Of course, all of this is basic common sense for anyone who takes the time to study the facts. The problem is the predisposition of the respective publics in Israel and the United States to buy into an ideology based upon semantics that is divorced from reality. Once anything or anyone is labeled "terrorist," the game is pretty much up in so far as forming public opinion is concerned, which means, as an extension, any hope of changing governmental policy is likewise doomed. The actions of the Israeli Parliament and the U.S. Congress prove this point.

Their respective unanimity in supporting the daily murder of Lebanese, while casting the blame for the violence solely on the shoulders of Hezbollah and its supporters in Syria and Iran, are not only reflective of bad policy, but also bad thinking brought on by the inability and unwillingness of the people of Israel and the United States to think critically on any issue involving Israel. The U.S. media is particularly at fault in this regard (it is ironic that the Israeli media, and by extension the Israeli people, have been much more critical of the Lebanese operation than have their counterparts in the United States).

So long as the American media collectively continues to masquerade as journalists, when in fact it serves as little more than the propagandistic arm of the U.S. and Israeli governments, the American people will continue to wallow in their collective ignorance of the world they live in, unable to discern solutions to problems because they are for the most part unable to define the problem itself. This is a very serious matter, one with huge potential consequences.

Take, in closing, the manner in which Israel and the United States have painted Hezbollah's military underwriters in Iran and Syria. If Hezbollah resistance continues (as it seems likely to do), the United States and Israel have stated that Syria and Iran become, by extension, legitimate military targets.

This discussion is offered without any thought or recognition of the "other side of the coin," namely the mindset in much of the Arab and Muslim world that if Iran and Syria are targeted for providing military support for Hezbollah, then the No. 1 underwriter for the ongoing Israeli slaughter of Lebanese, the United States, likewise becomes a legitimate military target.

Every citizen in the United States should take a minute while they sit back and enjoy the relative peace of summer and reflect on what that would mean, and if it is really the direction they want the United States to be drifting at the moment. Just don't ask the mainstream American media to assist with any reflective analysis. It is too busy promoting a larger war.

Scott Ritter served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his resignation in 1998. He is the author of, most recently, "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein" (Nation Books, 2005).

Source: www.alternet.org

Go on-site to access this story and any links, as well at the numerous articles related to this one:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14448.htm
-----------------

[Saundra Hummer]

.............................
Was Israel's Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran?

Analysis
by
Gareth Porter

08/09/06 -- -- WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (IPS) - Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shiite organisation's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective -- the weakening of Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.

In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the George W. Bush administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear programme -- the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

One leading expert on Israeli national defence policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the Bush administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, says Bush administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

The risk to Israel of launching such an offensive was that it would unleash the very rain of Hezbollah rockets on Israel that it sought to avert. But Luttwak believes the Israelis calculated that they could degrade Hezbollah's rocket forces without too many casualties by striking preemptively.

"They knew that a carefully prepared and coordinated rocket attack by Hezbollah would be much more catastrophic than one carried out under attack by Israel," he says.

Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israeli specialist on security affairs at Bar Ilon University who reflects Israeli government thinking, did not allude to the link between destruction of Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and a possible attack on Iran in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week. But he did say there is "some expectation" in Israel that after the U.S. Congressional elections, Bush "will decide that he has to do what he has to do."

Steinberg said Israel wanted to "get an assessment" of whether the United States would "present a military attack against the Iranian nuclear sites as the only option." If not, he suggested that Israel was still considering its own options.

Specialists on Iran and Hezbollah have long believed that the missiles Iran has supplied to Hezbollah were explicitly intended to deter an Israeli attack on Iran. Ephraim Kam, a specialist on Iran at Israel's Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies, wrote in December 2004 that Hezbollah's threat against northern Israel was a key element of Iran's deterrent to a U.S. attack.

Ali Ansari, an associate professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and author of a new book on the U.S. confrontation with Iran, was quoted in the Toronto Star Jul. 30 as saying, "Hezbollah was always Iran's deterrent force against Israel."

Iran has also threatened direct retaliation against Israel with the Shahab-3 missile from Iranian territory. However, Iran may be concerned about the possibility that Israel's Arrow system could intercept most of them, as the Jaffe Centre's Kam observed in 2004. That elevates the importance to Iran of Hezbollah's ability to threaten retaliation.

Hezbollah received some Soviet-era Katyusha rockets, with a range of only five miles, and a hundreds of longer-range missiles after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. But Israel's daily Haaretz, citing a report by Israeli military intelligence at the time, has reported that the number of missiles and rockets in Hezbollah hands grew to more 12,000 in 2004.

That was when Iranian officials felt that the Bush administration might seriously consider an attack on their nuclear sites, because it knew Iran was poised to begin enrichment of uranium. It was also when Iranian officials began to imply that Hezbollah could retaliate against any attack on Iran, although they have never stated that explicitly.

The first hint of Iranian concern about the possible strategic implications of the Israeli campaign to degrade the Hezbollah missile force in southern Lebanon came in a report by Michael Slackman in the New York Times Jul. 25. Slackman quoted an Iranian official with "close ties to the highest levels of government" as saying, "They want to cut off one of Iran's arms."

The same story quoted Mohsen Rezai, the former head of Iran's Revolutionary guards, as saying, "Israel and the U.S. knew that as long as Hamas and Hezbollah were there, confronting Iran would be costly" -- an obvious reference to the deterrent value of the missiles in Lebanon. "So, to deal with Iran, they first want to eliminate forces close to Iran that are in Lebanon and Palestine."

Israel has been planning its campaign against Hezbollah's missile arsenal for many months. As Matthew Kalman reported from Tel Aviv in the San Francisco Chronicle on Jul. 21, "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's main purpose in meeting with Bush on May 23 was clearly to push the United States to agree to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Two days before the meeting, Olmert told CNN that Iran's "technological threshold" is "very close". In response to a question about U.S. and European diplomacy on the issue, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's ynetnews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work.

It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a means of dramatically reducing the risk of an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by the Israel's ynetnews, but not by U.S. news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied."

Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to wreak havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive. The Israeli plan may have given Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites.

Rumsfeld was the voice of administration policy toward Iran from 2002 to 2004, and he often appeared to be laying the political groundwork for an eventual military attack on Iran. But he has been silenced on the subject of Iran since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took over Iran policy in January 2005.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. (END/2006)

Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.

Go on-site to access this article and others by just clicking on the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14421.htm -----------------------------

[Saundra Hummer]

*****************Stranger than fiction
Robertson, Olmert pray for victory
By Etgar Lefkovits and AP
08/10/06 "The Jerusalem Post" -- -- Israel's war against Hizbullah in Lebanon is the free world's "struggle for freedom" against Islamic-Fascism, which will soon imperil the security of the same European countries that are now criticizing Israel's war in Lebanon, prominent American Evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson said Wednesday.

"I am here to say I love Israel and that Christian Evangelicals in America stand with Israel in its struggle for freedom against Islamo-fascism, which is directed against Israel and all civilized nations of the world" Robertson said at a Jerusalem press conference during his 96-hour lightning solidarity trip.

He called Israel's four-week battle with the Iranian-backed and Syrian-supported Shi'ite terror group "the front line" for all free-loving people around the world.

"For all of our sake, Israel cannot lose," he added.

The 76-year-old American Evangelical broadcaster, who visited bomb shelters in northern Israel and dodged Katyusha rockets before heading south to Jerusalem to meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, predicted that European countries would soon face the same threat of Islamic Fundamentalism that Israel was now fighting, adding that he was "dismayed" by the "growing amount of virulent anti-Semitism in Europe."

He heaped praise on the premier, who he prayed with after his security cabinet had just authorized broadening Israel's land offensive in Lebanon, as a "man of courage" and of "indomitable leadership" for his willingness to take on "one of the most serious challenges" Israel has ever faced.

Robertson said he joined hands Wednesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to pray for victory in Lebanon.

Olmert's 15-minute meeting with Robertson came on an intense day of political activity, and could be seen as implicit recognition of the importance of the Christian right in US politics.

During his brief remarks, Robertson cautioned that while the majority of Americans clearly understand that Israel has been attacked by terrorists in the same way the US was attacked by terrorists, a drawn-out war could see public opinion shifting away from Israel as a result of the press focus on Lebanese civilians casualties of the war.

His unplanned visit comes at a time of burgeoning ties between Israel and the predominantly pro-Israel Evangelical Christian community around the world.

Robertson's war-time solidarity visit - his 17th trip to Israel - was also seen by some as an attempt to smooth over any remaining ill-will for remarks he made last year in which he said that former Prime Minister's Ariel Sharon's stroke was "divine retribution" for having evacuated the Gaza Strip, comments which he later apologized for and retracted amidst fierce criticism.

Many Evangelical Christians saw the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a retreat from a biblical prophecy of Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land, and similarily view any further Israeli pullout from the West Bank as an anathema.

Separately, Robertson also noted that US Senator's Joe Lieberman's loss in the Democratic primaries Tuesday was like "God's answer" to a Republican strategists' prayers to split the party.
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

Go on-site to view this article as well any others and any links if they are there by just clicking on the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14473.htm
* * * * * * *

[Saundra Hummer]

****************Swiftboaters set sights on Murtha
by
kos
Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 09:19:48 AM PDT

They're baaaack.
The "Swift Boat" veterans who grabbed national headlines in 2004 when they attacked John Kerry in his failed presidential bid now are turning their sights to Johnstown.

Their target is U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a critic of the Iraq war and a de facto spokesman on the subject for the national Democratic Party.

Armed as a new group - Veterans for the Truth - they're bringing their campaign to "Redeploy John Murtha From Congress" to his backyard.

They plan to hold a national rally in Johnstown in October "to show their outrage at John Murtha over what he is saying about our troops," state chairman and former Johnstowner Mark Parker said in a release [...]

Murtha, who will not be in his district office Thursday, appears unfazed by the pending "Swift Boat'' campaign.

He is scheduled that day to be in Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County, campaigning for Democrat Chris Carney, who's running against incumbent Republican Don Sherwood in the 10th District.

Bring 'em on. This time we're ready for them. ::
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/1/121948/5495 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

::::::::::::::::
Coulter's Swift Boat-style smear of Vietnam veteran Murtha
In her December 1 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter attacked Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA), who recently offered a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, by questioning his military service. Murtha, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967, received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Coulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."
Coulter's slander of Murtha was reminiscent of tactics used by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth), who smeared Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), another decorated Vietnam veteran, during his 2004 presidential campaign. The group claimed that Kerry's five combat medals were undeserved despite extensive documentation to the contrary.

From Coulter's December 1 column, in which she objected to the praise* a number of Republican government officials bestowed upon Murtha:

What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?

I don't know what Republicans imagine they're getting out of all this love they keep throwing at Democrats. I've never heard a single liberal preface attacks on Oliver North with a recitation of North's magnificent service as a Marine. And unlike Murtha, who refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts, we know what North did. (These Democrat military veterans are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to citing their medals, but they get awfully squeamish when pressed for details.)

A May 12, 2002, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967 and May 7, 1967. In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation."

Coulter went on to compare Murtha to George Lincoln Rockwell, a World War II Navy pilot who founded the American Nazi Party:

Sen. Teddy Kennedy [D-MA] didn't issue a 20-minute soliloquy on what a wonderful man Judge Robert Bork was as a human being before attacking his judicial philosophy. Kennedy just laid into Bork like he was George Lincoln Rockwell.

Speaking of which, George Lincoln Rockwell, former head of the American Nazi Party, served in the military during World War II. Are we obligated to praise his war service before disputing his views?

*Republican praise of Murtha came after the White House attacked him for advocating troop withdrawal. In a November 17 statement, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Murtha: "t is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."

—S.S.M.

Go on-site to view article by clicking on the following link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002

We rush to judge harshly without investigating the motives and back ground of those spewing out their falsehoods and money driven comments. We know where Ann Colter is coming from, so her ideas and foolish blather isn't something most of us take notice of, however, it took a bit of delving to see how the Swift Boat politico's got their backing, and their methods of smearing anyone in Karl Roves path, in GHW Bush's Path, and now in path of the whole of Neo-Con Kingdom's most powerful. SRH::::::::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

....................
French minister says plotters likely Pakistani
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:44pm ET
PARIS (Reuters) - The perpetrators of a foiled attempt to blow up airliners flying from Britain to the United States are likely to be of Pakistani origin, France's Interior Minister said on Thursday.

"In two to three days we'll have more concrete information on the modus operandi of this terrorist group, that appears to be of Pakistani origin," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters.

British police arrested 21 people in connection with the plot on Thursday.

Sarkozy also said that France would order full searches of all handluggage on flights to the United States, Britain and Israel as part of stepped up security after the foiled plot.


He said France would leave its current security alert level at red, the second highest, and that security on the Eurostar rail link between France and Britain would be increased.

"We have decided ... to conduct 100 percent searches of handluggage on all flights bound for the United States, Britain and Israel," Sarkozy said.

"We will also carry out random searches and step up patrols on the Eurostar, and stations and airports in France," he said.

He said there appeared to be no link between the suspects arrested by British authorities and known terrorist groups in France but he expected to receive further briefings from British authorities in the next few days.

British police on Thursday foiled a suspected plot to blow up several aircraft mid-flight between Britain and the United States in what Washington said might have been an attempted al Qaeda strike.

Sarkozy noted that France stepped up surveillance of its growing Pakistan community last year and said the measures would now be reinforced.

"We have decided to boost our sources of information and vigilance regarding this community whose members overall pose no problem, but in which there could be a few problems."

But he said that reinforced security measures introduced after the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London underground meant that there would be no change to the general alert level.

France went on red alert on July 7 last year in response to attacks on London transport by Islamist suicide bombers that killed 52 people.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Go on-site for other Reuters articles by clicking on the following link:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-10T170547Z_01_L10257672_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-FRANCE.xml
::::::::::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

Has anyone connected the telephone outage in New York, and the computer failure at LAX with the perported terrorist plot in Europe? Seems it could be part and parcel of the same incident???? Oliver Stone thought?

[Saundra Hummer]

****************
U.S. Posts Code-Red Alert; Bans Liquids

By LARA JAKES JORDAN and DAVID ESPO
Associated Press Writers
Aug 10, 5:23 PM EDT

AP Photo/RON EDMONDS: Go on-site to view article and photo's by clicking on the following link:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TERROR_PLOT?SITE=TXGAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

AP VIDEO
Chertoff: 'Steps to Ensure Safety' Go onsite to access.
U.S. Video

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration posted an unprecedented code-red alert for passenger flights from Britain to the United States and banned liquids from all carry-on bags Thursday, clamping down quickly after British authorities disrupted a frightening terror plot.
The heightened restrictions triggered long lines at airports across the country, and governors in at least three states ordered National Guard troops to help provide security.

"This was a well-advanced plan," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told reporters as British authorities announced the arrests of 24 alleged plotters. "In some respects suggestive of an al-Qaida plot."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said as many as 10 flights had been targeted, and other officials said the plotters had hoped to bring the planes down in a cascade of horror over the Atlantic Ocean, possibly within days.

The plan involved the use of a peroxide-based solution, flammable when sparked by innocent-appearing small electronic devices.

The targets included United, American and Continental Airlines flights from Britain to major U.S. destinations of New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C, officials said.

Virginia's deputy homeland security director, Steven Mondul, said that in a conference call, federal officials pointed to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, Los Angeles International and Dulles Airport outside Washington as "major destinations for flights originating from the United Kingdom." No specific warnings were issued for these facilities, he added.

The red alert for flights from Britain was the first since the color-coded warning system was developed after the 2001 terror attacks. The decision to ban nearly all liquids from passenger cabins was reminiscent of the stringent rules imposed when planes were allowed back in the skies for the first time afterward the Sept. 11 attacks.

PHOTO GALLERY
Terror Plot Thwarted
Document
U.S. Federal Indictment in Internet Terror Case Recent Stories
U.S. Posts Code-Red Alert; Bans Liquids
Analysis: Plot Feeds Political Frenzy
GOP, Democrats Clash Over War on Terror
Terror Plot Could Affect New Stone Film
Officials: Pakistan Helped Nab Suspects

"No liquids or gels will be allowed in carry-on baggage," Chertoff said. "There will be exceptions for baby formula and medicines, but travelers must be prepared to present these items for inspection at the checkpoint, and that will allow us to take a look at them and make sure that they're safe to fly."

That meant water containers, soft drinks, coffee cups and more had to be shed by passengers waiting to board their flights.

Women travelers surrendered bottles and jars of creams and lotions from their make-up kits.

At Dulles, one passenger fished a bottle of Tequila from a carry-on bag. It joined the rest of the newly classified contraband in a trash container.

The plot quickly became grist for the midterm election campaign.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said events reinforced the need to implement the recommendations of an independent 9/11 commission, a reminder of one of her party's main campaign promises.

In Ohio, Republican chairman Bob Bennett accused the Democrats' senatorial challenger of voting against funds "for the very types of programs that helped the British thwart these vicious attacks."

Homeland Security deputy Secretary Michael Jackson said his agency had known for several days of the unfolding plot but waited for a signal from the British to announce it.

The decision to raise the terror level for flights from Britain indicated a severe risk of terror attacks. The "code red" change requires airlines to provide the government with an advance list of passengers aboard affected flights. Previously, passengers names had to be provided within 15 minutes after take-off.

All other flights to and within the United States were put under an "orange" alert, one step below red, but an escalation from the "yellow" status that had been in effect.

Administration officials sought to reassure the traveling public at the same time they imposed heightened security restrictions.

"Today, air traffic is safe, and air traffic will remain safe precisely because of the measures we are adopting today," Chertoff said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California deployed 300 Guard troops to at least three large airports - in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland - where direct flights from Europe were scheduled to arrive.

In Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney announced he would activate Guard troops for airline security duty for the first time since the terror attacks of 2001.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said President Bush had been briefed in advance of the events and had approved raising the alert to red on flights from England.

In brief remarks from Green Bay, Wis., the president said the events showed the nation "is at war with Islamic fascists."

Senior lawmakers also had received advance word. Several said they had been briefed by Homeland Security or CIA officials as early as Monday.

Officials said the plotters had been planning a test run within two days to see whether they could smuggle the equipment they needed aboard the flights. The actual attack would have occurred within days.

Chertoff, interviewed on CNN, did not challenge the account.

"It's not uncommon that these kinds of plots almost always have a dry run or a casing element before the actual plot is carried out," he said.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "had dry runs as well," he said.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., was the only lawmaker to attend a closed-door briefing in the Capitol.

"This was a very close call," he said of the aborted plot.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TERROR_PLOT?SITE=TXGAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME
:::::

[Saundra Hummer]

*********
Terrorism & Security
posted August 10, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.
British aircraft plot uncovered
British police made multiple arrests in connection to a plot to blow up transatlantic flights.By Tom Regan csmonitor.com
British police have disrupted plans for a major terror attack that would have seen terrorists exploding devices on a number of flights between Britain and the United States.

The Guardian reports that the alleged plot would have used liquid explosives smuggled on board in handheld bags. The police arrested 21 people in London, the Thames Valley, and Birmingham.

Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said he was confident that a plan "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale" had been thwarted.

The Daily Telegraph reports that sources say between three and ten aircraft may have been targeted, but there has been no confirmation of this number from Scotland Yard. The threat level has been raised to red at all airports in Britain, and many flights have been cancelled. The Telegraph also reports that additional security measures have also been put into place.

Contact lens wearers - who are advised to remove them during flights - have been allowed to take the holders on board, but not bottles of the solutions they need to reinsert them. Those wearing glasses have been told that the spectacle cases must be checked in. Even car keys with an electronic fob and mobile phones have been banned from the plane.

"They won't even allow me to take my lipstick on," said Firoaus Amur, 46, from Nairobi as she prepared to check in to her flight to Kenya.

The DebkaFile, an Israeli intelligence news information site, reports that American security officials say that the alleged plotters had targeted United Airlines, American Airlines, and Continental Airlines. The site also reports that the suspects arrested so far are British-born of Pakistani origin.

The BBC reports that London's Heathrow Airport has been closed to all incoming flightsnot already in the air. All flights coming into or from Gatwick Airport have been suspended. Transportation Secretary Douglas Alexander said all airports in Britain would be at a heightened state of security.

"What these changes mean in practice is that all hand baggage will now have to be checked in with only a small number of essential items allowed through search controls," he said.

"Exceptions will be in place for those travelling with infants and for prescription medicines."

Reuters reported that the US raised its threat level to red for all flights to Britain. In addition, all flights coming from or going to the United States were also put on alert.

......We believe that these arrests (in London) have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted,i said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in announcing that the threat level for flights from Britain to the United States has been raised to the highest isevere or redi level.

.......To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level to high, or orange, for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States,i Chertoff said ... A statement issued by Chertoff said icurrently, there is no indication ... of plotting within the United States.i

The Wall Street Journal reports that the CIA has been working closely with Britain on the investigation, which has been going on for months. Not all of the suspects involved in the plot have been arrested yet, which the Journal says was the reason behind Mr. Chertoff raising the threat level.

U.S. intelligence, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency, has been working closely with Britain on the investigation, which has been ongoing for months, the second official said. Authorities have not yet arrested or detained all suspects who are believed to be involved in the plot, the official said, prompting Mr. Chertoff's alarm.

This latest alleged plot appears to bear some similarities to an al Qaeda plot to bomb 11 U.S. passenger jets over the Pacific that was uncovered in the Philippines in 1995. Code-named "Bojinka," the Serbo-Croatian word for "explosion," the plot also included the assassination of Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila and crashing a plane into the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters in Langley, Va.

Police in Manila stumbled across the conspiracy when they responded to a fire at an apartment rented by Abdul Hakim Murad and Ramzi Yousef, who was later caught in Pakistan and convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They found bomb-making materials in a sink and a lap-top computer full of coded information. The mastermind of the Bojinka plot — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — later went on to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

The Washington Post reports that Peter Clarke, chief of the London police department's anti-terrorism branch, said the alleged plot had been monitored for some time, with a large number of people under surveillance.

"The alleged plot has global dimensions," Clarke said. "The investigation reached a critical point last night when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt what was being planned. As always in these investigations, the safety of the public" was the paramount concern, he added.

Independent terrorism expert Paul Beaver, interviewed by Reuters, said hand-luggage was a "weak spot" in airport security.

"A laptop computer can carry enough explosives to blow up an aircraft," he said. "Hold baggage and cargo can be sniffed for explosives. You can't do that for hand luggage at the moment. The technology is there, but it's time consuming and expensive."

Beaver said the nature of the alleged plot suggested a connection to Al Qaeda.

"In the last two months Al Qaeda promised that it would avenge Iraq and Afghanistan by attacking British and American aviation assets -- I see a direct link with that," he said.

Channel Four News in Britian report that the plot has already exacted an economic cost. British Airlines, and even cruise ship lines, saw the values of shares in their companies fall by as much as six percent.


Go on-site to see the numerous links (underlined in Blue) by clicking on the following link:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0810/dailyUpdate.html
:::::::::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

::::::::::::::::::::::::
BUSH AND CHENEY'S REIGN OF ERROR
VEEP SAYS CONN. VOTERS AIDING AL QAEDA. NOW, THAT'S SCARY.
Posted on Fri, Aug. 11, 2006

THESE PEOPLE have no shame. Their contempt for democracy is so great they will stop at nothing to undermine it. Their adherence to fundamentalist beliefs that blinds them to reality is frightening. They must be stopped.

And that's just the Republicans.

Let's start with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Yesterday, Cheney bashed those who voted for Democrat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate primary, claiming that these votes would encourage "al Qaeda types" to think that "they can break the will of the American people."

The idea is that since 18-year incumbent Joe Lieberman lost based on his support for Iraq, Americans opposing the war are waving a white flag of surrender to terrorists.

This is stunningly ignorant logic, as well as annoyingly consistent with the Bush administration's fundamentalist myth that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden - a claim by now well-discounted, most notably by a presidential commission.

And yet the presidential fog machine has continued to belch out its Iraq-al Qaeda-link fumes to the extent that a recent poll suggests that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to al Qaeda. More people than ever now believe, according to a new poll, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Ironically, the number who believe in the al Qaeda link is almost precisely the same number of Americans - 62 percent - who believe we are bogged down in Iraq.

For Cheney - and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman - to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible.

Cheney's comments came out a day before British intelligence officials announced they had thwarted a major terrorist attack. Surely Cheney was aware of the plot and the work to thwart it, and was no doubt aware of the timing of yesterday's announcement.

To exploit a very real terror threat that could have led to major casualties, and to even indirectly implicate Americans who were exercising their democratic right by going to the polls and making a choice borders on the criminal, to say nothing of the insane.

Has Cheney completely lost it?

The latest terror scare is upsetting enough: It is bound to lead to havoc and chaos both domestically and internationally. It could damage the economy if fears on flying are sustained. It reopens the profound wounds of 9/11, a scab we should figure by now will never completely heal.

But the real terror is this: While our Vacationer- in-Chief and his vice president shut down dissent, and discourage questions about the way our government has directed our intelligence and military resources toward a single target in Iraq, we are no closer to understanding or dismantling the threat of al Qaeda.

Cheney's remarks underscore just how unsophisticated our understanding of terrorism is. We have no more understanding of the global forces at work that lead so many to want to bomb and destroy innocent lives than we did five years ago.

America's latest crisis is not what happened in Connecticut; it's what was going to happen in airplanes over the Atlantic.

The immoral and ridiculous claims coming out of the Bush administration's reign of error could ultimately be responsible for the kind of casualties that al Qaeda can only dream of.


Go on-site to view this article and several others, plus book reviews by clicking on the following links:

http://www.buzzflash.com

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/15249007.htm
© 2006 Philadelphia Daily News and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.philly.com
--------------- .............
:::::::::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

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

- ABOUT SCOOTER LIBBY -
-IN THE NEWS -
IN THE NEWS:
Odd, isn't it. The American public couldn't get the list of who secretly met with Cheney to decide our nation's energy policy, but Scooter Libby gets summaries of the Vice President's security briefings from the CIA. Better to keep Scooter from perjuring himself again, we guess.
MESSAGE FOR AMERICANS
Since September 11, 2001, Lewis "Scooter"Libby has not been one of the unsung heroes in fighting the war on terror, instead working diligently and making countless attacks on the most critical rights that protect all Americans as outlined in our precious Constitution. For the past five years, Scooter Libby served as an Accomplice to The White House Squatter in Chief George Bush and as the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser (which of course makes him all the more responsible for his Traitorous acts) to Vice White House Squatter in Chief Dick Cheney. As the old saying goes, "A Fish Rots from the Head." Libby should more rightly be serving as the National Traitor Advisor.

Thankfully, Scooter's "service" to our country has now been cut short, and though he has been Indicted for less than the extensive laundry list of Traitorous acts he's committed, hopefully enough evidence will still be forthcoming to Indict him on even more counts. On another site his group of friends, business leaders and former government officials have joined forces to assist this "Benedict Arnold," to ask Americans to fork over money to defend a Traitor and help Libby avoid prosecution and a long prison term he most assuredly deserves.

At LibbyDefenseFund.com we are asking that you instead donate your hard earned money to the list of deserving organizations on the right of the page. True American organizations that support the American Way and the Ideals that were Represented by the Founding Fathers when they fought for the birth of a Nation we can all be proud of with laws that protect all citizens, as all men are created equal, and as such rich corporate controlled shills should not be allowed to ride roughshod over all of Our Rights so simply stated in our Constitution.

We hope you will join us in supporting this effort to Defend America from Scooter Libby, and we'll be adding more worthy causes to donate to in the days and weeks ahead.

Thanks for being a great American, and one who can be proud of their country by their deeds.
WHILE THIS IS A SERIOUS SUBJECT YOU CAN CLICK ANY LINK, PHOTO OR GRAPHIC FOR MORE INFORMATION AND/OR FUN THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST NEWS ON SCOOTER LIBBY
http://libbydefensefund.com/index.htm
IN THE NEWS:
Statements from Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson on their Lawsuit against Rove, Cheney and Libby
- BuzzFlash.com, July 14, 2006
Valerie Plame Sues Cheney, Libby and Rove
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, July 14, 2006
Joe Wilson Responds to Bob "GOP Partisan The Traitor" Novak
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, July 13, 2006
Bob "The Traitor" Novak Claims He's Free of PlameGate Investigation
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, July 12, 2006
Libby Trial to be Delayed Even Further?
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, July 2, 2006
Libby Pardoned After the Mid-Terms. Sounds Likely.
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, June 19, 2006
Why Wasn't Karl Rove Indicted? Good Question, Indeed.
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, June 18, 2006
Statement from the Attorney for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame
-- LibbyDefenseFund.com, June 13, 2006
Rove's lawyer says he's safe
Karl Rove, longtime chief political adviser to President Bush and mastermind of campaign strategies for the Republican Party, will not face any charges as a result of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, according to Rove's private attorney.
-- Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune, June 13, 2006
What Ashcroft Was Told
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews.
-- Murray Waas, National Journal, June 8, 2006
The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
"At roughly the same time, highly placed White House sources such as Scooter Libby leaked exclusive 'scoops' to credulous reporters as part of the campaign to make Saddam's nuclear threat seem real. On the same day the 'mushroom cloud' slogan made its debut, The New York Times printed a front-page story by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller citing administration officials who said that Saddam had 'embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.'"
-- Craig Unger, Vanity Fair, June 6, 2006

Um, I forgot 7 people talked of spy - Libby
"Borrowing a defense used by tax evaders and schoolkids who don't do their homework, Vice President Cheney's indicted former top adviser told a grand jury he forgot that seven people told him about CIA spy Valerie Plame. ...Solomon Wisenberg, a lawyer who probed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said, 'Barring some unusual mental condition, to make a claim like that is not likely going to fly.'"
-- James Gordon Meek, New York Daily News, May 26, 2006
Special counsel: Cheney may be called to testify; Prosecutor says vice president’s ‘state of mind’ relevant in CIA leak case
"...Cheney would be a logical government witness because he could authenticate notes he jotted on a July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion piece by a former U.S. ambassador critical of the Iraq war....Cheney’s 'state of mind' is 'directly relevant' to whether I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the vice president’s former top aide, lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned about CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity and what he subsequently told reporters.
-- Associated Press, May 24, 2006
Pardon Me, Mr. President! Libby’s Difficult Defense
"...as the pre-trial jousting in Mr. Libby’s case picks up momentum, the onetime loyal West Wing confidant -- Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney -- will have to choose between protecting himself and protecting the White House. Specifically, insiders say, he will have to choose between a not-guilty verdict and a Presidential pardon."
-- Anna Schneider-Mayerson, New York Observer, May 29, 2006
2 in CIA to testify Libby lied on leak
Prosecutors say disgraced Cheney chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby learned CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity from, among others, agency officials who will be called to testify at his trial for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.
-- NY Daily News, May 23, 2006
Judge Won't Dismiss Case Against Libby
"Walton said there must be a way to appoint special prosecutors to ensure that "the perception of fairness withstands the scrutiny of the American public" when high-level government officials are investigated for alleged wrongdoing."
-- Associated Press, April 27, 2006
Okay, So Let's Get This Straight: On Monday, Bush Admitted That He Lied About Leaking a Lie to Smear Someone Who Revealed the Truth About His Lying
Bush "admitted to all of the above on Monday in a rambling explanation of why he had to leak, then lie about his leaking, and then leak a lie to hide the truth. Meanwhile -- while all this was transpiring over the past couple of years -- others were being pursued by the federal prosecutor for leaking, when it all started with Bush."
-- BuzzFlash.com, April 11, 2006
A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic; Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story
"Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a 'concerted action' by 'multiple people in the White House' -- using classified information -- to 'discredit, punish or seek revenge against' a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq."
-- Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, April 9, 2006
Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury
"A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush"
-- Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, April 6, 2006
Libby Pressured McClellan To Issue Statement 'Exonerating Him'
"'Scooter Libby “implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him' even though 'had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.'"
-- via ThinkProgress.org, April 6, 2006
Libby's Lawyers Call for Case Dismissal
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is narrowing the description of his powers in an effort to counter calls for dismissal of the criminal case he brought against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, defense lawyers said Friday." (Note: The Washington Post story has no comment from the Special Counsel's office)
-- Pete Yost, Washington Post, March 31, 2006
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush
"Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003."
News outlets subpoenaed in CIA leak case
"The New York Times, NBC News and a lawyer for a Time magazine reporter said they received subpoenas from the defense team for Libby, once chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. The Washington Post said it expected to receive a subpoena as well."
Judge Says Libby Can See Bush Briefings
"The ruling is a partial victory for Libby, who is charged with lying in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity....Any classified evidence that Libby wants to use must be approved by the judge after a secret vetting process established by Congress to ensure protection of government secrets."
Libby Responds to Fitzgerald's CIA Filing
"Libby intentionally misled investigators and the grand jury in an attempt to protect Cheney (see the timeline here), never dreaming that the reporters would be subpoenaed, and now in hindsight is trying to reconstruct not his memory but an alternative explanation for having lied."
Libby Defense Request Strongly Resisted by CIA
"In court papers, Fitzgerald has accused Libby's defense team of engaging in graymail -- demanding unobtainable legal documents to terminate a court proceeding."
Conflict of interest at WETA
"WETA produces the NewsHour and Washington Week in Review. Is it proper that a member of the Board of Trustee to be mixed up in something like this? The NewsHour is watched by the entire diplomatic corps, allied and hostile. It is watched by the foreign press. How does this look to the world?"
Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel
"Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction..."
Arianna Huffington: The Full Disclosure Tucker Carlson Isn't Making
"...[Tucker Carlson's] father, Richard Carlson, is on the advisory committee of the Libby Legal Defense Trust, the GOP-heavy-hitter-laden group that has so far raised $2 million."
Read the Injunction (United States VS Scooter Libby) HERE:
Friends of Scooter Libby Launch Web Site, Want Your Money
Media Channel, NY - Feb 22, 2006
... the highlight of the site (www.scooterlibby.org) is a section that, implicitly blasts the media, called “What You Aren’t Hearing About Scooter Libby.”. ...

Scooter Libby Launches Website
Human Events - Feb 21, 2006
... For the past five years, Scooter Libby served selflessly as an Assistant to President Bush and as the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to Vice ...
Fred Thompson to raise funds for Scooter Libby defense
WBIR-TV, TN - Feb 23, 2006
... Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson will help raise funds for the defense of Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. ...
Scooter Libby’s Home Page
Wonkette (satire), DC - Feb 21, 2006
Should we ever appear on Celebrity Jeopardy, we have our charity all picked out: The Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, sure to be topping everyone's year-end ...
Scooter Libby's Graymail
Yahoo! News - Feb 17, 2006
Last week, I suggested that Scooter Libby might be trying to orchestrate a "graymail" defense--which is based on the implied threat of blowing national ...
And that is Cheney's replacement for Scooter Libby as his Chief-of ...
Huffington Post, NY - Feb 16, 2006
... The simple answer is that he's Vice President Cheney's former legal counsel and, since the indictment and resignation of Scooter Libby in October, Cheney's ...
Carl Cameron Uses Scooter Libby As One Excuse Of Why The Vice ...
News Hounds, CA - Feb 14, 2006
... Of course Scooter Libby has got legal problems and is not around. (Comment: Do you really want to go there, Carl?) In addition to ...
Fred Thompson offers help to Libby defense
Scripps Howard News Service, DC - Feb 22, 2006
... Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing trial in January, was indicted in October on five felony counts involving obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements ...
Will Scooter Libby Graymail the CIA?
Yahoo! News - Feb 7, 2006
... Still, Libby seems close to making this sort of push. ... But Libby may not stop at PDBs, the CIA damage assessment and information pertaining to Valerie Wilson. ...
Judge OKs press subpoenas in CIA leak case
WASHINGTON - The judge in the CIA leak case said Monday that lawyers on both sides in the perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby ...
Scooter Libby Wants Your Money
Slate - 18 hours ago
By John Dickerson. Scooter Libby has a Web site. He's not running for office, but the site makes it looks like he is. The lead picture ...
Passing the hat for Libby
Boston Globe, United States - Feb 27, 2006
By Nina Easton, Globe Staff | February 26, 2006. The legal defense fund for I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's ...
Identity of Official to Be Kept From Libby
CBS News - Feb 25, 2006
(AP) Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak case, cannot be told the identity of another government official ...
Libby gets his shot at reporters
American Thinker, AZ - 12 hours ago
This account offers few details of the judge’s order and makes one puzzling assertion—that Fitzgerald was seeking to subpoena reporters, too, when I see no ...
Libby case update
American Thinker, AZ - 18 hours ago
You cannot rely on the antique media to give an appropriately detailed report of what is happening in the Libby case. Luckily Bryon ...
Fitzgerald Says Plame Irrelevant To Libby Prosecution
The Conservative Voice, NC - 23 hours ago
By Sher Zieve – The original lawsuit against former aide to VP Cheney Lewis “Scooter” Libby was that Libby had leaked information that resulted in the ...
A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak
National Review Online, NY - Feb 27, 2006
CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are ...
Monitor Monitor Tracking the news - the latest developments and ...
Philadelphia Inquirer, PA - Feb 26, 2006
The Latest: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald returned to court Friday. Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled ...
Libby's Team to Subpoena Media
NewsMax.com, FL - Feb 25, 2006
Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby say they soon plan to subpoena reporters and news organizations, and a federal judge has set the stage for a showdown in ...
Federal judge grants Libby access to personal notes
Feb 25, 2006
US District Judge Reggie B. Walton Friday granted defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby JURIST news ...
Libby can't be told suspected leaker's name
First Amendment Center, TN
By The Associated Press. WASHINGTON — Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak ...

Ex-White House aide loses -- and wins -- on evidence requests
North County Times, CA - Feb 25, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak case, cannot be told the identity of another government ...
Friends of Scooter Libby Launch Web Site, Want Your Money
Media Channel, NY - Feb 22, 2006
... the highlight of the site (www.scooterlibby.org) is a section that, implicitly blasts the media, called “What You Aren’t Hearing About Scooter Libby.”. ...
Scooter Libby Launches Website
Human Events - Feb 21, 2006
... For the past five years, Scooter Libby served selflessly as an Assistant to President Bush and as the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to Vice ...
Fred Thompson to raise funds for Scooter Libby defense
WBIR-TV, TN - Feb 23, 2006
... Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson will help raise funds for the defense of Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. ...
Libby knew CIA spy by name before it was published, filing shows
Handwritten notes taken by the CIA show Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide knew the name of CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson a month before her cover was blown. It appears to be the first known document in the hands of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that directly contradicts Lewis "Scooter" Libby's claim he learned from reporters in July 2003 that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee.
Judge in Libby Case Seeks Middle Ground
A federal judge signaled Monday that he is seeking ways to provide Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff general descriptions of highly classified documents to use in his defense against perjury charges.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton issued an order significantly curtailing the number of intelligence summaries that he might order the Bush administration to turn over to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Scooter Libby’s Home Page
Wonkette (satire), DC - Feb 21, 2006
Should we ever appear on Celebrity Jeopardy, we have our charity all picked out: The Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, sure to be topping everyone's year-end ...
Scooter Libby's Graymail
Yahoo! News - Feb 17, 2006
Last week, I suggested that Scooter Libby might be trying to orchestrate a "graymail" defense--which is based on the implied threat of blowing national ...
And that is Cheney's replacement for Scooter Libby as his Chief-of ...
Huffington Post, NY - Feb 16, 2006
... The simple answer is that he's Vice President Cheney's former legal counsel and, since the indictment and resignation of Scooter Libby in October, Cheney's ...
Carl Cameron Uses Scooter Libby As One Excuse Of Why The Vice ...
News Hounds, CA - Feb 14, 2006
... Of course Scooter Libby has got legal problems and is not around. (Comment: Do you really want to go there, Carl?) In addition to ...
Fred Thompson offers help to Libby defense
Scripps Howard News Service, DC - Feb 22, 2006
... Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing trial in January, was indicted in October on five felony counts involving obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements ...
Will Scooter Libby Graymail the CIA?
Yahoo! News - Feb 7, 2006
... Still, Libby seems close to making this sort of push. ... But Libby may not stop at PDBs, the CIA damage assessment and information pertaining to Valerie Wilson. ...
Libby's Lawyers Say Prosecutor Acted Unconstitutionally
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide asked a
federal judge on Thursday to dismiss his indictment, saying the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak
case lacked the authority to bring the charges. Lawyers for the former aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr.,
said his indictment violated the Constitution because the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald,
was not appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. They added that the appointment violated federal law because the attorney general did not supervise the investigation. Only Congress, the lawyers said, can approve such an arrangement.
Ex-Cheney Aide Testified Leak Was Ordered, Prosecutor Says
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, told a grand jury that he was authorized by his "superiors" to disclose classified information to reporters about Iraq's weapons capability in June and July 2003, according to a document filed by a federal prosecutor.
Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role
Sunday, November 13, 2005; In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters.And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed.

White House Won't Rule Out Presidential Pardon for Libby
The White House refused Tuesday to rule out a presidential pardon for Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
the former vice presidential aide indicted for allegedly obstructing a grand jury investigation
into the White House unmasking of a secret CIA officer.

On Scooter Libby and His White House Friends - David Addington to Replace Libby
“Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions -- some
so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney's
view have rejected them as overreaching. The vice president's point man in this is longtime
aide David Addington, who serves as Cheney's top lawyer.

Where there has been controversy over the past four years, there has often been Addington. He
was a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects. He was a
prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts.”
WHILE THIS IS A SERIOUS SUBJECT YOU CAN CLICK ANY LINK, PHOTO OR GRAPHIC FOR MORE INFORMATION AND/OR FUN THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
Judge OKs press subpoenas in CIA leak case
WASHINGTON - The judge in the CIA leak case said Monday that lawyers on both sides in the perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby ...

Scooter Libby Wants Your Money
Slate - 18 hours ago
By John Dickerson. Scooter Libby has a Web site. He's not running for office, but the site makes it looks like he is. The lead picture ...

Passing the hat for Libby
Boston Globe, United States - Feb 27, 2006
By Nina Easton, Globe Staff | February 26, 2006. The legal defense fund for I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's ...

Identity of Official to Be Kept From Libby
CBS News - Feb 25, 2006
(AP) Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak case, cannot be told the identity of another government official ...

Libby gets his shot at reporters
American Thinker, AZ - 12 hours ago
This account offers few details of the judge’s order and makes one puzzling assertion—that Fitzgerald was seeking to subpoena reporters, too, when I see no ...

Libby case update
American Thinker, AZ - 18 hours ago
You cannot rely on the antique media to give an appropriately detailed report of what is happening in the Libby case. Luckily Bryon ...

Fitzgerald Says Plame Irrelevant To Libby Prosecution
The Conservative Voice, NC - 23 hours ago
By Sher Zieve – The original lawsuit against former aide to VP Cheney Lewis “Scooter” Libby was that Libby had leaked information that resulted in the ...

A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak
National Review Online, NY - Feb 27, 2006
CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are ...
Monitor Monitor Tracking the news - the latest developments and ...
Philadelphia Inquirer, PA - Feb 26, 2006
The Latest: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald returned to court Friday. Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled ...

Libby's Team to Subpoena Media
NewsMax.com, FL - Feb 25, 2006
Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby say they soon plan to subpoena reporters and news organizations, and a federal judge has set the stage for a showdown in ...
Federal judge grants Libby access to personal notes
Feb 25, 2006
US District Judge Reggie B. Walton Friday granted defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby JURIST news ...
Libby can't be told suspected leaker's name
First Amendment Center, TN
By The Associated Press. WASHINGTON — Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak ...
Ex-White House aide loses -- and wins -- on evidence requests
North County Times, CA - Feb 25, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak case, cannot be told the identity of another government ...
DONATE HERE INSTEAD:
Doctors without Borders
Freedom States Alliance
Greenpeace
In the Sun Foundation
Alliance for Justice
Gold Star Families for Peace----------
AfterDowningStreet.org
American Civil Liberties Union
LIBBY SUPPORTERS:
The PretzelDunce
Bang, You're dead.
Chimp Whisperer
Ack, Ack, ACK Ack!
Is Rove Next?
Watch what you say, unless you are Libby of course.
WORRY.

This website has no financial or personal connection to the defense fund for the man, Scooter Libby, who betrayed a CIA operative using classified information and betrayed the national Security of the United States of America. This site is to help direct people to organizations and causes that will help protect Americans, instead of taking actions -- as Scooter Libby did -- that threaten the citizens of the United States of America.

This site is sponsored as a public service on behalf of America's national security by BuzzFlash.com and TakeBackTheMedia.com

Go On-Site To Access The Numerous Links & Photo's, Side Stories, Etc.

http://www.buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the 'best' sources.": Walter Karp

~ ~ ~

War, we have come to believe, is a spectator sport. The military and the press ... have turned war into a vast video arcade game. Its very essence- death - is hidden from public view.": Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for New York Times

~ ~ ~

"Television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation... Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.": Neil Postman

~ ~ ~

" The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent.": Gore Vidal

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

By
JOHN SOLOMON,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 6 minutes ago

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

"They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using," Sabo said.

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

"I don't have any criticisms of anyone," said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. "I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength."

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. "It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years," he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

A 2002 Homeland report recommended "immediate deployment" of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports "may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions."

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

"It is not that expensive," said Fainberg, who retired recently. "There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it."

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by "bureaucratic games," a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

"There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy," he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

"It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats," he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Go on-site to view story and any photo's or links when provided. Just click on the following link to access site:

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

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~~From the Los Angeles Times
ROSA BROOKS
Rosa Brooks: Antiwar Wackadoos Are Winning
Opposing the war in Iraq is no longer fringe -- it's American.

Rosa BrooksAugust 11, 2006

WHAT DO YOU have to do to get a little peace and quiet around here? It used to be possible to adopt an antiwar platform and be left entirely alone by most mainstream Americans. Sure, you'd be sneered at by the media, ostracized by the major political parties and, from time to time, your in-laws would accuse you of living on the radical fringe.

But at least it was quiet out there on the fringe.
That's the whole point of fringes, right? They're not supposed to be too populated. The antiwar fringe used to be sort of like the frontier: nothing but virgin territory, big sky and social misfits. Yep, in those days, you could stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and shout, "Hey, the whole war in Iraq thing, it's a huge mistake!" And no matter how loud you were shouting, it would be a big empty space all around you as senators and representatives scurried to avoid antiwar contamination.

But lately the antiwar fringe has been getting awfully crowded.

First there were the MoveOn.org types — rowdy, tech-savvy youngsters who sent too many e-mails and sometimes even showed up on your doorstep. By 2004, blogs opposed to the war in Iraq had started to multiply like bunnies: Suddenly you couldn't take a step in the blogosphere without tripping over them.

Then somebody started giving the antiwar bloggers money and letting them publish books on real paper and inviting them to grown-up conferences. By the end of 2005, John Kerry as well as a battalion of retired generals were repudiating the war in Iraq.

Today, the antiwar fringe is starting to resemble California during the Gold Rush of 1849. When gold was discovered in 1848, California had a nonnative population of 14,000 and technically belonged to Mexico. By the end of 1849, the lure of gold had brought the nonnative population up to a boisterous 100,000 — and California had been formally absorbed into the United States.

Similarly, when the war in Iraq began in 2003, only about a quarter of Americans disapproved of President Bush's Iraq policies. But by this month, the trend had reversed, with 60% of Americans telling CNN pollsters that they oppose the war and savvy politicians rushing to stake out an antiwar claim before it's too late. (To paraphrase Kerry, who knows a thing or two about this, who wants to be the last politician to go down for failing to admit the war in Iraq was a mistake?)

Opposing the war in Iraq isn't fringe anymore — it's become part of what defines ordinary Americans.

You wouldn't know it, though, from listening to the pundits. As far as many in the "mainstream" media are concerned, those who oppose the war in Iraq are still oddball extremists.

Take the reaction to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont's successful effort to oust incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman in this week's Connecticut primary. Lieberman spent the last five years cozying up to the president, defending the administration's foreign policies more vigorously than many Republicans. Given the widespread public opposition to the Iraq war, Lamont's victory was hardly a shocker — yet the media persist in furthering Lieberman's fantasy that he lost only because "the Democratic Party … has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America."

Back in May, Jonathan Chait worried in these pages that Lieberman's opponents were "left-wing activists … exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s."

Jonah Goldberg, in his Thursday post-mortem on the outcome, comes to a similar conclusion: "The Democratic Party is, simply, a McGovernite party…. But … that is not necessarily where the voters are." In the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin doesn't bother with subtlety, calling Lieberman's defeat a win for "the wackadoo wing of the party."

No, fellas. What happened was just that the whole democracy thing worked just the way it's supposed to, for once. A majority of citizens oppose the war in Iraq, so they went to the polls and voted for the guy who shares their views, instead of the guy who doesn't.

Lieberman's defeat only illustrates what most Americans already know: Mainstream Americans are tired of watching young Americans come home in coffins from an unnecessary war, tired of reckless foreign policies that have increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism and really, really tired of incumbents who still don't get it.

But with antiwar views now as ubiquitous as cellphones on Main Street U.S.A., where can you go if you just want a little solitude?

For those of you who just can't stand being mainstream, here's a thought: Maybe it's time to go visit the neocons. It looks like they're getting a little bit lonely out there.

Neoconservatism: It's the new fringe.

To access this article and others along with photo's and links, just click on the following link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks11aug11,0,520895.column

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
BlogThis!Station Charon
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest,insane,intolerable. -H.L.Mencken

Karl Rove's Tingler
Thursday, August 10, 2006
“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave”
-
Roy Batty

One of my all time favorite horror movies is William Castle’s 1959 classic The Tingler starring the great Vincent Price. The Tingler is a large, ugly centipede like creature that lives inside a victim’s body as a parasite and grows larger as it is fed by fear, attaching itself to the spinal cord. The Tingler literally becomes stronger as the fear level is ratcheted up. The studio even had a promo gimmick where at the end of the flick when the creature is on the loose in a theatre that certain seats in the real theatre had electric devices implanted that would then activate for an additional scare value to moviegoers.
Karl Rove has his own Tingler and it's name is 9/11, ready to be loosed upon the American subconscious at any time and on days like today with the breaking up of the latest and greatest alleged terrorist plot (and one day after the national release of Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center - what wonderful serendiptiy or was it just another convenient coincidence?) this time ten planes departing from Britain to blow up while traveling to various U.S. destinations. Whether legitimate or another phony, overhyped conspiracy designed to invoke fear like the Miami ‘Cornrow Qaeda’ and their ridiculous plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago the timing of this media fed monstrosity is suspect to say the least. According to an article on the website of the London Guardian Bush’s 'poodle' Tony Blair had reportedly informed our hallowed king of the coming crackdown on the plotters as early as Sunday. “Yo Blair”…Thanks for the assist....again.

The terrorists have obviously become more sophisticated since dipshit loser Richard Reid tried to light his shoes on fire and this time they were allegedly going to use a liquid explosive that was cleverly concealed in a sports drink bottle. Der Department of Homeland Security honcho that is the Boo Radley lookalike Michael Chertoff (the same guy who only a bit less than a year ago presided over the monumental fuckup in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina which was briefly an American outrage until the new season of American Idol premiered) flew into action announcing our first ever national RED ALERT terror warning and babbling on incoherently that it was ‘Suggestive of an al-Qaida plot’ despite having at the time no official linkage from the Brits who did the actual police work. In Chertoff’s case this was just likely more of the same idiotic incompetence that has marked his tenure but it served the purpose of sending an alert to the Rove psychological SWAT team that immediately flew into action to work on pounding out the talking points that could once again elevate George W. Bush to stature of the man that stood on top of the rubble of the WTC with a bullhorn while the smell of rotting flesh hung in the New York City air mingling with the fetid musk of Rove’s own ambition.

Airports went into full panic mode. Any sane society would have used far more discretion in putting the out the news but in the empire that is Bushland they just threw the bloody chunks of meat into the feeding pit prior to dusk when full spectrum dominance of the news cycle for at least 24 hours and with any luck the entire weekend would be ensured. The renewed push for the latest re-launch of 9/11 would completely blow away any serious coverage of the civil war in Iraq, the Israeli murdering of Palestinian children with American bombs, the growing hissing sound coming from the housing bubble and the smackdown of DLC kingpin Joe Lieberman by the increasingly aggressive bloggers who are kicking the living fuck out of the MSM cocktail party pundits. Flights were cancelled, airports are jammed with stranded travelers and all liquids and gels are being confiscated from passengers. Note to Rush Limbaugh, you had better chuck that tube of KY Jelly into a wastebasket before passing through security if you plan on visiting the Dominican Republic again this week in order to have sex with poverty stricken third world persons forced into prostitution. Another ugly public incident may dethrone you from being the self- proclaimed champion of values with “talent on loan from God” that you would probably gladly swap for the ability to get an erection without the little blue pill.

The utterly worthless sacks of shit in Congress sought to redeem themselves for their most pathetic tenure during which only coming to the rescue of poor Terri Schiavo was a sufficient reason for them to move with any sense of urgency interrupted their vacations today to run for the nearest cameras in front of which they would issue their rhetoric and sanctimonious statements in well prepared sound bytes. They pandered and pontificated and waved the flag tarring each other as traitors or terrorist collaborators and thanking God and Karl Rove for the fortuitously timely change of subjects with the all out terrorism onslaught by the Republicans, the oligarchy and their state controlled media today as they sought to regain the initiative.


“Freedom is never free, and we must never be complacent in defending it,"

-Fat Denny Hastert

“We must be on alert so that our nation does not suffer another attack like 9/11."

-Bill Frist -the Peckerwood Pimpernel

"should serve as the latest, most serious evidence that we are in a war against a brutal enemy that intends to attack us over and over again in the most indiscriminate way."

-Joe Lieberman – Loser, AIPAC mouthpiece and Bush administration shill.

And of course Bush himself used the bully pulpit set up on the tarmac of a Green Bay airport to say:

''The American people need to know we live in a dangerous world, but our government will do everything we can to protect our people from those dangers"

Now call me a cynic but I just watched V For Vendetta over the weekend and this is amazingly similar to the rhetoric of the fascist chancellor Adam Sutler as his repressive rule was beginning to crumble under the inconvenient truths that facilitate totalitarianism:

“I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!”

Incidentally I hope that all free thinking Americans will see this movie now that it is on DVD, it’s a good sign that it was selling like hotcakes at my local Wal Mart last week.


We have come a long way since 9/11 and today is unequivocal proof of just how far so. Now nothing even has to fucking blow up in order to cause a mass panic, a sensationalist media spectacle and an opportunity for politicians and pundits alike to make hay. The pathetically timorous, fearful, sheeplike drones who watch far too much television revert to their basest primal instincts of cowering in abject horror, quivering and whimpering for protection from their strong daddy leader. The bewildered herd are no more capable of controlling their innermost dread than Pavlov’s dogs were able to keep from salivating when they heard their master’s bells.

Rove has this down to an art form by now and his fat ass is atop the bell tower pulling the cords with all of his might.

One more thing about ‘The Tingler’ the host could kill it by screaming and releasing the FEAR once and for all and therefore destroying the destructive parasitical creature.

So why do so many choose to remain silent in the face of duplicity and demagoguery while a tyrannical junta dismantles the very constitution that serves as a guarantor to their rights and freedoms?

Don't fall victim to the propaganda and mindset of:

Remember, Remember the Eleventh of September

that will perpetuate itself throughout the land in the next three months as the immoral war criminals and their illicit regime desperately seek to retain their positions of power lest they face an accountability moment for their own negligence and complicity in the same terrorist acts which they so decry.

posted by Station Charon at 7:58 PM

7 Comments:
Mike Schonewolf said...
Hey this has the be the most scathing critique I've ever read. You're dead on the ball here. I can't believe that they expoiting another possibly phony terrorist plot to boost up approval ratings.

Do you notice how these phony plots come in during an election. Ot, is it just me?

8/11/2006 06:46:15 PM
Robert said...
Just watched "V" myself last night.

Nicely done. I'm hoping it reaches an audience that most often tunes out the news.

The part about being put to death for having a copy of the Quran gave me chills. Too close for comfort.

8/11/2006 06:49:41 PM
Freedem said...
~~"Incidentally I hope that all free thinking Americans will see this movie now that it is on DVD, it’s a good sign that it was selling like hotcakes at my local Wal Mart last week."~~

Not a good sign that you were at the local Wal-Wart noticing. It would not be supprising if they commissioned a different version from the original, They have done it before.

8/11/2006 07:30:55 PM
Anonymous said...
I am surprised that the movie even got released in the first place given the 'subversive' content.

V brilliant, it hits much harder than any of the other politically oriented films of late and the best part is that so many who are otherwise not aware of the authoritarian bent of this administration will see it because it was directed by the dudes that did the Matrix.

Sometimes fiction is closer to the truth than could be expected. This is one of them.

Personally I am tired of living in FEAR and there are likely tens of millions who feel the same way.

8/11/2006 07:41:31 PM
Not- So Rich said...
I think that we all really have to learn the lessons of 9/11, which are these-- George Bush was President on 9/11/01, when the terrorists attacked. He's still President, and the terrorists are still attacking. So, the lesson is simple-- impeach Bush and Cheney, and the terrorists will stop attacking America.

Take it to the talk shows, folks.

8/11/2006 08:04:37 PM
Anonymous said...
I think you mean one of "down to a science" or "elevated to an art form".

8/11/2006 08:48:10 PM
Diotex said...
I saw The Tingler on TV in the 60's when I was a kid and it scared the hell out of me. I hadn't heard of it since. Thanks for the reminder. Yikes!

8/11/2006 09:59:46 PM
Post a Comment

Go on-site to access this blog, to comment, to see all other items:
<< Home
About Me
Name:Station Charon
Location:Fortress, United States
View my complete profile

http://stationcharon.blogspot.com/2006/08/karl-roves-tingler.html

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

By
Peter Schweizer
Thu Aug 10, 6:46 AM ET

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060810/cm_usatoday/goreisntquiteasgreenashesledtheworldtobelieve&printer=1;_ylt=AoH2SBcA11SYUqcDj7AJTVz8B2YD;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
I'm of this opinion about his largesse, his lifestyle: He owns at least one fairly large home. Ten thousand square feet is palatial to me, He owns others and one we aren't being told it's size. At one time there very well could have been the need for the Gores to live in a home a lot of would consider too big. I would think after all, he and his family were in a position of needing more square footage due to guests the like of which, most of will probably never experience. If he sells this house will it undo the environmental impact it has on the planet? Not hardly. If he tears it down it would only exaccerbate the problem. And a 4 thousand square foot house is only a little bit bigger than my home, well,.... about twice the size of my small, need more space, home. Perhaps one of the Gores houses was a family home, or one was one they kept when it became necessary to move, which could have been for any number of reasons.

As far as other friendly to the planet green forms of power goes, switching over often times isn't always a thing one can due to to limited access. It depends on location and then there's enormous costs oftentimes when this type of processes are implemented.

This seems to be a report written with scant forethought and investigation.
At least Al Gore has taken his own time and energy, regardless of own background (or motives some of which are suspect. There are those out there who are suspicious of his every move),to try to make a change for the good, teaching us, showing us, how things can be done in the future.

Gee, my garage is for four cars and more, (it really is), but I don't use it for vechicles, only storage, as I don't like how it is built over a cistern, so guess I had better tear it down or sell it, rent it out, whatever, so that the planet can stay green. Same thing with Al Gores homes, and don't you think we've learned a lot over just the past few years alone? If he were to build another "big one" say in a resort area, or in Hawaii and fly there a couple of times a year, well then maybe this could be a legitimate gripe.

I suppose he should keep a keener eye on his stocks, like when our stock investers, businesses, schools and private owners were divesting in South African stocks, look how quickly that act brought changes to that country, so the zinc stocks, I would think he would be dumping them on the market and quickly, but will that stop their polluting of this planet? No, it's wouldn't. That only works if it happens wide scale and no one picks them up. About the mine on his property, I wonder if the lease if breakable, and if not, surely there is a way to stop the polution for good, by having the department in charge of these operations, shut it down due to their having broken all of the rules. Their continuing to pollute.

Watch what you do Al, you're under a microscope.

SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
COMMENTS ON A BLOG
Go On-Site to Access
http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/2006/08/11/dissector-forum-fists-full-of-letters/

June Nessler writes from Fortuna California:
”Thank you, Mr. Schecter, for enlightening those who read your article Are the Words "Israel" and "Jews" synonymous? I've e-mailed your article to several people whom I've tried to convince of the facts in your article. Hope it works.

LIVING THERE

Deborah Emin writes very movingly about her personal experiences in Israel:

”But you are too measured and too kind. I don't think it is wrong to talk about Israeli racism when one has seen it first hand. Not all Israelis are racists just as not all Southern whites are. But a loud enough contingent of Israelis are racist and unabashed in their feelings that it is frightening when we refuse, those of us who have seen it and witnessed its consequences, don't refer to it as such.
.....“I have lived in Israel and seen it in the old as well as the young. While there, I, like many American Jews had this urgent need to understand what such a country could mean to a Jew and how a Jew was supposed to fit in there. So much pressure and stress existed on a daily basis that it felt like I could have a heart attack walking down the streets and it would just be business as usual. I arrived in Israel right after the Munich Olympics, another story never given its proper explanations, despite the movie version of it. I left shortly before the Yom Kippur war. The last day I was in Jerusalem, everywhere I went, just after I left, a bomb went off.
.....“I also worked in the fields with Arabs who had once lived on the land the kibbutz was on. They were rarely spoken to, were never consulted about a thing and were really quite invisible to the Israelis I worked with. I also was friends with a young man who had been recruited by Mossad. He was an odd type who had been raised on the airbase outside of Frankfurt and then returned to Israel to serve his time in the military which ended up being that Mossad assignment. He, like all soldiers, slept with a rifle under his bed every night. When you rode the buses, the radio was always on because the military sent out alerts and commands in code on the air. No cross road, no village was not patrolled by soldiers, it was more militarized than East Germany which I had also visited.
.....“It doesn't surprise me that this violence continues and continues. No one I met there ever really objected to it. The reason, to them, was that they went to funerals all the time of their friends or family members who were killed by the Arabs. They never spoke about the Arabs except as the enemy.
.....It was like living in a prison camp to be there. The country is small and you couldn't, at that time, leave it to go to Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon. You were there within the borders of Israel and you were shown with great pride (as if visiting the battlefields at Gettysburg it seemed) where this friend or son had been killed in 1967.
.....Life is just too complex for the simplification of good Israeli Jews/bad Arabs. I wish Susan Sontag were still alive to speak her mind at this point. It takes someone as open to all of the nuances of life as she was after September 11th to really say what we are living through..,,,thanks Danny.”

“WHEN WILL WE LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES?”

Brigette Damay writes:

”As a naturalized American of German descent, I have had too many reasons to be ashamed of my ancestry, even though I was too young to know fully what was being done in my name then. I was born in Poland and in 1944 arrived in Germany to experience the end of WWII there.
.....“In 1960 I arrived in America and became a proud American some years later. I now find myself, once more and with great sadness, in the same situation - I am again ashamed of what is being done in my name, and yet again without my permission or support. This time, however, impotence adds a special pain to my feelings of shame. I vote, I protest, I give money to good works, I volunteer my time, and I communicate with my representatives. And I know that things must change, but "if not now, when" will we learn from our past mistakes?

Gerald Calente writes:

”Bravo! Good for you ... a real man, while so few stand today, that is not afraid to speak his heart.
.....Although I'm not Jewish (but some of my best friends are -- laugh track), I was attempting to unite my Jewish friends in the Woodstock area that believe as you do (Woodstock Jews Against the War). My purpose was to develop a targeted PR effort to bring some balance to the media. However, I was unsuccessful. Everyone believes they are powerless. (Rabbi Hillel once said, “If you are not for yourself, who will be for me.” But then, he added, let us not forget, “If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?”)

I saw a rabbi from "Jews against Zionism," on the Cavuto show. While I may be naive, and can be conned, the rabbi seemed genuinely sincere in what he was saying about how mainstream rabbis in the 1940's were against the creation of Israel and how his brand of Judaism believes that Jews should live among everyone, not over them. This is a message not many people, Jew or otherwise, know.
.....Anyway, I know the power of many of my Jewish friends. I honestly believe that if they were united in a targeted, focused, PR strategy, they could get a lot of news coverage. I know the odds as well as you of how difficult it is to do, but I know it can be penetrated and I've done it successfully myself (www.trendsresearch.com)
.....As you well know, the entire world is against the US and Israel for what they are doing. A result is going to be a new wave of anti-Semitism. And, unlike the pre WW II days when they would point to faceless Jewish bankers in Germany, etc. as the enemy ... this time they will point to the graphic deeds of Israeli destruction and unfortunately ... Jews by association.

If I can be of any help, feel free to call on me. I fear for the terror that our nation's leaders and the people, by their silence, will bring upon us all. And, regardless of what anyone tells me ... I know that the future can be better than the past and the present.

Timothy Dyer writes:
"Danny Schechter, all the best always.

"Conquest, War, Booty, Slaves, Land, Resources – these trump religion, ethics, and morality every single time. My Aryan ancestors called it Manifest Destiny in many different ways from Cyrus of Persia to Bush43. Arabs, Jews, and Aryans got their start as pastoralist, tribal, killer nomads. Horses, ponies, burros, camels, makes no difference the rest is all the same: Flocks, herds, mobile homes, trade goods, and weapons. When we meet someone military weak we kill the men, the boys, and the babies and take the women and everything else. If they’re strong we trade and probe for weakness.
.....We all have the same core values and those have not changed in 3,500 years: Tribal Supremacy; Human slavery; Gender slavery; Massive child abuse, Constant war, & Genocide (don’t know if the Arabs have done genocide, the Jews and the Aryans definitely have, the Aryans to my knowledge more than once). There are five fingers in the fist of genocide, Patriarchy, Paternalism, Authoritarianism, Absolutes, and rabid Dualism.
.....Shatter any of these and our collective cultures collapse. All the religions of the Hebrew Blood God Yahweh go down with us. I call it the Great Shattering. Coming to a neighborhood near us soon.”

AG writes:

”Read your article and found it interesting. Agree with much of it. Whenever we ignore injustice because there is a 'supposed' higher calling (bombing civilians so you can kill terrorists) in the long run will not bring us closer to peace and justice (which I thought was society's goal, but maybe I am mistaken).
.....Also, the idea that Israel as a jewish state should not be blindly accepted. I find the idea of any religious country, whether is be jewish, christian, muslim, all contary to basic human rights. We have christians here is the US claiming that this is "God's" country, we have Israel claiming to be "God's" country, and we have muslims in several middle east countries claiming that their's is "God's" country. Meanwhile innocent lives are being lost each day in all of these "God's" countries.
.....Wars are not started by the greedy poor, they are started by the greedy rich and powerful.

ITS WORSE THAN YOU THINK

Khaliq writes:

"Read your article on Common Dreams. I liked it but what's worse Danny, those Poles in Warsaw who were not aware of the horrific atrocities being carried out by the Nazis against a helpless civilian Jewish population consisting of thousands of children and elderly, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent adult men and women at a time when there was no TV, 24 hour News, the Internet and Radio or the Millions of Americans in this country who have no empathy for the plight of a country that's being destroyed meticulously, calculatingly and purposely by the children of those who survived the Warsaw ghettos at a time when there is the Internet, when one can get cable news from around the Globe and when communication and Information exchange is so readily available? What's worse, Danny?
....."Have you thought about that?I would propose that the hatred of all things Muslims and Islam that's been purposely, meticulously, and calculatingly engendered by the most powerful Christians and Jews around the globe, those who control money and the means of communication around the Globe, is the most virulent form of hatred that man has known. And it's this hatred that makes it possible for 100s of millions of Americans to refuse to accept those who are suffering in Iraq at the hands of the American war machine and those in Palestine and Lebanon who are being routinely massacred by a ruthless Israeli war machine, as human beings! It's this intense demonization of Arabs and Muslims that makes it possible for Israelis and Americans to slaughter innocent men, women, those old and those sick, those only a few months old and those who are innocent civilians with absolute impunity and NO repercussions.
....."The UN is a joke. Common sense has been replaced by hatred and demonization. Some Jews are becoming Nazis danny, you just can not imagine it, but just wait. In another few months, you will see what I mean when Israel and the US decide to drop another Fat Boy or Fat Boy on Iran and you see millions obliterated in matter of a few months. You will see what some Jews and some Christians are capable of. The funny thing is that during the reign of the Ottomans, Jews in Eastern Europe were not demonized and persecuted and ghettoized like Arabs are right now by the Israeli war Machine. You are no self hating Jew Danny. You have simply not been able to imagine what horrors await all of us at the hands of our current fascists in the White House and at the Likud headquarters. But you are right about the level of Propaganda that's being directed at us here in the US by a formidable Israeli Lobby. It's not all about the lobby of course, there are plenty of "good old" christians who have committed unspeakable atrocities in Iraq. It's all just so fuckin fucked up. God is Dead, come to think of it, he was never fuckin alive! Best regards."

Our Military analyst Joe Duphy writes:

"It has taken me more than 30 years to acquire what expertise I have in my area. It's taken Danny that long to build an outlet for dissenting or alternate views not aired on the media. With any luck, the death toll from illegal and immoral wars will not reach the painful levels that we have witnessed during the Vietnam era. However things end, you are doing something important by keeping the First Amendment a living, breathing concept. It is my privilege to row my oar in pursuit of a greater good. And to encourage you in the knowledge that you are not rowing alone."

ON WORLD TRADE CENTER

Timothy Michel comments:

“I saw "World Trade Center" last night at the Academy of Motion Pictures Theater in Beverly Hills. The movie avoided dealing with the details of the mechanics of the collapse of The World Trade Center and instead focused on the lives of two New York Police officers. The movie does make a couple of suggestions however. First it implies strongly that this was the work of terrorists and second it makes a rather powerful statement of vengeance. Perhaps the defining element of this movie is that vengeance for the attack on the world trade center will be a long time coming. That was perhaps the most disturbing."

ON ABC NEWS AND LAMONT
Craig Gingold writes. Not sure if he knows I used to work with ABC and can I ever tell stories. In fact, I have in the book “The More You Watch The Less You Know.”
.....”Sorry to say, but moronic "pundits" like Cokie Roberts are the least of it when it comes to ABC News. On Monday -- election eve, ferkrissake -- Nightline weighed in with a 7-1/2 minute story that almost could have been mistaken for a pro-Lieberman commercial. Co-anchor Terry Moran tagged along with Joe Lieberman in his final hours of campaigning, asking a single"tough" question about his responsibility for the unfolding disaster in Iraq. Meanwhile, Ned Lamont's campaign got all of 30 seconds! Isn't this how things are done in countries with state-run broadcasters that always favor the ruling party? Seriously.
.....“But that wasn't the worst of it -- not by a long shot! On Wednesday's ABC Nightly News with Charles Gibson, the lead story was the stunning outcome of the Lieberman-Lamont race. But even as the winning candidate, Ned Lamont went unheard -- I had to replay the tape to catch 2 seconds (I kid you not – 2 seconds!) where he chimed in hoping party leaders would talk Lieberman out of running as an independent. That was it. Most of the report was about Lieberman, blah blah blah, with about 12 seconds of liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas (the Daily Kos) thrown in for "balance".
.....“This is not just inexcusable -- it's unheard of! Has there ever, EVER? been an instance in the entire history of television news where the WINNING CANDIDATE in a major election was simply left out of the main report on a network news broadcast?!? I have trouble believing that such a thing has happened even on a local newscast – much]less on one of the networks. What the f*** is going on here?!!
.....“Believe me, I have no illusions about television news. I've been monitoring network news broadcasts for decades, so I know what to expect. But as dreadful as they are in many respects, THIS sort of thing is truly beyond belief. ABC News -- you should be ashamed of yourself!
.....“I will be sending a copy of my angry thoughts to ABC News at support@abcnews.go.com -- I hope I won't be alone!”

WEEKEND TREAT SING ALONG: “WE ARE THE WEB”
video.yahoo.com

THAT’S IT. I AM RUNNING TOO LONG….

I HAVE TONS OF LETTERS YET TO POST AND I WILL TRY TO PUT THEM THEM UP TOMORROW SO WE CAN START NEXT WEEK WITH A FRESH SLATE. Your comments welcome to
Dissector@mediachannel.

http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/2006/08/11/dissector-forum-fists-full-of-letters/
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.....................
NEWS DISSECTOR
August 12, 2006

After A Month of Killing: PEACE?

SPECIAL SATURDAY EDITION

DEBATING ISRAELI POLICY
DISCUSSING THE ROLE OF JEWS
QUESTIONING THE TERROR PLOT

You know that old saying: You don’t know what you have until it is no longer there. And lo and behold, that lesson came home yesterday morning when we found Mediachannel hacked and out of action, our email disabled and our hosting company moving at UN speed to fix it.

Late last night, some emails dribbled in but, frankly, I was too war weary to hopscotch for headlines and write what amounts to my usual daily newspaper. I have a few choice items for you today but the heart of this morning’s effort was written by you, our readers, who I hope will work us to keep Mediachannel going and growing.

Hackers are not our biggest problem—a lack of funding and support may bring us down for good unless we can get some interested and concerned folks to step up to the plate to help us with fundraising and more and keep this oasis alive on the internet. Already we have some cool volunteers, including a skilled senior journalist sending in items. But more help and financial support would be welcome.

Beyond that, I want to thank those of you who sent in so many serious and thoughtful letters and even those who denounced us if only to show what we are up against. Please pass this blog around and help us sustain this fight for truth in such dishonest times.

PEACE OR WAR BY OTHER MEANS?
“Peace,” or at least a cease fire resolution FINALLY broke out at the UN yesterday even as more Israeli bombing claimed more lives. How can we take seriously any peace resolution that John Bolton's sleazy hands have touched?

AP reported:

"The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution seeking a "full cessation" of violence between Israel and Hezbollah, offering the region its best chance yet for peace after a month of fighting that has killed more than 800 people and inflamed Mid-East tensions.
....The resolution, adopted unanimously, authorizes 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to help Lebanese troops take control of south Lebanon as Israeli forces that have occupied the area withdraw…"

BUT THEN, THE GUARDIAN REPORTED:
"Israeli forces thrust deeper into Lebanon against fierce Hezbollah resistance on Saturday and air strikes killed up to 19 people, hours AFTER the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution to end the month-old war. Relief officials said Israel was still denying access for aid convoys."

LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE: AFTER HEZBULLAH AND HAMAS

Middle East: What will emerge from the ruins?

Alain Gresh writes:

“A month into war in the Middle East, the United States and France have come together to formulate a way out of the crisis in Lebanon, based on United Nations resolutions. They propose an end to the violence, followed by the deployment of an international force. Failure to gain Lebanese and Arab agreement has allowed Israel more time to pursue its military objectives.”

MondeDiplo.com

ANALYSIS BY KENNETH BROWN

A Paris based editor/expert sent me an eassay that also appeared on JuanCole.com

"Israel invariably portrays itself as having no choice, as having been attacked and responding accordingly. Shimon Peres, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is quoted on arriving in Southern Lebanon today as saying “It’s us or the Hezbollah”. The enemy, now Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank or the Hezbollah, has to be crippled or destroyed in order to keep Israel safe, invulnerable, invincible. In 1982 the bombing and invasion of Lebanon was intended to eradicate Palestinian ‘terrorism’ once and for all and to put in place a Lebanese government to finish the job.
....Israel’s political strategy towards its neighbors comes from the barrels of its guns: to maintain and even increase its own military superiority by all possible means, while undermining the State’s implacable enemies.

Ben Gurion long ago argued that Israel had to keep its enemies at bay by hitting them regularly. “Peace is not our principal interest,” he said. He never believed that Israel could live at peace with the Arabs. His successors have remained faithful to this view. “We are a European nation: we have no affinity with the Arabs,” was how Barak put it.

The military establishment that shaped Israeli policy ever since the foundation of the state never accepted the armistice lines of 1949 and waited for the chance to move Israel’s borders eastwards, which came in 1967. Sharon’s unilateralism in regard to some of the territories did not depart from the policy of occupation and containment, although it did acknowledge the military and economic costs of holding onto all of them.

The retreat from Southern Lebanon in 2000 undermined the myth of the army’s invulnerability. The ferocity of the war now against the Hezbollah and Lebanese civilians in general may be considered the army’s revenge and an attempt to restore its image. So far, according to the press, the Hezbollah has continued to fight and has paralyzed half of Israel with its missile attacks. (Y. Marcus, Haaretz, 24.7.06).

Yet, Israelis for the most part seem to believe once again that this is a just war in which their powerful army will be victorious. According to surveys quoted by the IDF spokesman, they “believe officers more than politicians.” The U.S. government, and public opinion, has long ago ceased to try to curb Israeli fire. Many would argue that, at least for the Bush government, the ‘special relationship’ has become one of undiluted collusion."

Kenneth Brown, originally from Los Angeles, is the founding editor of the Paris-based biannual review Mediterraneans/Méditerranéennes.

IN CASE WE FORGOT, AMERICANS ARE STILL DYING IN IRAQ

Jimmy Breslin, Newsday

The great journalist came out of retirement to remind us that thousands of American lives are being ruined and cut short for a disastrous and stupid war.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40186/

ABUSING THE HOLOCAUST AGAIN AND AGAIN

In his speech, Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of the State of Israel did it again, and again, hitting the revenge for the holocaust chord used so many times by his predecessors. His invocation of the mantra was published in Maariv on Monday, July 31, 2006.and sent to by my someone who writes:” I don't know how, as a Jew, you can read this and NOT be affected.”

I was affected. It got me angry to see the memory of the six million martyred in Europe invoked one more time to justify bombing civilians and destroying a country. Yes, Israel, has a right to protect it self. The question remains: does its tactics and policies legitimately do that? And can this rhetoric with its reference to the “agents of the devil” be taken seriously? As far as I recall, the people of Lebanon and Palestine were not behind the holocaust.

Does this self-aggrandizement really help?

"We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana.

Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere.

The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon ….

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again….”

Why, why, this constant recycling of the same images of victimization and self-righteousness? Could it be because the formula with its recycled and cynical emotion works well as a tool of peception management and conditioning like some advertising jingle? One reader suggests a deeper reason:

REPRESSED TRAUMA?

Drew Hemel writes:

"Naomi Klein has stated that until the Israeli government can deal with it's repressed trauma of the holocaust then it will continue to project oppression onto Arabs. Well this sounds simplistic but the book "The Enchanted World of Sleep" (Yale U Press, 1996) by Peretz Lavie states how the only way post-traumatic stressed holocaust survivors could sleep was to repress all memories of the holocaust. Even though this goes against psychology. The holocaust is not to be talked about by survivors who could not sleep -- this according to the leading sleep disorder center in Israel.
....Maybe the problem of not being able to sleep because of Holocaust trauma is not that common in Israel, especially as the survivors are all too old, but this repression probably has been passed on to the next generation.

Now in the U.S., I've found amazing "repression" of memories just from my generation grown up on T.V. -- not to mention the generations growing up in the late 1950s where concentrated mass media had already taken over."

TRAUMA CASE #1: A “CURSE” FROM HUNGARY

Thomas B. Werner couldn’t hear what I was saying but lashed out:

"Sir, You are an absolute rascal, the lowest form of human existence, that is, the Bolshevik Jew. I was born in an E. European gettho [sic], I know what happened there, all my family has been murdered so I have the moral right to curse you and your comrades. You are a disgusting liar, G-d may punish you, scoundrel.”

The Media We Love To Hate

BUSH DITCHES PRESS CORPS

The Washington Post reports that the Bush Administration is ditching the press corps.
"GREEN BAY, Wis. -- On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.
....Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there to convey the President's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a few pool journalists who rode in the back of Air Force One."

CJR Editors Resign

In an effort to cut costs, Columbia Journalism Review will cut expenditure on its Web site in half. In response, two editors resigned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/business/media/11mag.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Sign of the Apocalypse

Tucker Carlson will appear on "Dancing With the Stars."
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/tucker_carlson_to_be_on_dancing_with_the_stars_418 12.asp

Accusation of Bias Leads to Office Burning

"Armed assailants ransacked and burned a provincial office of the Iraqi president's Kurdish party on Friday, accusing its official newspaper of unfairly criticizing a Shiite cleric, police said.
....The raid on the Kurdish party office was further evidence of the sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq that have exploded into violence, mostly terrorizing Shiite and Sunni Arabs. The largely Sunni Kurds are a separate, non-Arab ethnic group.
....The rising sectarian and communal violence is costing about 1,000 lives every month in the Baghdad area alone, raising fears of all-out civil war.
....The offending article in the PUK newspaper included a July 29 statement by al-Yacoubi in which he accused Kurds in the Kurdish-dominated Kirkuk province of attacking Arabs and Turkomans. The article said al- Yacoubi was spreading "hatred against the Kurds" and trying to "ignite a war between the Arab Shiites and Kurds."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002985556

COSBY ON THE OFFENSIVE

Bill Cosby takes on the Washington Post, accusing it of abusing its power.

poynter.org

A World of Mail, A World of Concern

Lawrence Grossman, the former president of PBS and NBC News writes:

“Great piece. Right on target in all respects.”

"LET'S DO THE MATH"

Linda Milazzo writes from LA about the plot:

"Chertoff: Plot Would Have Killed 100's of Thousands. Really? Let's Do The Math"

Had this plot been carried out, the loss of life to innocent civilians would have been on an unprecedented scale." These are the words of British Secretary of Home Security, Dr. John Reid, when forecasting the catastrophic outcome had the airline terrorist plot taken off. "Unprecedented"? Compared to what??
...."We cannot stress too highly the severity that this plot represented. Put simpler, this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale."This is how a uniformed high ranking Brit, featured on CNN, described what he thought would be the carnage had the terrorist plot been carried out.
...."Unimaginable"? Compared to...Darfur with 200,000 innocent civilians murdered since 2003, and over 2 million current refugees? - Rwanda with 800,000 innocent civilians slaughtered in 100 days? - The Holocaust with 6 million innocent civilians exterminated? - The Armenian Genocide with 1.5 million innocent civilians massacred?...."
....Linda adds: "Here's the link at OpEdnews and Counterpunch for the latest article. I'm a pain in the ass because it means a lot to me to be on Mediachannel. I believe in what you do. AND I MEAN THAT!!!!"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_linda_mi_060811_chertoff_3a_plot_would.htm

http://counterpunch@counterpunch.org/milazzo08112006.html

Pia Raug writes from Denmark:

"And so the world responsible leaders and their media got their long coveted diversion from the murderings already going on - to the possible killings of "real" people. You know me - of course society should go to far lengths to prevent crime and terrorrism - BUT - this does not give an alibi for media to clear all front-pages and air-time for something that might happen - and divert peoples' attentions from killings actually going on - killings that a strong enough pressure of world opinion from human beings all over the globe just might be able to stop.
....It came very conveniently - now they can keep "civilised" white westerners in the fear they need them to be suspended in to have sufficient support for keeping their wars going - without risking losing their own grip on power to democratic resistance - AND they can give an of air of: Big Brother is needed and indispensable - and Big Daddy is protecting you from all evil - Oh and by the way of course we will need more your money to protect you like this.
....Excuse me - but it is disgusting to feel manipulated like this - and it seems it is being bought every time - WHEN will media grow up to its responsibility? Watching images of fear in Lebanese cities and simultaneous fear in Israeli cities you aught not be an image-litterate to understand the difference. Fear in Israel is fear in reasonable safety - sun shine, blue skies, well-clad people wearing sunglasses and outside intact houses in palmed boulevards. Fear in the Lebanese border cities and Beirut sits on a background of rubble, dust blocking the sun, bombed out houses in streets that used to be.
....And even Danish media allows itself to push Lebanon in the back- ground to the benifit the images of frustrated Danes returning from UK without their hand baggage for God's sake!"

M Johnson writes from Hawaii:

"There may be a reason many now see no difference between Jews and Israelis, between the government of Israel and its citizens or between Judaism and Zionism for that matter. It is silence.
....Silence of the supposed 2/3 of the American Jews who oppose the occupation of Palestine. Silence of American Jews on the genocide in Lebanon. and of course the extreme pro-Israel bias demonstrated by our media, which is not by any means "Jewish-controlled", but simply "over- represented" as Jon Stewart would say.
....This silence however is not simply quietude. It is tacit approval. It is complicity. And that is a result of the extreme Jewish narcissism that permeates the entire culture and eternal victimhood they use as a cover for all they do. We, those crass enough not have been born superior and chosen, must not only bow to this superiority, but at the same time feel undying pity.

This is no longer working.
....Israel's attack on Lebanon has confirmed what many have known for some time. Israel is a country of racial supremacists, run by amoral thugs, peopled with predominantly the same, and supported unconditionally by a majority of American Jews who care about nothing and no one but themselves.
....Yes, I can understand the rest of us having a hard time telling you guys apart. Sorry."

FROM MALAYSIA

Nafisah Mohamed writes from Kuala Lumpur Malaysia:

"I read your latest article of 8 August on whether Israel and Jews are synomous. Sad, isn't it, that the discourse in the West on the Middle East has degenerated into an intellectual Maginot Line at best and labellings (self-hating Jews, Muslim fanatics, Muslim apologists) at worst to stop further considered and honest discussions. A classic is "Either you are with us or is against us" missionary/fundamentalist mindset.
....And who now could tell the difference between Ayatollah Bush and Ayatollah Khamenei? Both are men "ordained" by God to act for God as they think God wants. Fundamentalists comes from both sides and leading us all to Rapture (religious or freedom, democracy etc) and Armageddon (someone bombing or nuking a country) as they wanted. Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranians are not insane to let the nuke bomb be dropped anywhere, and especially near the Holy Land of Jeresulem or to kill civilians en masse. That would be most unIslamic. For Muslims, that is very unthinkable and definitely most unacceptable and would incur the wrath of Muslims worldwide which would make the Muslim reactions toward Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversies seems like a cucumber sandwich picnic.
....As for Jews, I noticed that articles written by self-designated or identified Jews on the Middle East are more probing and interesting than those by gentiles or goyims or whatever Jews call them, whatever their positions are. But I find some by Jewish writers, like Daniel Pipes questioning the loyalty of American or European Muslims a bit amusing, seeing how passionate some American Jews are in supporting Israel.
....Thank you, best regards and peace be with us all, and may cooler heads prevail.”

Michael Rossman writes: “Thanks indeed!”

ISRAEL IS NOT LOSING

Kristi Warab writes:

"[T]hink all this talk about Israel losing the war against Hezbollah is rubbish.
....Last time I checked, the Israeli's had killed 1000 Lebanese + 4 UN peacekeepers. Hezbollah had killed 122 Israelis. The Israeli's have destroyed over 70 Lebanese bridges, bombed the airport, power plants, pharmaceutical companies, and apartment buildings. Does it really sound like they are losing?
....Hezbollah's destruction on Israeli soil pales in comparison. Why? Maybe because the Israeli's have nuclear weapons, apache helicopters, tanks, and other sophisticated weapons and technology provided courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer while Hezbollah has some homemade explosives and lousy Katyusha rockets that go no further than 30 miles.
....Is all this talk about Israel "losing the war" really grounds for keeping up the invasion so that they can continue to blow Lebanaon to pieces? Is the U.S. trying to anger the Lebanese to the point where Iran gets involved, thus giving the U.S. a pretext to invade Iran? Hmmm. I wonder.”

Wendi Meremark writes in part:
"You publish voices trying and failing, crying to make sense of events. Some pattern of logical worldview. People don't see it, and we can't extend it then to anticipate what is coming.
....Yet the answer, the pattern seems obvious. When our preconceptions don't hide it.
....It seems to me that many people presume that media and politicians promote this country's heritage and American citizens's well- being. You know -- Unite us, establish Justice, provide for Common Wealth, promote Peace, and carry blessings and Liberty to succeeding generations. You know?
....That ain't happening. That's not the Something that is going on.
....Essentially, any information in mass media -- the News, as it's called – is tainted against the above list, it seems to me. Somebody somewhere picks each news item for us to hear their way. Real news is what our friends and people tell us person-to-person, face-to-face, word of mouth and we know who's speaking. Everything else is fake news. Don't just "don't assume nothing," which is neutral, benefit of the doubt. Assume the worst. Mass media intends to impair us. It means to de-news us…”

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

Lon Bordin asks:

”What is the solution? Israel lays down its arms and disappears in say a week? Or just to ignore the killed and captured soldiers until it reaches an amount significant enough for action? Perhaps Israel should stop bombing and just put its troops in harms way and go house to house to stop Hezbollah? Or just ignore those rockets and the years of Hezbollah war planning?
....Yeah, I got it! The world should just let the complicit Lebanese government deal with it, they have done so well so far. Well, the world is waiting for your answers.”

Fred Nachman writes from Chicago:
"Danny: As a student at Boston U. from 1968-1971, I used to listen to your newscasts on WBCN. I can still remember the ping- pong ball intro to your segments. You did a great job.
....I'd like to point out two errors in our "Are the Words 'Israel' and 'Jews' Synonymous?" You stated, "The Hezbollah rockets were fired after Israel’s bombing began, not before." Somehow you missed the fact that Hezbollah has been shelling northern Israel for the last five years. Israel finally decided to something about it.
....You also stated, "There _is_ a well-financed Israel lobby that funds politicians . . . " Maybe I'm being technical here, but AIPAC (who I'm sure you're referring to) does not give politicians a single penny. Do its members contribute to campaigns? Of course they do. Just like the oil companies and organized labor, to mention a few.
....You make other interesting points. Israel needs to obey UN resolutions. How about Resolution 1559, which calls for Hezbollah to disarm? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Jewish Federations send millions of dollars to Israel. I don't see Catholic Charities or other groups sending money to Israel. If we don't send money there (which is not used for military purposes), who will
....Lastly, I know my fellow Jews are disturbed by the killing of innocent civilians. But this is a war, make no mistake. Hezbollah, Hamas and other Muslim groups have as their main purpose the destruction of the state of Israel.
....If this were only about a Palestinian state, why wasn't one established on West Bank from 1948-1967, when Israel did not control this territory? Hezbollah sets up its rocket launchers and arsenals in civilian areas; where's the justice in that?
....Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of this crisis. I'm sure everybody wishes there were. And sometimes I wish I were back in my South End apartment, listening to Danny Schecter do the news on 'BCN.”

Don Goldberg writes from Seattle:
"Once again, a breath of sanity within the context of “crazy world.”
......We miss you on the radio. Early on, I had written Jon Sinton at Air America and suggested having you do regular commentary and set up a news department similar to what you did on ‘BCN.
....Of course now that they’re moving to WWRL you could stick a megaphone out your office window and get better coverage.
....You’re a valuable asset in my mediasphere more than I can ever say. The more I read (your comments) the more I know.
It’s not like Jews, Arabs, Persians and others can’t get along and share common values. Just take a stroll down Rodeo Drive.
....A little perspective-taking goes a long way. Transcendence can only happen when we lighten up. Your essays are one of the tools toward a more lasting peace. For that I’m grateful.”

John Welch writes:

"Thanks for saying so well what must be said. As the news is filled with the "horrors" that Israel "must" do for the sake of her security, I am confounded by the question of where are the Jews who believe that justice produces peace and that peace produces justice. Then I find the writings of people like you and Mr. Plitnick (?sp.) of Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews of Lebanon and others and I am reassured that there remains hope for the Middle East and Israel's role in building it."

BLAME THE MEDIA

Doug Carlson writes from Honolulu about Tsunami warnings:
"The powers that be continue their inept tsunami warning efforts. I've given up on changing government bureaucrats' behavior and now believe the best strategy is to Blame the Media for ineptitude of their own. Maybe one reporter out there will pay attention and ask the right questions.
If you have a moment, check out my TsunamiLessons blog, below.
....Keep up the good work."
tsunamilessons.blogspot.com
~~~

CHALLENGING FALUN GONG

Chales Lieu writes:
"Harry Wu, also knowns as Wu Hongda, heads the China Information Center, which is a dissident website based in the United States. The following is a summary of his investigation and travails in the matter of the Sujiatun affair. This essay is being translated here because it is not the kind of thing that will be published in English otherwise.”

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm

IT’S NOT WORKING

Larry Houghteling writes in depth about Israel and an earlier post:
"It was interesting to read your frequent correspondent Dau’d X Mohammed's reminiscences about learning tolerance as he grew up in L.A. and came to know different kinds of people. I think he misses the boat when he talks about Israel, though. Here's how he concludes his remarks:
...."It is just a matter of time before Israel as a State no longer exists - not as a matter of rights to exist anymore, but as a matter of the Israelis having worn out their welcome on earth as it is in heaven.
....Now, as it happens, I partly agree with him -- I'll explain in a minute -- but I also think he needs to extend some of the compassion he shows to other groups to the people of Israel, most of whom (like most people at most times in most places) are trying to do the best they can. Like a lot of people (Americans, anybody?) they've been led by cretins for so long that they're having trouble telling their ass from the proverbial hole in the ground.
....The way I see it, there have always been four basic possible solutions to the Zionist question of "How do we get along in the Middle East, surrounded by non-Jews?"
......Number one, the traditional liberal answer, the two-State solution. Two countries side by side, at peace. Israel stops making half- assed proposals and gives the Palestinians what they need to create a REAL country like other countries on ALL the West Bank and Gaza.
....Hundreds of thousands of settlers are uprooted and it's incredibly difficult and drives Israel to the brink of civil war, but it gets done. Israel works hard to make the Palestinian economy a success.
...Number two, another peaceful idea, the one-state solution. Like whites and blacks in South Africa, the two groups simply come together in a non-sectarian, democratic Palestine. No more automatic Right of Return for Jews worldwide, but that's the price for peace. The Jews know they won't be a majority for long, but the Palestinians know that if they drive out the Jews they'll go back to being just another failing little mideast country with no oil.
...Number three (the horror show), endless war, culminating somewhere down the line in mutual nuclear annihilation. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on this, but I have a strict policy never to bet on things I would hate to see happen.
...Number four, the Jews go somewhere else. Either in dribs and drabs, or as a very large group.
....As it happens, regretfully, I have to say that I think events of the past two generations -- and especially of the last 6 or 7 years -- have made numbers 1 and 2 just about impossible. (I WISH I could say I thought there still existed some chance for a two-statesolution, but for that you need some modicum of respect for each other and good sense, qualities lacking on both sides.) Number 3 is unthinkable. That leaves number 4.
....So what are the chances that we will all (and especially Americans) come to our senses and say, "This really isn't working. That idea some honorable people had, of plunking a Jewish state down into the long-ago Jewish homeland, that idea basically sucked a hundred years ago and sucks now. Now, since we Americans have made this problem many times worse with our amazingly short-sighted policies, let us take the lead in finding these good people a safe place to go before they get any crazier, and make their neighbors any crazier, and we all go up in smoke"? What are the chances of that realization coming upon us?
....(Objectively looked at, some such solution is particularly important to the United States, whose politics on both sides have by now been stretched so far out of shape by endless concerns and lies about Israel that we may never recover.)
....So what should we offer as the new Zion? Connecticut? Long Island? (It's gotta be something NICE, right?)"

ON JACKIE MASON

John Polifronio writes:

"With regard to Jackie Mason's remarks about Mel Gibson; someone should remind Jackie that its not that we take Mel's remarks "so seriously," here, let alone punish him for them, but it's absolutely necessary to strongly condemn him for those remarks, and to make that condemnation public, because this may be the only way to prevent those remarks of Mel's from turning into actions. If a man can make vicious and destructive remarks when he's drunk, he can also "act out" that viciousness and destructiveness. Clearly, Mel has a problem with anti-semitism, and not just with drunkeness. So we have a good deal more to go on, than merely that his bigotry is a product of substance abuse.”

And finally from my sage, my dad, a man of few words:

"The more Bush and the GOP step into s--t the more they come up smelling like roses! This new alert has just come in time,will we now have to buy red duct tape?"
....This is my last Saturday effort for awhile. I wanted to share most of your letters and I am glad to report we are back on line for now, and able to share your views and fight for your right to know.

Comment/Reactions to:
Dissector@mediachannel.org

Spread The Word: Please forward this to interested friends and colleagues >>

MISSED A DISSECTION?
Visit my archive of daily dissections.

Click on following link to access articles, etc:

http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/archives.php

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Are the Words "Israel" and "Jews" Synonymous?

By
Danny Schechter

I remember reading a story once about some of the Jewish fighters during the years of the Nazi genocide who escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto through the sewer system into another part of the city. Bedraggled and dazed, they came up into a city that was going about its business as usual, largely unaware of what was happening in a part of town that had been sealed off. (The street cars that went through the ghetto had to darken all windows so travelers couldn’t see what was going on.)

The escapees sought out brave members of the Polish resistance who were also fighting German aggression against their country. They too were at war with the invaders and occupiers. But they soon found that their “comrades in arms” couldn’t accept what they were being told, couldn’t believe the extent of the forced starvation and mass murder taking place just a few blocks away. They couldn’t imagine the extent of the barbarity, perhaps because it wasn’t happening to them. They were in denial.

The desperate Jews were shaken. They too couldn’t believe that they were unable to communicate the full horror of their plight and make it believable, even to people who shared some of their political goals. That realization turned into demoralization that turned to despair. They then felt guilty about fleeing and surviving while their friends and families were being killed.

They looked around at the normality and apparent indifference of carefree Warsaw, and decided to go back, back to their fate.

While there is never any exact parallel with today’s events--- and no, I don’t believe that yesterday’s victims of Nazism have become today’s Nazis—there is one aspect of this terribly tragic story that has relevance: the inability of many people to transcend their own pain (or point of view) to empathetically connect with the pain of others or even hear the critics.

As someone who grew up in a community that each year marked the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, its lessons were drilled into my head from an early age. I was taught to support those who resist aggression and stand for human rights. And as anyone who saw the film Schindler’s List knows, it was not just Jews who joined that fight. There were “righteous” Christians and people of all nationalities.

Yet, at the same time, I believed that the bitter history of Jewish suffering conveyed on us a special responsibility to speak out when others are suffering and yearning for freedom. Is that not the key lesson of the annual Passover Seder and the idea of solidarity and community concern? Is that not why activist “Jews for Justice” rallied to the cause of Bosnia’s embattled Muslims? Is that not why many Jews have always been on the front lines of the fight for humanity and social change?

Like many other Jews, I was drawn to the civil rights movement and other social justice movements. During those years, I was privileged to personally meet and talk with a Muslim leader named Malcolm X who introduced me to his traditions. Since then I have traveled in the Muslim world and met many people who respect democracy and believe in the need for a just resolution of the Israel-Palestinian crisis.

I know of many Jews who share that concern, and, in fact, surveys have shown over the years that ordinary members of the Jewish community are far more politically progressive about the need for peace than those who claim to be their “leaders,” self-righteous elite who sit on top of vast fundraising machines. They have well-paid jobs specializing in spreading fear and alarm about anti-Semitism as a tool for frequent solicitations and psychological conditioning. The memory of the Holocaust is still manipulated for political purposes.

There is a well-financed Israeli lobby that funds politicians and dominates the op-ed pages. What else explains the dramatic difference in public opinion in this country and overseas? Why do polls show Americans and Israelis backing the war while the world calls for a cease fire?

These organizations operate like a well orchestrated machine to enforce a “party line” and, in some well-documented cases; groups like the Anti Defamation League even spied on and demonized fellow Jews who feel differently. Pro-peace organizations like Tikkun have had to buy ads in the NY Times to get heard.

Jews who support Darfur are acceptable; those who oppose Israel’s bombing of Lebanon are deemed extremists.

Don’t they know that human rights are universal and cannot be invoked selectively?

Israel cannot be given a special pass: it has to obey international laws and UN resolutions, not just the ones it agrees with.

Just as the shelling of civilians by Hezbollah is unacceptable, so is the widespread Israeli devastation of a neighboring country, one ironically, with many people who wanted to live in peace with Israel. Almost every journalist who has looked at this war has noted that Israel used the kidnapping of its soldiers as pretexts for war plans that were years in the making. The Hezbollah rockets were fired after Israel’s bombing began, not before.

If anything, this Bush-backed war will radicalize Lebanon as it is the Middle East and fuel more anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel. It has turned Hezbollah into a hero in the region.

Somehow many in our media have turned the words Israel and Jews into synonyms, as if all Jews are hard-line Zionists who automatically back the policies and practices of the Israeli government, every Israeli government. Ironically, there is more debate among Jews in Israel on these issues than is reported, or somehow allowed in the United States where Jewish critics of Israel policies are often ignored or labeled “self-hating” Jews.

Many organizations, especially in Democratic Party circles (and even the blogosphere) would prefer to ignore the issue for fear of being divisive or attacked. Notice how many in the Congress rallied to Israel’s side before the facts were even in. Notice how few, even in the anti-war contingent, had the courage to speak out. (Read Tom Hayden’s recent piece apologizing for how skillfully he was co-opted by the Israeli Lobby when he ran for office in California.)

Some organizations are just shilling for the Israeli government –no matter what it does—out of both tribal loyalty and political fealty to neo-con/Likudnik politics, a perspective which enjoys unrivalled and disproportionate access to the media and its think-alike punditocracy. Some are just money generating mechanisms sending money to Israel, a developed county that gets $3 billion dollars annually in US aid intended for developing nations. The Federation which supports many social services just sent millions. One wonders how much of this will go to Israeli Arabs who have also had homes bombed?

It's not surprising that many Jews are unaware of what’s happening largely because of the information diet they are exposed to, every day and in all media--just like the rest of us. They are expected to recite the “official” mantra—not think for themselves.

On Tuesday, I received an invitation from the president of the American Jewish Congress. It was for a 4 day “Israel Solidarity Mission.” Cost per person: $1000.

It is described as “Not only solidarity but much more!”

“Touring the embattled North of Israel and personally sharing our friendship with families there who have lived through the terror of Katyusha rockets falling on their homes;

“Visiting an air force base where we will thank the brave pilots who are defending Israel and see, up close, the advanced F-16-I jets they fly;

“Receiving a briefing from the Brigade Commander and his troops defending against Hamas terrorism in Gaza;

“Meeting with top officials of Israel’s government to hear what lies ahead and to learn how we can help.”

There’s not one word of interest or concern here with the civilian victims of bombing in Lebanon or the conditions of Palestinians in Gaza. Not one word of compassion or interest in meeting prominent Israelis who feel this war is not in Israel’s interest. It

strikes me as more reinforcement for the already deeply held prejudices.
....
Writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz—which far too many American Jews know nothing about—and in fact know little about Israeli political reality (preferring to live with feel-good myths dating back to Leon Uris’ book Exodus)--Nehemia Shtrasler contends:

“Israel has always said it has nothing against the Lebanese people and does not want to harm Lebanon, only the PLO (then) and Hezbollah (now). But in practice, it has harmed, destroyed and humiliated the Lebanese time after time. Their fate did not interest us.”

What does interest us? What should interest us? I know the great Rabbi Hillel once said, “If you are not for yourself, who will be for me.” But then, he added, let us not forget, “If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?”

And then, there is also, always, that golden rule, forgotten by war-makers across the ages: “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.”

News Dissector Danny Schechter is “Blogger in Chief” of Mediachannel.org. His latest film is “In Debt We Trust.” (Indebtwetrust.com) Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org

http://www.mediachannel.org/IsraelJews.htm

~~~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.............OSAMA
....
WAS HE RIGHT?

OAKLAND
Police spies chosen to lead war protest
- Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, July 28, 2006


Two Oakland police officers working undercover at an anti-war protest in May 2003 got themselves elected to leadership positions in an effort to influence the demonstration, documents released Thursday show.

The department assigned the officers to join activists protesting the U.S. war in Iraq and the tactics that police had used at a demonstration a month earlier, a police official said last year in a sworn deposition.

At the first demonstration, police fired nonlethal bullets and bean bags at demonstrators who blocked the Port of Oakland's entrance in a protest against two shipping companies they said were helping the war effort. Dozens of activists and longshoremen on their way to work suffered injuries ranging from welts to broken bones and have won nearly $2 million in legal settlements from the city.

The extent of the officers' involvement in the subsequent march May 12, 2003, led by Direct Action to Stop the War and others, is unclear. But in a deposition related to a lawsuit filed by protesters, Deputy Police Chief Howard Jordan said activists had elected the undercover officers to "plan the route of the march and decide, I guess, where it would end up and some of the places that it would go."

It was revealed later that the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, which was established by the state attorney general's office to help local police agencies fight terrorism, had posted an alert about the April protest. Oakland police had also monitored online postings by the longshoremen's union regarding its opposition to the war.

The documents showing that police subsequently tried to influence a demonstration were released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union, as part of a report criticizing government surveillance of political activists since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The ACLU said the documents came from the lawsuit over the police use of force.

Jordan, in his deposition in April 2005, said under questioning by plaintiffs' attorney Jim Chanin that undercover Officers Nobuko Biechler and Mark Turpin had been elected to be leaders in the May 12 demonstration an hour after meeting protesters that day.

Asked who had ordered the officers to infiltrate the group, Jordan said, "I don't know if there is one particular person, but I think together we probably all decided it would be a good idea to have some undercover officers there."

Several months after the rally, Jordan told a city police review board examining the April 2003 port clash that "our ability to gather intelligence on these groups and this type of operation needs to be improved," according to a transcript provided by the ACLU.

"I don't mean same-day intelligence," Jordan told the civilian review panel. "I'm talking about long-term intelligence gathering."

He noted that "two of our officers were elected leaders within an hour on May 12." The idea was "to gather the information and maybe even direct them to do something that we want them to do," Jordan said.

"I call that being totalitarian," said Jack Heyman, a longshoremen's union member who took part in the May 12 march. He said he was not certain whether he had any contact with the officers that day.

Jordan declined to comment when reached at his office Thursday. In his deposition, he said the Police Department no longer allows such undercover work.

City Attorney John Russo said he was not familiar with the police infiltration of the protest, but said the city had made "significant changes" in its approach toward demonstrations after the port incident. Police enacted a new crowd-control policy limiting the use of nonlethal force in 2004.

The ACLU said the Oakland case was one of several instances in which police agencies had spied on legitimate political activity since 2001.

Mark Schlosberg, who directs the ACLU's police policy work and wrote the report released Thursday, cited previously reported instances of spying on groups in Santa Cruz and Fresno in addition to the Oakland case. He called on state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and local police to ensure that law-abiding activist groups don't come under government investigation.

"It's very important that there be regulation up front to prevent these kinds of abuses from occurring," Schlosberg said at a news conference.

Schlosberg said the state needs an independent inspector looking into complaints and keeping an eye on intelligence gathering at such agencies as the California National Guard and the state Department of Homeland Security.

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer, said the attorney general had not yet read the ACLU report. But he said his boss "won't abide violations of civil liberties. There's no room in this state or anywhere in this country for monitoring the activity of groups merely because they have a political viewpoint."

Following the Oakland port protest and disclosures about the monitoring of activists, Lockyer issued guidelines in 2003 stating that police must suspect that a crime has been committed before collecting intelligence on activist groups.

But Schlosberg said the ACLU had surveyed 94 law enforcement agencies last year and found that just eight were aware of the guidelines. Only six had written policies restricting surveillance activities, he said. ------------------------

E-mail Demian Bulwa at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com.

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Page B - 1

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/28/BAG7NK79HQ1.DTL
...............

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~~
Temper Tantrums at Big Money's Democratic Party Embassy

By
David Sirota

It's been a rough few weeks for the folks at Big Money's Democratic
Party Embassy, otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC). First, Rolling Stone cut through the DLC's seemingly friendly,
subtly caustic, vaguely cultish rhetoric and exposed it's rather
odious agenda for all to see (an agenda I also try to detail in my
new book Hostile Takeover). Then, DLC posterboy Joe Lieberman lost to
a previously little-known reformist challenger named Ned Lamont,
despite Lieberman grossly outspending Lamont with corporate dollars
flowing to him from many of the same industries that fund the DLC.
Then, populist Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (D) dropped the hammer on
the DLC in a speech at the Milwaukee Press Club - the first time in
recent memory a Senator has publicly told the truth about the
destructive influence the DLC has had on the Democratic Party. So,
all in all, DLC staffers Al From, Bruce Reed, Will Marshall, Ed
Kilgore, Marshall Wittman and the Big Money interests they rely on
for their DLC paychecks are probably not so happy.

That has to explain why Kilgore, formerly a Zell Miller staffer,
melted down this week on his DLC-backed website,
www.newdonkey.com
http://www.newdonkey.com. In an eight paragraph rant attacking me
and Sen. Feingold, he tries to paint the DLC as just a small,
low-budget idealistic operation struggling to advocate for the
greater good in an evil corrupt Washington that the DLC had nothing
to do with corrupting. We're expected to believe the DLC is the
organizational equivalent of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or a garage
band struggling to make it big. All "the DLC does is write policy
papers, hold conferences, publish a magazine, and network among state
and local elected officials," Kilgore writes. "Three of us do blogs."
They are the virtuous underdog, doing whatever they can to go up
against the powers that be, right?

Wrong. As the American Prospect detailed a few years ago, the DLC is
funded by huge contributions by some of the largest and most powerful
multinational corporations in the world - companies like Chevron,
DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris,
Texaco, and Verizon Communications who eagerly forked over the
$25,000 entry fee to be on the DLC's "executive council." As the
Prospect noted, the DLC's "revenues climbed steadily upward, reaching
$5 million in 1996 and, according to its most recent available tax
returns, $6.3 million for 1999. " Said the organization's executive
director: "Our revenues for 2000 will probably end up around $7.2
million."

Put another way, the DLC making itself out to be the innocent,
virtuous, shoestring underdog is like billionaire Warren Buffet
telling people with a straight face that he is applying for food
stamps.

But, of course, we're expected to forget that reality - and forget
what the DLC's huge treasure trove of corporate cash has bought over
the years. Kilgore wants us to believe that the DLC, for instance,
had nothing to do with aggressively pushing corporate-written trade
deals that deliberately undermined Americans' job security, wages and
benefits - all to the benefit of the DLC's big corporate donors. He
wants us to believe the DLC had nothing to do with these trade deals,
despite the DLC's well-documented record pushing these trade deals
even today - as trade policy's horrific consequences for ordinary
Americans are intensifying.

Similarly, he wants us to believe the DLC has been a great champion
of health care reform, instead of what it really has been: a force
that, at every turn, has tried to make sure Democratic Party policy
never challenges the profiteering of the DLC's health and
pharmaceutical industry donors.

We're also not expected to remember that the DLC and cronies like
Lieberman have made their name viciously attacking progressives on
all sorts of issues and undermining the Democratic Party's ability to
have a clear message that contrasts with Republicans. But again, that
runs into the actual, fact-based public record. You may recall, it
was the DLC that spearheaded a smear campaign against Howard Dean in
the lead up to the 2004 Democratic primaries. You may recall it was
DLCers like Will Marshall that helped neoconservatives push the Iraq
War in the late 1990s. You may recall it was the DLC and DLCers like
Joe Lieberman who helped legitimize the concept of Social Security
privatization as far back as 2000 - undoubtedly making their donors
in the financial services industry very happy. You may recall it was
the DLC's congressional arm that authored a letter to Speaker Dennis
Hastert demanding Hastert pass the credit card-industry written
bankruptcy bill.

Hilariously, Kilgore also tries to imply that even if the DLC had
behaved like this, it hasn't really had a way to get its message out
because, again, we're expected to believe all "the DLC does is write
policy papers" and all the DLC has is three blogs. But you may also
recall that the DLC has, for years, been able to rely both on fawning
coverage of its Big Money agenda by the Beltway media, and more
importantly, the microphone of a weekly magazine called The New
Republic.

That's thanks to New Republic owner Marty Peretz - the guy who
not-so-subtly makes fun of the family wealth of others, yet who
himself married into a corporate empire and then bought himself a
media platform he couldn't achieve on his own merits. His magazine
for years provided a built-in subscribership for the DLC to peddle
neoconservatives' and corporate executives' latest press releases.
That is, until the magazine's subscribership began to steeply plummet
to butt-of-jokes depths when readers caught onto just how much of a
right-wing propaganda rag it had become, and how disgusting
chickenhawks like Peretz and his writers were using the magazine to
push the very kinds of misguided military actions they personally
sought to avoid when they had the chance to serve themselves.

Nonetheless, Peretz recently sold a piece of his share to one of the
DLC's founding financiers and the magazine - despite its depressed
subscribership - still is a reliable rag for DLC-ish screeds against
the Democratic Party and progressives in general (check out editor
Peter Beinart's now infamous New Republic cover story demanding the
Democratic Party purge progressives from its ranks - call it the
Elitist Manifesto, if you will).

Kilgore can try all he likes to dishonestly claim the DLC is just
some low-budget idealistic garage band pursuing their supposedly
innocent and not-yet-realized dreams of prominence. And it's likely
true - there are more than a handful of corporate lobbyists in
Washington shedding tears now that the DLC's star is falling and
people have woken up to the DLC's destructive influence,
transparently corrupt agenda, and election-losing advice. But this
persecuted underdog fable likening the DLC to the main character in
the movie Rudy is positively laughable.

Moreover, even if you accept Kilgore's lie that the official DLC
organization itself has been just some infinitesimally small gnat
barely making the supposedly Evil Liberal Colossus twitch, it's clear
that DLC-ism has intensely afflicted the Democratic Party for the last
10 to 15 years - and with horrible electoral consequences. That
DLC-ism's fundamental tenets preach that Democrats should 1) never
frontally challenge moneyed power; 2) unquestioningly embrace
Washington's distorted definition of national security "strength" as
being a politician willing to indiscriminately bomb/invade foreign
lands regardless of how that weakens U.S. security; and 3)
deliberately distort the concept of "centrism" to make it mean "well
outside the mainstream of American public opinion."

That this DLC-ism is being handily rejected by more and more
Democrats at the very same time Democrats are surging in the polls
clearly makes the staff at the DLC very frightened. They know people
are figuring out that Democrats are making political gains BECAUSE
they are finally rejecting DLC-ism, and starting to push a far more
populist agenda - and one that is at the actual "center" of American
public opinion, not the distorted faux "center" of the Washington
Beltway. This agenda is scary to the powers that be because it
doesn't rely on the official approval of a bunch of Washington
lobbyists, corporate lawyers and unprincipled insiders sitting around
a conference table at places like the Washington Court Hotel or the
DLC's D.C. offices.

Make no mistake about it - the DLC's rage is not surprising. Hell,
I'd be scared and upset if I was working at the DLC, because everyday
I came to work, I'd be reminded of my own irrelevance, ineptitude and
public rejection - and with the new rise of truly grassroots
politics, there would be fewer and fewer things I could do about it.
That may be bad for the DLC, the lobbyists, and the Washington
establishment, but it's great for small-d democracy.
Go on-site to access this article and more, cartoons, opinions, etc. Moderate to Left wing, just click on the following link:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=03C353B6-E0C3-F084-D282233F87ACA562

{http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=03C353B6-E0C3-F084-D282233F87ACA562}
~~~~~~~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
If I hear another politician and/or religious or political fundalmentalist tell our troops "I'm with Ya.", I don't think I could handle it without some sort of inner explosion.

They, the men and women beating the war drums, certainly aren't "With" them. They are no where near being with them. No way, no shape, no how. It isn't happening and it never will, that is unless someone shows up at the bunker as did the Russians determined to get Hitler. Then and only then will they be "with them". Our troops will be with them. With him. They will do all that's honorable and brave for our country and for these sanctimonious so called leaders who are putting our men and women in harms way, sending them out to have their lives taken away or changed forever.

The things our lied to troops are having routinely happen to them isn't a pretty picture,as the following report lets us learn, and I would hope those who were so thrilled about this war, even those who believe it will bring on the rapture and other prophecy's, would go to the hospital rooms to visit and cheer the ones most needing it, that they are helping their suffering families in their darkest moments, leaving the propaganda rhetoric at the curb. They need help in so many ways, especially physically and financially.

Lip service is cheap, so how about some real time? How about doing real deeds? Think it will happen? Think it will happen not only when there are photo ops when polls are low? When a bill is needed to be passed? A person re-elected? Sure it will. Yeah, really. SRH


Is an armament sickening U.S. soldiers?

By
DEBORAH HASTINGS,
AP National Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago

It takes at least 10 minutes and a large glass of orange juice to wash down all the pills — morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant, a stool softener. Viagra for sexual dysfunction. Valium for his nerves.

Four hours later, Herbert Reed will swallow another 15 mg of morphine to cut the pain clenching every part of his body. He will do it twice more before the day is done.

Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq, his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil.

There is something massively wrong with Herbert Reed, though no one is sure what it is. He believes he knows the cause, but he cannot convince anyone caring for him that the military's new favorite weapon has made him terrifyingly sick.

In the sprawling bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, he has many caretakers. An internist, a neurologist, a pain-management specialist, a psychologist, an orthopedic surgeon and a dermatologist. He cannot function without his stupefying arsenal of medications, but they exact a high price.

"I'm just a zombie walking around," he says.

Reed believes depleted uranium has contaminated him and his life. He now walks point in a vitriolic war over the Pentagon's arsenal of it — thousands of shells and hundreds of tanks coated with the metal that is radioactive, chemically toxic, and nearly twice as dense as lead.

A shell coated with depleted uranium pierces a tank like a hot knife through butter, exploding on impact into a charring inferno. As tank armor, it repels artillery assaults. It also leaves behind a fine radioactive dust with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Depleted uranium is the garbage left from producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and energy plants. It is 60 percent as radioactive as natural uranium. The U.S. has an estimated 1.5 billion pounds of it, sitting in hazardous waste storage sites across the country. Meaning it is plentiful and cheap as well as highly effective.

Reed says he unknowingly breathed DU dust while living with his unit in Samawah, Iraq. He was med-evaced out in July 2003, nearly unable to walk because of lightning-strike pains from herniated discs in his spine. Then began a strange series of symptoms he'd never experienced in his previously healthy life.

At Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C, he ran into a buddy from his unit. And another, and another, and in the tedium of hospital life between doctor visits and the dispensing of meds, they began to talk.

"We all had migraines. We all felt sick," Reed says. "The doctors said, 'It's all in your head.' "

Then the medic from their unit showed up. He too, was suffering. That made eight sick soldiers from the 442nd Military Police, an Army National Guard unit made up of mostly cops and correctional officers from the New York area.

But the medic knew something the others didn't.

Dutch marines had taken over the abandoned train depot dubbed Camp Smitty, which was surrounded by tank skeletons, unexploded ordnance and shell casings. They'd brought radiation-detection devices. The readings were so hot, the Dutch set up camp in the middle of the desert rather than live in the station ruins.

"We got on the Internet," Reed said, "and we started researching depleted uranium."

Then they contacted The New York Daily News, which paid for sophisticated urine tests available only overseas.

Then they hired a lawyer.
.......
Reed, Gerard Matthew, Raymond Ramos, Hector Vega, Augustin Matos, Anthony Yonnone, Jerry Ojeda and Anthony Phillip all have depleted uranium in their urine, according to tests done in December 2003, while they bounced for months between Walter Reed and New Jersey's Fort Dix medical center, seeking relief that never came.

The analyses were done in Germany, by a Frankfurt professor who developed a depleted uranium test with Randall Parrish, a professor of isotope geology at the University of Leicester in Britain.

The veterans, using their positive results as evidence, have sued the U.S. Army, claiming officials knew the hazards of depleted uranium, but concealed the risks.

The Department of Defense says depleted uranium is powerful and safe, and not that worrisome.

Four of the highest-registering samples from Frankfurt were sent to the VA. Those results were negative, Reed said. "Their test just isn't as sophisticated," he said. "And when we first asked to be tested, they told us there wasn't one. They've lied to us all along."

The VA's testing methodology is safe and accurate, the agency says. More than 2,100 soldiers from the current war have asked to be tested; only 8 had DU in their urine, the VA said.

The term depleted uranium is linguistically radioactive. Simply uttering the words can prompt a reaction akin to preaching atheism at tent revival. Heads shake, eyes roll, opinions are yelled from all sides.

"The Department of Defense takes the position that you can eat it for breakfast and it poses no threat at all," said Steve Robinson of the National Gulf War Resource Center, which helps veterans with various problems, including navigating the labyrinth of VA health care. "Then you have far-left groups that ... declare it a crime against humanity."

Several countries use it as weaponry, including Britain, which fired it during the 2003 Iraq invasion.

An estimated 286 tons of DU munitions were fired by the U.S. in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. An estimated 130 tons were shot toppling Saddam Hussein.

Depleted uranium can enter the human body by inhalation, the most dangerous method; by ingesting contaminated food or eating with contaminated hands; by getting dust or debris in an open wound, or by being struck by shrapnel, which often is not removed because doing so would be more dangerous than leaving it.

Inhaled, it can lodge in the lungs. As with imbedded shrapnel, this is doubly dangerous — not only are the particles themselves physically destructive, they emit radiation.

A moderate voice on the divisive DU spectrum belongs to Dan Fahey, a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley, who has studied the issue for years and also served in the Gulf War before leaving the military as a conscientious objector.

"I've been working on this since '93 and I've just given up hope," he said. "I've spoken to successive federal committees and elected officials ... who then side with the Pentagon. Nothing changes."

At the other end are a collection of conspiracy-theorists and Internet proselytizers who say using such weapons constitutes genocide. Two of the most vocal opponents recently suggested that a depleted-uranium missile, not a hijacked jetliner, struck the Pentagon in 2001.

"The bottom line is it's more hazardous than the Pentagon admits," Fahey said, "but it's not as hazardous as the hard-line activist groups say it is. And there's a real dearth of information about how DU affects humans."

There are several studies on how it affects animals, though their results are not, of course, directly applicable to humans. Military research on mice shows that depleted uranium can enter the bloodstream and come to rest in bones, the brain, kidneys and lymph nodes. Other research in rats shows that DU can result in cancerous tumors and genetic mutations, and pass from mother to unborn child, resulting in birth defects.

Iraqi doctors reported significant increases in birth defects and childhood cancers after the 1991 invasion.

Iraqi authorities "found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious impact on health: The number of cases of leukemia had increased considerably, as had the incidence of fetal deformities," the U.N. reported.

Depleted uranium can also contaminate soil and water, and coat buildings with radioactive dust, which can by carried by wind and sandstorms.

In 2005, the U.N. Environmental Program identified 311 polluted sites in Iraq. Cleaning them will take at least $40 million and several years, the agency said. Nothing can start until the fighting stops.

.......
Fifteen years after it was first used in battle, there is only one U.S. government study monitoring veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

Number of soldiers in the survey: 32. Number of soldiers in both Iraq wars: more than 900,000.

The study group's size is controversial — far too small, say experts including Fahey — and so are the findings of the voluntary, Baltimore-based study.

It has found "no clinically significant" health effects from depleted uranium exposure in the study subjects, according to its researchers.

Critics say the VA has downplayed participants' health problems, including not reporting one soldier who developed cancer, and another who developed a bone tumor.

So for now, depleted uranium falls into the quagmire of Gulf War Syndrome, from which no treatment has emerged despite the government's spending of at least $300 million.

About 30 percent of the 700,000 men and women who served in the first Gulf War still suffer a baffling array of symptoms very similar to those reported by Reed's unit.

Depleted uranium has long been suspected as a possible contributor to Gulf War Syndrome, and in the mid-90s, veterans helped push the military into tracking soldiers exposed to it.

But for all their efforts, what they got in the end was a questionnaire dispensed to homeward-bound soldiers asking about mental health, nightmares, losing control, exposure to dangerous and radioactive chemicals.

But, the veterans persisted, how would soldiers know they'd been exposed? Radiation is invisible, tasteless, and has no smell. And what exhausted, homesick, war-addled soldier would check a box that would only send him or her to a military medical center to be poked and prodded and questioned and tested?

It will take years to determine how depleted uranium affected soldiers from this war. After Vietnam, veterans, in numbers that grew with the passage of time, complained of joint aches, night sweats, bloody feces, migraine headaches, unexplained rashes and violent behavior; some developed cancers.

It took more than 25 years for the Pentagon to acknowledge that Agent Orange — a corrosive defoliant used to melt the jungles of Vietnam and flush out the enemy — was linked to those sufferings.

It took 40 years for the military to compensate sick World War II vets exposed to massive blasts of radiation during tests of the atomic bomb.

In 2002, Congress voted to not let that happen again.

It established the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses — comprised of scientists, physicians and veterans advocates. It reports to the secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Its mandate is to judge all research and all efforts to treat Gulf War Syndrome patients against a single standard: Have sick soldiers been made better?

The answer, according to the committee, is no.

"Regrettably, after four years of operation neither the Committee nor (the) VA can report progress toward this goal," stated its December 2005 report. "Research has not produced effective treatments for these conditions nor shown that existing treatments are significantly effective."

And so time marches on, as do soldiers going to, and returning from, the deserts of Iraq.

.......
Herbert Reed is an imposing man, broad shouldered and tall. He strides into the VA Medical Center in the Bronx with the presence of a cop or a soldier. Since the Vietnam War, he has been both.

His hair is perfect, his shirt spotless, his jeans sharply creased. But there is something wrong, a niggling imperfection made more noticeable by a bearing so disciplined. It is a limp — more like a hitch in his get-along.

It is the only sign, albeit a tiny one, that he is extremely sick.

Even sleep offers no release. He dreams of gunfire and bombs and soldiers who scream for help. No matter how hard he tries, he never gets there in time.

At 54, he is a veteran of two wars and a 20-year veteran of the New York Police Department, where he last served as an assistant warden at the Riker's Island prison.

He was in perfect health, he says, before being deployed to Iraq.

According to military guidelines, he should have heard the words depleted uranium long before he ended up at Walter Reed. He should have been trained about its dangers, and how to avoid prolonged exposure to its toxicity and radioactivity. He says he didn't get anything of the kind. Neither did other reservists and National Guard soldiers called up for the current war, according to veterans' groups.

Reed and the seven brothers from his unit hate what has happened to them, and they speak of it at public seminars and in politicians' offices. It is something no VA doctor can explain; something that leaves them feeling like so many spent shell rounds, kicked to the side of battle.

But for every outspoken soldier like them, there are silent veterans like Raphael Naboa, an Army artillery scout who served 11 months in the northern Sunni Triangle, only to come home and fall apart.

Some days he feels fine. "Some days I can't get out of bed," he said from his home in Colorado.

Now 29, he's had growths removed from his brain. He has suffered a small stroke — one morning he was shaving, having put down the razor to rinse his face. In that moment, he blacked out and pitched over.

"Just as quickly as I lost consciousness, I regained it," he said. "Except I couldn't move the right side of my body."

After about 15 minutes, the paralysis ebbed.

He has mentioned depleted uranium to his VA doctors, who say he suffers from a series of "non-related conditions." He knows he was exposed to DU.

"A lot of guys went trophy-hunting, grabbing bayonets, helmets, stuff that was in the vehicles that were destroyed by depleted uranium. My guys were rooting around in it. I was trying to get them out of the vehicles."

No one in the military talked to him about depleted uranium, he said. His knowledge, like Reed's, is self-taught from the Internet.

Unlike Reed, he has not gone to war over it. He doesn't feel up to the fight. There is no known cure for what ails him, and so no possible victory in battle.

He'd really just like to feel normal again. And he knows of others who feel the same.

"I was an artillery scout, these are folks who are in pretty good shape. Your Rangers, your Special Forces guys, they're in as good as shape as a professional athlete.

"Then we come back and we're all sick."

They feel like men who once were warriors and now are old before their time, with no hope for relief from a multitude of miseries that has no name.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.associatedpress.org

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*********
TOP FIVE HEADLINES
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
August 13, 2006
As BuzzFlash has repeatedly editorialized, the Bush Administration is a detriment to America's national security. Our lives are increasingly at risk every day that they are in office.

They will never seriously battle the sources of terrorism in an effective, strategic fashion. That is because politically they need the terrorists as much as the terrorists need them. And the goals of the Bush Administration are the consolidation of power and the acquisition of natural resources and economic dominance, not the eradication of terror.

Only the naive and the Rush Limbaugh Stepford-Red Staters can possibly draw any other conclusion.

NBC just confirmed -- as BuzzFlash editorialized earlier this week about the politics of terrorism -- that the White House forced the UK to move up the timing of the alleged terror cell arrests, against the recommendations of the British intelligence agencies. By so doing, the Bush Administration compromised the investigation and kept it from obtaining further evidence and contact names. In short, for purposes of political timing -- in order to make partisan points from the election of Ned Lamont -- the Bush Administration compromised our national security.

Furthermore, NBC confirms that UK sources indicate that the alleged terrorist plan was not near operational. Indeed, the hijackers -- who are British citizens -- did not even have passports! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/)

This is an extraordinary betrayal of America's national security, purely done so that Cheney, Snow and Bush could attack the Democrats as weak on national security, knowing that the arrest announcement was going to be made on Wednesday, because they picked the day of the arrest.

These use of Rovian-timed terrorist announcements -- often extremely, extremely exaggerated (as in the case of the Liberty City Insane Clown Posse and the alleged Manhattan Tunnel explosions that would have defied the laws of gravity if they were planned to "flood" lower Manhattan) -- are basically treason.

They are meant to frighten Americans into voting Republican. The only viable winning platform of the Busheviks now (and remember that they cannot afford either House of Congress to become Democratic, because it would likely lead to investigations and the impeachment and prosecution of the senior Bush Administration staff) is something like: "You see what the terrorists will do if the Republicans are not here to protect you. The Democrats will just mollycoddle them. Fear for your lives and vote Republican."

After six years of cynical rule and five years of an alleged "war on terrorism" that has killed tens of thousands more people than the terrorists have, all the White House has to do is invoke premeditated fear into Americans.

And it has worked up to now.

Look at the media this week. The alleged British terror plot dominates the leads in television, radio and newpapers around the nation. Fear is a powerful tool. It goes right from the media into the brain. It appeals to our Reptilian sense of self-protection.

That is why it is the tool of demagogues.

Yes, there are terrorists out there who wish to do citizens of the United States harm. But yes, we also unleashed them in Iraq to do us and each other harm. Bush is breeding new ones every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush hasn't reduced terrorism; he has increased its threat.

And that is fine with Rove, because Rove has been out front and openly stated through three election cycles that the GOP will win by painting the Democrats as soft on terrorism.

The Bush White House and GOP campaign apparatus will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate our emotions -- and even carry out policies that breed terrorists, because they need terrorism in order to win elections. They would lose in a landslide if people were to vote on public policy issues.

So they need fear. It is the only fuel that will help them achieve a one-party dictatorial state for a century, as Grover Norquist and Karl Rove have promised.

Who is creating a new generation of terrorists? Not the Democrats (except for Joe Lieberman, but he has clearly cut a deal with the White House a long time ago to be one of them – and remain a Democrat on foreign policy in name only.)

Now, more than 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Ned Lamont -- a descendant of the robber Baron J.P. Morgan, a fourth-generation Harvard graduate, and a self-made millionaire -- is no radical.

It is the Bush Administration that is radical, extremist, and basically treasonous.

At the same time it was politically manipulating the arrests of the alleged British terrorists, it was trying to decrease a Congressional allotment of millions of dollars to increase our ability to detect explosives that could be carried on planes. It has already allowed box cutters, nail clippers, scissors and razors back on airplanes. It has done almost nothing to ensure the security of cargo that is shipped on planes, which is how the Pan Am plane was blown up over Scotland. (You don't even need a suicide terrorist to blow up a plane in mid-air.)

Bush blew off the warnings of an impending 9/11 and told the CIA briefer who came to him with them to get out and then used an expletive deleted. Bush then did nothing. He didn't want his vacation disturbed -- and then 9/11 happened. And when it did happen, after Bush failing to take steps to protect us, he read "The Pet Goat" for several minutes before his handlers could write "comments" for him. And then he inexplicably got on Air Force One and flew AWAY from Washington, D.C.

As Americans, all of us have our lives at stake while these cynical, power hungry, demagogues are ruling the nation.

Yes, there are terrorists in the world who wish us harm.

Many of them, have indeed, been drawn to terrorism as a result of Bush Administration action.

The goals of the White House are not to stop terrorism; the goal of the White House is to allow terrorism to fester in order to -- as is the basic game plan for dictators goes -- use fear to consolidate tyrannical power and do away with our Constitutional checks and balances of government and guarantee of individual liberties.

If you can't see that they are traitors in the White House, then you are risking your own lives and the lives of your families.

If you value those lives – and your own – we cannot, as a nation, any longer afford a White House and a Republican party that only knows the politics of using terrorism as a political tool, while running only an ineffective “show war” to reduce the threat of terrorists. --------------------

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
SNIPPITS FROM A BUZZFLASH BOOK REVIEW
(go on-site to view)
Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
by Thomas Ricks

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

(Excerpt)

Whatever Bush touches turns into a "Fiasco."

If he were your brother-in-law, you could just ignore him at family gatherings as he did tricks with peanuts and called everyone "Pancho" while snickering at himself.

But he's got too much power to keep allowing him on the loose.

Too many people are dying needlessly, our military is being degraded, and billions of our hard-earned taxpaying dollars are being spent on a disastrous folly.

"Fiasco" says it all, and in a very credible fashion.

From Penguin Books, the Publisher, About "Fiasco":

"Many officers have shared their anger with renowned military reporter Thomas E. Ricks, and in Fiasco, Ricks combines these astonishing on-the-record military accounts with his own extraordinary on-the-ground reportage to create a spellbinding account of an epic disaster."

http://www.buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.: -- Theodore Roosevelt

~~~

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.": -- Adolf Hitler - (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator - Source: My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933

~~~
"Conformities are called for much more eagerly today than yesterday... skeptics, liberals, individuals with a taste for private life and their own inner standards of behavior, are objects of fear and derision and targets of persecution for either side... in the great ideological wars of our time."
-- Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) - Source: Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century, 1950

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
The terrorists follow us home
Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com

08.23.06 - A lot of trees died in vain for newsprint this week, reporting details of President Bush's desperate attempt to float a new trial balloon in his tortured six-year war against logic, reason, gravity and physics. Apparently he's in need of a new sack of gas to tie his failed Iraqi war plan to. His most recent bag of verbal helium, "stay the course," has been tossed onto the same discarded pile of shriveled rubber as "dead or alive," "smoking gun as a mushroom cloud" and "welcomed with flowers and candy."

He held an hour-long press conference, attempting to sound reasonable, having about as much success as a rabid, flatulent weasel trying to hide in a half-empty spinach fettuccini bin at Whole Foods. Trotting out a series of experimental mantras, the President tried appealing to average Americans – who, recent polls say, still retain their admiration for the man's stick-to-itiveness, though they remain a bit skeptical of his synaptic activity. (Much like a man intent on breaking through a brick wall using only his forehead: While you've got to admire his persistence, you probably don't want him doing math.)

Experimenting with the calibrated residue of Karl Rove's extensive hot-air polling of focus groups, Dubyah introduced the new official buzzphrase of the Iraqi occupation: the word "wrong." Cutting and running is "wrong." The Democrats are patriotic but "wrong." Spandex on NFL linemen. Screw Kappa Napa. It's all just "wrong." He went on to say if we don't finish the job in Iraq, the world will see us as quitters and you know what they say about quitters. "Winners never evacuate, quitters bruise their shins, and are destined to bloat up like poisoned toads." Or something like that. He wasn't really clear. As usual.

"There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying, 'Withdraw now.' They're wrong," Bush said. "There are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period. And they're wrong." Unfortunately, he steadfastly refuses to tell us exactly what job he is talking about. I'm thinking it has to do with developing a falafel-based oil substitute.

He further explained if we leave, the terrorists will follow us home. And if they follow us home, we'll have to walk them twice a day and feed them and brush them and they'll need shots and let me tell you right now, they're sleeping outside, mister. Oh sure, they're cute when they're young, but when terrorists grow up, they're just like animals. Constantly begging for scraps and whimpering because they're afraid to be left alone. "Allah is watching." Chewing shoes. Peeing on their prayer rug.

At the end, he waxed weirdly poetic and at the same time loopy. "Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy, you know. But war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times... and they're straining the psyche of our country." And as one who's had my psyche strained, I got to admit, he's right. "We're not leaving so long as I'm the President." Okay, Mr. President, whatever it takes.
Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, social outcast Will Durst is willing to help out the President any way he can.

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

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21268
.........

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Indiana a terrorist target?
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

08.17.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- The most cunning refinement yet in the administration's plot to scare the liver, lights and onions out of us with Tales of Terror Plots is the Department of Homeland Security's brilliant move to declare Indiana the national center of terrorism, with 8,591 potential targets. Many citizens have questioned the Indiana move -- some claiming it is a waste of money trying to stop attacks on the Wabash Cannonball. The Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument might merit a little more attention. This is precisely why it is better to have Michael Chertoff and Karl Rove making the Homeland Security decisions, rather than Osama bin Laden.

The defeat of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary alerted Veep Dick Cheney to the menace. Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Lieberman, said he was surprised that Cheney claimed his victory would embolden Osama bin, as we call him Texas.

"My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how we can turn this to partisan advantage," complained Lamont. Lieberman warned that Lamont's call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by the terrorists. Cheney said it would encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Wow. How little we realized the fate of a single senator -- especially such a whiny and sanctimonious one -- meant everything to Osama bin. Must've pulled off his turban and danced around his cave when he got the news. The whole al-Qaida bunch stayed up just to hear the late returns from Darien, Conn.

Give President Bush another five years or so, and he's bound to figure out that Osama bin is not in Iraq -- then we'll be right on his tail.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, The Hill newspaper reports that an Enron lobbyist (former aide to Joe Lieberman and money-raiser for him and convicted Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, whom he describes as being "like-minded guys") is demanding that Democratic senators not campaign against Lieberman. When asking other professional influence-peddlers to contribute, he tells them to come back for Lieberman, saying, "Who knows what Lamont would be like?"

For example, Lamont might use his power to make sure the Enron investigation gets serious -- a task Lieberman, ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs Committee, has avoided. No surprise that the lobbyists and insiders want to keep their guy.

In other news, we have the answer to a troubling part of the Middle East jigsaw puzzle: how to rebuild Iraq. We ought to drop Halliburton like a skilletful of rattlesnakes and get Hezbollah on the job. Did you ever see a better rebuilding bunch than this Hezbollah? The shooting hadn't even stopped yet when the "Army of God" was hustling around with plywood and duct tape, putting everything back together. And who do they get to pay for it all, but the Arabs. Now that's what I call rebuilding!
(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21242
*****

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Truth telling gone wild
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

08.22.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Royal Masset, a Texas Republican political consultant who has been accused of being less than brilliant, recently had this to say about Karl Rove: "I think we actually like Karl a lot more now than we did when he was more active locally." He told the San Antonio Express-News he believed that Rove in Washington is remaining loyal to Bush while "fighting the good fight. He's fighting budgets. He's fighting wars. He's doing conservative kinds of things."

When Rove was in Texas, Masset continued, "there was a real sense of him being a total self-centered (person) who didn't care about anybody. He would literally destroy people who tried to oppose him."

Plenty o' food for thought in that. But first we should maybe figure out how to smuggle Royal out of the country with a fake passport.

The Bushies are having the hardest time trying to un-lie now. For example, at his Monday press conference, the president asserted, "Nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the (Sept. 11) attack."

How true: What Vice President Cheney in December 2001 said about links between 9-11 and Iraq was that it was "pretty well confirmed" that hijacking ringleader Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence. On June 17, 2004, Cheney said: "We have never been able to confirm that, nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know. ... I can't refute the Czech claim, I can't prove the Czech claim, I just don't know."

In July 2004, the CIA's own report stated it does not have "any credible information" that the alleged meeting ever took place. The CIA said the whole concoction was based on a single source "whose veracity ... has been questioned" and that the Iraqi official allegedly involved was in U.S. custody and denied the meeting ever took place. The 9-11 commission had already concluded the meeting never occurred.

Cheney has a consistent pattern of exaggeration on intelligence related to Iraq. The tragedy is that at least half the American people believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 plot -- and most soldiers serving in Iraq still believe this.

It's pretty embarrassing when the British intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, accuse the FBI of leaking like a sieve. British intelligence has a lengthy history in the leaking-like-a-sieve department -- so that's some pot calling our kettle black. Nevertheless, they are making the point that our leaks about the "liquid terror" plot have pretty well bollixed up the case. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was so annoyed he referred to the entire Bush performance in the Middle East as "crap." This truth-telling has gone too far.

Or, come to think of it, maybe it's just begun -- and it's high damn time we got on with it. I'd suggest starting with the reality on the ground. Iraq is a disaster. The most credible estimate of how long it would take to fix it -- if it is fixable -- is another 10 to 25 years and a commensurate amount of dollars. Is it doable? Is it worth it? What are the consequences if we do or do not continue the effort? What are the consequences if the most likely result of our withdrawal -- partition into three parts -- takes place? (That's also a likely consequence of our staying.)

It seems to me that those who advocate withdrawal ASAP have just as much of a duty to make the arguments for doing so -- and to admit how much they don't know -- as those who got us into this mess five years ago with that titanic combination of misinformation and ignorance.

Let's start with what Donald Rumsfeld once described as "the known unknowns" and then see how far we get. Let's have what we should have had at the beginning -- as informed and unideological a debate as possible, with attention to the effects on our allies and the region. Onward.
(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21260
*****

[Saundra Hummer]

*
The new 'activist' judges
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

08.24.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Another bee-you-ti-ful example of the right-wing media getting it all wrong. Here they are having the nerve to mutter in public about "activist judges" because Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has pointed out that spying without a warrant is illegal in this country -- so warrantless telephone tapping is illegal in this country.

Improbably enough, the first complaint of many of these soi-disant legal scholars is that Taylor's decision is not well written. No judicial masterpiece, they sneer. Nevertheless, warrantless spying is illegal. Did it ever occur to these literary critics that Taylor has a lay-down hand? The National Security Agency program is flat unconstitutional, and for those who insist this means Osama bin Laden wins, it's also ridiculously easy to fix so that it is constitutional.

Conservatives in this country have been yipping in chorus for years about "activist judges," and frankly, like fools, many of you bought into the phony political rhetoric about those terrible jurists.

Somehow, activist judges are held responsible for gay marriage, Roe v. Wade and everything else Americans disagree about, as though Americans would never disagree without their encouragement. Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don't like.

As any liberal could have told you, the conservatives didn't want a right-wing shift on the nation's courts because of "social issues" -- that's just a handy political ploy. Honestly, people, haven't you figured out what this is all about yet? Money. The conservatives are in a snit about "liberal courts" because of money.

Corporations being prosecuted for breaking the law! Tobacco companies forced to pay huge fines! Oil and chemical companies made to pay for cleanup at Superfund sites! Oh, the horror, the horror. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page couldn't stop shivering over it for years.

"This is the richest business term in recent memory," Mark Levy, a Supreme Court litigator, told The Wall Street Journal, which has stopped quivering at last. Moving right along in the long-drawn-out battle to deny ordinary citizens access to their own courts, the justices closed down the right to allow class-action securities cases in state courts. The court also kept out of a lower-court decision preventing taxpayers from suing to stop tax breaks that states and municipalities use to lure big business, a notorious example of raging bad policy.

Meanwhile, what a nice gift from the federal bench to the insurance companies when a federal judge in Mississippi decided that hurricane insurance policies excluding water damage are "valid and enforceable." As many of our fellow citizens had an opportunity to learn during Katrina, it's a challenge to sit around in a class IV hurricane, trying to figure out which is wind and which is water damage. "Ooops, there goes the roof, probably wind, followed by a huge run of waves rolling over the house, could be water."

Insurance company stocks went up across the board after the decision, while the industry kindly advised its clients to "keep you eyes wide open when buying new homeowners' insurance."

Congratulations to the Katrina survivors who were hanging on by their fingernails.

Money, money, money is the motif of the "New Activist" federal judges, but they have also been busy, busy limiting congressional authority and individual rights. As People for the American Way notes, federal appellate courts -- effectively the court of last resort for most Americans -- are working on: questioning the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act, overturning the National Labor Relations Board rulings against anti-union discrimination and other unfair labor practices by employers, allowing the Bush administration to keep secret the records of the Cheney energy task force and rewriting by court order a state law on First Amendment activity.

Other Bush appellate judges have ruled to deny protection to workers who file claims of race and disability discrimination, made it harder to protect the environment, and issued other decisions that will affect our lives and liberties for decades.

Activist judges, indeed.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21270
*****

[thedwork]

hopefully interesting/helpful to those of you who read or post in this thread:

http://articlesofimpeachment.com/

[the magnificent goldberg]

hopefully interesting/helpful to those of you who read or post in this thread:

http://articlesofimpeachment.com/

Does it say whether a Prez & a VP can be impeached simultaneously? Otherwise, as each villain is impeached and falls, another will take his or her place, since there appears to be a glut of villains just at the moment.

And what's supposed to happen, according to the constitution, if there is suddenly neither Prez nor VP - for example if they arer both assassinated at the same time, or impeached at the same time?

MG

[thedwork]

Does it say whether a Prez & a VP can be impeached simultaneously? Otherwise, as each villain is impeached and falls, another will take his or her place, since there appears to be a glut of villains just at the moment.

And what's supposed to happen, according to the constitution, if there is suddenly neither Prez nor VP - for example if they arer both assassinated at the same time, or impeached at the same time?

MG

good questions for which i don't have the answers. but maybe i'll have some soon: i taped a 2 hour program on the c-span book channel with the authors of the book (articles of impeachment on george w. bush) speaking at a book store in philadelphia. maybe they speak to those issues. i'm hopefully gonna be able to sit down and watch this thing within a few days. if they talk about whether cheney can be included in the impeachment process i'll get back...

[lotech]

Does it say whether a Prez & a VP can be impeached simultaneously? Otherwise, as each villain is impeached and falls, another will take his or her place, since there appears to be a glut of villains just at the moment.

And what's supposed to happen, according to the constitution, if there is suddenly neither Prez nor VP - for example if they arer both assassinated at the same time, or impeached at the same time?

MG

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

Order of Presidential Succession
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore1 was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

In 1886, however, Congress changed the order of presidential succession, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers. Proponents of this change argued that the congressional leaders lacked executive experience, and none had served as president, while six former secretaries of state had later been elected to that office.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order again to what it is today. The cabinet members are ordered in the line of succession according to the date their offices were established.

Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Vacant
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff
NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.
1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.
2. Carlos Gutierrez was born in Cuba and is ineligible.
3. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and is ineligible.
4. In late July 2005, the Senate passed a bill moving the Homeland Security secretary to number 8 on the list. The bill is awaiting House approval.

[thedwork]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

thanks lotech! i'm still curious about the other question from magnificent goldberg which i assume is more difficult to answer (if there's an answer at all...). my guess is that there is no precedent and that the specific situation was not considered in the constitution. but again, i don't know. still haven't had a chance to watch that program...

[the magnificent goldberg]

Thanks Lotech!

So, if the Dems get a majority, I assume the Speaker of the House would be a Dem. Therefore, if Bush and Cheney were impeached simultaneously, the next in line would be a Dem - without an election!

MG

[Coolguy]

Thanks Lotech!

So, if the Dems get a majority, I assume the Speaker of the House would be a Dem. Therefore, if Bush and Cheney were impeached simultaneously, the next in line would be a Dem - without an election!

MG

That, old chap, is the liberals' hottest wet dream. Not only won't it ever happen, but the Democrats who took power would find some way to screw it up.

Remember also--impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The House votes to impeach, then the Senate votes whether to throw the bum(s) out.

But maybe if we can coax Monica out of retirement, buy her a bottle of mouthwash and a new black dress, and send her back to the White House, we can create a scenario where impeachment might be more likely than
mere misdeeds such as lying to get a country into war, torturing prisoners, ignoring the dying demands of people trapped in a hurricane, and shredding the Constitution.

If we had a Parliament like you guys do, this shabby government might have toppled years ago!

[Saundra Hummer]

That, old chap, is the liberals' hottest wet dream. Not only won't it ever happen, but the Democrats who took power would find some way to screw it up.

Remember also--impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The House votes to impeach, then the Senate votes whether to throw the bum(s) out.

But maybe if we can coax Monica out of retirement, buy her a bottle of mouthwash and a new black dress, and send her back to the White House, we can create a scenario where impeachment might be more likely than
mere misdeeds such as lying to get a country into war, torturing prisoners, ignoring the dying demands of people trapped in a hurricane, and shredding the Constitution.

If we had a Parliament like you guys do, this shabby government might have toppled years ago!

Impeachment is an arduous process. Could it be that no one wants to have to go through such an ordeal themselves, by putting together all of the information, and spending the time it will take on the whole process?

It makes no sense to a lot of us out here in the real world as to why this administration has been allowed to flaunt their unbridled power as they have, and to, among other things, literally get away with murder.

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
HURRICANE EXPERT THREATENED FOR PRE-KATRINA WARNINGS

A Greg Palast special investigation for Democracy Now!

Monday, August 28. From New Orleans.

DON'T blame the Lady. Katrina killed no one in this town. In fact, Katrina missed the city completely, going wide to the east.

It wasn't the hurricane that drowned, suffocated, de-hydrated and starved 1,500 people that week. The killing was done by a deadly duo: a failed emergency evacuation plan combined with faulty levees. Behind these twin failures lies a tale of cronyism, profiteering and willful incompetence that takes us right to the steps of the White House.

Here's the story you haven't been told. And the man who revealed it to me, Dr. Ivor van Heerden, is putting his job on the line to tell it.

Van Heerden isn't the typical whistleblower I usually deal with. This is no minor player. He's the Deputy Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center. He's the top banana in the field -- no one knew more about how to save New Orleans from a hurricane's devastation. And no one was a bigger target of an official and corporate campaign to bury the information.

Here's what happened. Right after Katrina swamped the city, I called Washington to get a copy of the evacuation plan.

Funny thing about the murderously failed plan for the evacuation of New Orleans: no one can find it. That's right. It's missing. Maybe it got wet and sank in the flood. Whatever: no one can find it.

That's real bad. Here's the key thing about a successful emergency evacuation plan: you have to have copies of it. Lots of copies -- in fire houses and in hospitals and in the hands of every first responder. Secret evacuation plans don't work.

I know, I worked on the hurricane evacuation plan for Long Island New York, an elaborate multi-volume dossier.

Specifically, I'm talking about the plan that was written, or supposed to have been written two years ago by a company called, "Innovative Emergency Management."

Weird thing about IEM, their founder Madhu Beriwal, had no known experience in hurricane evacuations. She did, however, have a lot of experience in donating to Republicans.

IEM and FEMA did begin a draft of a plan. The plan was that, when a hurricane hit, everyone in the Crescent City would simply get the hell out in their cars. Apparently, the IEM/FEMA crew didn't know that 127,000 people in the city didn't have cars. But Dr. van Heerden knew that. It was his calculation. LSU knew where these no-car people were -- they mapped it -- and how to get them out.

Dr. van Heerden offered this life-saving info to FEMA. They wouldn't touch it. Then, a state official told him to shut up, back off or there would be consequences for van Heerden's position. This official now works for IEM.

So I asked him what happened as a result of making no plans for those without wheels, a lot of them elderly and most of them poor.

"Fifteen-hundred of them drowned. That's the bottom line." The professor, who'd been talking to me in technicalities, changed to a somber tone. "They're still finding corpses."

Van Heerden is supposed to keep his mouth shut. He won't. The deaths weigh on him. "I wasn't going to listen to those sort of threats, to let them shut me down."

Van Heerden had other disturbing news. The Hurricane Center's computer models showed the federal government had built the levees around the city a foot-and-a-half too short.

After Katrina, the Hurricane Center analyzed the flooding and found that, had the levees had just that extra 18 inches, they would have been "overtopped" for only an hour and a half, not four hours. In that case, the levees would have held, and the city would have been saved.

He had taken the warning about the levees all the way to George Bush's doorstep. "I myself briefed senior officials including somebody from the White House." The response: the university's trustees threatened his job.

While in Baton Rouge, I dropped in on the headquarters of IEM, the evacuation contractors. The assistant to the CEO insisted they had "a lot of experience with evacuation" -- but couldn't name a single city they'd planned for when they got the Big Easy contract. And still, they couldn't produce the plan.

An IEM press release in June 2004 boasted legendary expert James Lee Witt as a member of their team. That was impressive. It was also a lie. In fact, Witt had nothing to do with it. When I asked IEM point blank if Witt's name was used as a fraudulent hook to get the contract, their spokeswoman said, weirdly, "We'll get back to you on that."

Back at LSU, van Heerden astonished me with the most serious charge of all. While showing me huge maps of the flooding, he told me the White House had withheld the information that, in fact, the levees were about to burst and by Tuesday at dawn the city, and more than a thousand people, would drown.

Van Heerden said, "FEMA knew on Monday at 11 o'clock that the levees had breached… They took video. By midnight on Monday the White House knew. But none of us knew ...I was at the State Emergency Operations Center." Because the hurricane had missed the city that Monday night, evacuation effectively stopped, assuming the city had survived.

It's been a full year now, and 73,000 New Orleanians remain in FEMA trailers and another 200,000, more than half the city's former residents, remain in temporary refuges. "The City That Care Forgot" -- that's their official slogan -- lost a higher percentage of homes than Berlin lost in World War II. It would be more accurate to call it, "The City That Bush Forgot."

Should they come home? Rebuild? Is it safe? Team Bush assures them there's nothing to worry about: FEMA won't respond to van Heerden's revelations. However, the Bush Administration has hired a consulting firm to fix the failed evacuation plan. The contractor? A Baton Rouge company named "Innovative Emergency Management." IEM.
******
Watch this special investigative report about Katrina on Democracy Now!http://www.democracynow.org/ this morning or hear it on your local Pacifica or NPR station. You can also download it at DemocracyNow.org.

And catch the one-hour special report, "Who Drowned New Orleans?" on LinkTV,http://www.linktv.com/ with Greg Palast in New Orleans plus an exclusive interview with Amy Goodman. (Get it on Direct TV channel 375 and Dish TV channel 9410. Or check your cable listing at LinkTV.com.)

And for more on IEM and Katrina, read Greg Palast's new NYT bestseller: "Armed Madhouse" (Penguin 2006). http://www.gregpalast.com

A Jacquie Soohen BigNoise Films Production, produced by Matt Pascarella.

And very, very, special thanks to our Associate Producers on this particular story -- without their generosity and financial support this report would not have been possible. ******

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." : Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950

[I]~~~

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations [...] evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.": - Thomas Jefferson, US Declaration of Independence

~~~

"The United States is the most powerful among the technically advanced countries in the world today. Its' influence on the shaping of international relations is absolutely incalculable. But America is a large country, and its people have so far not shown much interest in great international problems, among which the problem of disarmament occupies first place today.

This must be changed, if only in America's own interest. The last war has shown that there are no longer any barriers between the continents and that the destinies of all countries are closely interwoven. The people of this country must realize that they have a great responsibility in the sphere of international politics. The part of passive spectator is unworthy of this country and is bound in the end to lead to disaster all round.": Albert Einstein, from an interview in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 1921

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
An Election-Year Virus
De-bunked again and again, a false e-mail keeps circulating claiming members of Congress don't pay Social Security taxes.

August 28, 2006

Summary
This election-year bunk has been going around so long that it cites as an example a "Congressman White" who left office in 1983 and died in 1998.

It claims: "Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it." That's false on both counts. House and Senate members have paid into the Social Security system since January 1984, and collect benefits when they become eligible.

It also claims members of Congress have a lavish pension system that costs them nothing. That's also false. Members of Congress are in the same pension system as all other federal employees, and they pay accordingly.

The e-mail urges those who receive it to forward it to "everyone in your address book." And that's what any number of people do, spreading this falsehood like a virus from one email inbox to another.

We suspect this won't be the last false e-mail to spread during this election season. See our "related articles" below for examples of some nasty falsehoods that went around in 2004.

Analysis
We can't be sure whether this is a silly hoax begun by a malicious prankster, or just a well-intentioned mistake perpetuated out of ignorance and gullibility. But even though it's easily shown to be false it is spreading once again, showing how readily lies travel via the Internet and how difficult they are to eradicate.

A Viral Falsehood: Excerpts
(Read full, formatted version)

Social Security- 2008

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
(edit)

This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society . They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00 . NADA..! .ZILCH...
(edit)
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to?

Dear Subscriber

This version – updated for 2006 with garish, screaming colors and typefaces – was forwarded to us by a subscriber who said "If this is TRUE, I will send it to everyone I know." Dear subscriber: It isn't. Please don't. Thanks for giving us another shot at this howler.

We de-bunked an earlier version of this e-mail in early 2004, and showed how anyone with Internet access could easily check it out for themselves. And we were by no means the only ones, or the first.

•The Social Security Administration says it's false, and puts it number five on their list of frequently asked questions.

•The Secretary of the Senate also says it's false.

•The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress, describes the facts about the Congressional pension system in a report that anyone could download.

•Anyone with an Internet connection also could quickly summon up articles de-bunking earlier versions of this e-mail at sites such as Snopes.com,About.com, and TruthOrFiction.com , websites devoted to de-bunking hoaxes and fairy tales that circulate on the Internet, and which we've found to be generally reliable. In fact, when we searched for "members of congress don't pay social security" on Google, those were the first three results that popped up. So it is actually no more trouble to check the accuracy of e-mails like this than it is to spread such falsehoods to friends and relatives.

Stale Information: White

To appreciate how poorly researched and out of date this e-mail is, consider its claim that "Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00" in pension. No source is given.

For one thing, there is nobody named White currently serving in the House, or the Senate , for that matter. The message no doubt refers to the late Rep. Richard Crawford White, a Texas Democrat who served in the House for 18 years, longer than any other House member named White in US history. He left office Jan. 3, 1983, a year before the pension system changed. That may give a clue to how long this bogus message has been circulated by persons who don't bother to check. White died in 1998. Snopes.com dates the first appearance of this message on the Internet at April, 2000, making us think that this may have originated as a copy of a printed chain letter or printed screed that was later copied unchanged into the more easily transmitted e-mail form.

Stale Information: Byrd & Bradley

As for Sen. Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, he seems to have little wish to collect any pension at all. He's running for re-election this year at the age of 88, and if re-elected will turn 89 before starting another six-year term in January.

Under law Byrd's pension can't exceed 80 per cent of his salary which is currently $165,200 per year. Should voters force him to retire involuntarily in January, we figure he couldn't draw more than $132,160 to start. Any male reaching age 89 can expect to live, on average, just under four more years, according to the Social Security Administration's most recent actuarial table. So Byrd could expect to draw perhaps a little over half a million dollars in pension if voters force him to retire in January, not the multi-million-dollar figure this e-mail claims.

If voters return him to office, and if he beats the odds and survives the full term, he would be 95 before collecting a pension, at which point the average life expectancy would be another 2-1/2 years. And contrary to this e-mail's claim, Byrd's wife of nearly 69 years, Erma, will draw nothing. She died March 25, 2006.

Another red flag that should make anyone pause before relaying this message is that it also rails against benefits for Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey. He hasn't been a senator since leaving office in 1997 after 18 years in office. As many will recall, he ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for president in 2000.

More to come?

We have little doubt that we'll be seeing more of these viral falsehoods as Election Day approaches. The Internet has made it possible for false rumors to spread faster, more widely and in far greater detail than the old-fashioned "whispering campaign," which relied on one person telling another.

For example, one viral email claimed that President Bush was quietly lobbying Congress to authorize reviving the military draft. Others accused Democratic candidate John Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz Kerry of giving millions to "radical" groups, some linked to terrorists, and of being responsible for locating Heinz factories overseas. All were false. See "related articles" below.

When the next one shows up in your inbox, we advise pausing to check it out before forwarding it.

-by Brooks Jackson


Sources
Patrick J. Purcell, "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress: 21 Jan. 2005.
The Senate Historical Office and the Legislative Resource Center of the House of Representatives, Biographical Directory of the US Congress, online edition , searched Aug. 27, 2005.

A newsletter from:

http://www.factcheck.org

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” :
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

~~~

"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy" : John Pierpont Morgan

~~~

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." :
Thomas Jefferson

~~~

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 - (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw - (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

~~~

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." : Franklin D. Roosevelt

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Withdrawal Symptoms
Quitting Iraq won't undo the real damage of the war.

James K. Galbraith
March/April 2006 Issue

IN NOVEMBER 2004, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez came to a luncheon at my professional home, the LBJ School of Public Affairs. I attended and asked some inconvenient questions. It was an inconsequential exchange, but two weeks later I received a surprising invitation: Would I fly to Germany in February and speak to the leadership of the Army V Corps about the operational conditions of Iraq? I have no military experience, and have never been to Iraq, while many in my audience—mostly generals and colonels—had spent over a year there. But of course I went. My unstated assignment was to say some inconvenient things, which may have otherwise gone unsaid.

Inconvenience has since gone public, big time. Back in November, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) gave a breakthrough speech, describing the troops as “stretched thin”: “Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing.… Choices will have to be made.” At the same time, Murtha added, success in Iraq is very remote. “Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce.… And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year.… Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.”

For this, Cheney blasted him, but then it emerged that Murtha’s crime was tipping the administration’s own hand. It appears we are beginning a long, slow, painful retreat from Iraq.

But are we drawing the full and correct lessons from this disaster? Some former liberal hawks now take refuge in what Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias call “the incompetence dodge”: that things would have turned out okay if only the neocon cabal were not in charge. Such libhawks would withdraw U.S. forces only to use them again, in another (but, of course, more justified and better planned) war. And that would mean a bigger war, with a bigger force on the ground, and a much bigger budget to support it.

But the reality is that the Iraq war could not be won by a force of any size or by an expenditure of any amount. Against determined opposition, occupations in the modern world cannot prevail. They haven’t for more than 60 years. The reason is that the basic economics of warfare have changed. Here are six reasons I gave to the officers in Germany—a pure exercise in stating what they already knew.

Sixty years ago the then-colonial world was mostly rural; today it consists of enormous cities. These urban jungles of concrete provide vast advantages—concealment, fortification, communication, intelligence—to the defender. In cities, troops on patrol are isolated and exposed; their location is always known, while that of the enemy is not. More patrols mean more targets. The superior firepower of the occupiers just means that a lot more innocent people get hurt.

So does the “crude” weaponry of insurgents. Car bombs, booby traps, and suicide belts are cheap and effective. Detonated by radio or wire from within a nearby building, roadside bombs equalize the insurgent and the invader. Detonated by fanatics, suicide bombs are extremely difficult to stop. Shaped explosives, which have started to appear in Iraq, are able to burn right through armor plate. To prevent these attacks means emphasizing force protection; this gets in the way of everything else.

The violence in Iraq is horrific, but it’s the media that makes it intolerable. Indeed, the violence is horrific only by modern standards. To truly cow a colonial population (as in British India in 1857, or on the American plains in the late 19th century) requires mass murder on a far larger scale. The presence of the media makes this most inconvenient. As we demonstrated at Fallujah, the sure way to subdue a hostile city is to destroy it. But that’s no way to win a political war back home—or hearts and minds in Iraq.

Jet travel is a military mixed blessing. Today’s army works on rotations; soldiers are deployed for about a year and then (in principle at least) they come home. When that happens, local liaisons and intelligence relationships must be rebuilt. On the other hand, if soldiers are denied the right to rotate home, their morale is going to suffer far more than in the old days when there was no such expectation. Email and blogs make sure that morale problems get home fast when the soldiers do not.

As if that were not enough, war today cannot escape the free market. When we invaded Iraq, the borders collapsed and import restrictions were eliminated. Imports surged, notably of electrical appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators. By the time the electricity supply was rebuilt, demand had skyrocketed, and the power could run for only a few hours a day. Without control over electrical demand, the reconstruction effort was crippled, and the Americans couldn’t win the Iraqi people’s respect and support. They were expecting miracles, after all, and they didn’t get them.

Finally, there has been a fundamental change of expectations: call it the presumption of independence. The British may have believed that their empire would always be the “dread and envy of them all,” but today no one believes the American presence in Iraq can endure over the long term. So unless you are in a safe zone (like Kurdistan) or part of an exiled elite with a posh flat in London, it does not pay to cuddle up to the occupying power. The retribution could be most unpleasant.

These are now the fundamental facts of wars of occupation. They tell us that foreign military power cannot long prevail over the territory of a people—in this case, the Sunnis of central Iraq—who are prepared to resist it to the death. This does not necessarily mean that the new Iraq will collapse when we leave. But if we cannot defeat the insurgency, then the insurgents will have to be accommodated, somehow, politically. Or else we leave the country to fight it out even more brutally in our absence.

We should have known we’d face this situation. In tiny East Timor, a ragtag band of resisters harried the Indonesian army for more than 25 years; that band (splendid people, by the way) now runs the world’s newest independent state. In Afghanistan, U.S.-assisted guerrillas drove out the Red army; their successors now make most of the country ungovernable. In Chechnya, the country has been destroyed but the rebellion hasn’t been subdued. And then there was Vietnam.

During the Cold War, we ringed the world with bases—but always in alliance with existing governments that were legitimate, at least up to a point. One may disapprove of the regimes we supported, but this model for the projection of military power works. It is called “containment.” It works as long as the host regimes remain viable and as long as the military power it projects isn’t tested in actual combat. When these conditions failed—in Iran, in the Philippines, in Vietnam—so did the strategy.

The successful use of military power—as Mao Zedong understood when he called America a “paper tiger”—entails a large element of bluff. Vietnam deflated the image that American power could never be challenged. To some extent, the Gulf War of 1991 restored that image, but the restoration was achieved by the limited aims and quick termination of that war. The Clinton successes in the Balkans came in part because all sides bought this lesson of the Gulf War. (With Serbia, the bluff came close to being called again; the Kosovo bombing campaign took 80 days and Russian diplomacy rescued us in the end.)

But now Iraq has once again exposed what military power cannot achieve, short of nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea have taken notice. Meanwhile, our friends, the Europeans and the Japanese, must be asking themselves: Exactly what sort of security does the American alliance buy, and at what price?

Bush and Cheney have done more than merely bungle a war and damage the Army. They have destroyed the foundation of the post-Cold War world security system, which was the accepted authority of American military power. That reputation is now gone. It cannot be restored simply by retreating from Iraq. This does not mean that every ongoing alliance will now collapse. But they are all more vulnerable than they were before, and once we leave central Iraq, they will be weaker still. As these paper tigers start to blow in the wind, so too will America’s economic security erode.

From this point of view, the fuss over whether we were misled into war—Is the sky blue? Is the grass green?—stands in the way of a deeper debate that should start quite soon and ask this question: Now that Bush and Cheney have screwed up the only successful known model for world security under our leadership, what the devil do we do?

James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He previously served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.. . . . . . . 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/commentary/columns/2006/03/withdrawal_symptoms.html
. . . . . . .

[the magnificent goldberg]

.............
Withdrawal Symptoms
Quitting Iraq won't undo the real damage of the war.

James K. Galbraith
March/April 2006 Issue

IN NOVEMBER 2004, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez came to a luncheon at my professional home, the LBJ School of Public Affairs. I attended and asked some inconvenient questions. It was an inconsequential exchange, but two weeks later I received a surprising invitation: Would I fly to Germany in February and speak to the leadership of the Army V Corps about the operational conditions of Iraq? I have no military experience, and have never been to Iraq, while many in my audience—mostly generals and colonels—had spent over a year there. But of course I went. My unstated assignment was to say some inconvenient things, which may have otherwise gone unsaid.

Inconvenience has since gone public, big time. Back in November, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) gave a breakthrough speech, describing the troops as “stretched thin”: “Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing.… Choices will have to be made.” At the same time, Murtha added, success in Iraq is very remote. “Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce.… And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year.… Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.”

For this, Cheney blasted him, but then it emerged that Murtha’s crime was tipping the administration’s own hand. It appears we are beginning a long, slow, painful retreat from Iraq.

But are we drawing the full and correct lessons from this disaster? Some former liberal hawks now take refuge in what Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias call “the incompetence dodge”: that things would have turned out okay if only the neocon cabal were not in charge. Such libhawks would withdraw U.S. forces only to use them again, in another (but, of course, more justified and better planned) war. And that would mean a bigger war, with a bigger force on the ground, and a much bigger budget to support it.

But the reality is that the Iraq war could not be won by a force of any size or by an expenditure of any amount. Against determined opposition, occupations in the modern world cannot prevail. They haven’t for more than 60 years. The reason is that the basic economics of warfare have changed. Here are six reasons I gave to the officers in Germany—a pure exercise in stating what they already knew.

Sixty years ago the then-colonial world was mostly rural; today it consists of enormous cities. These urban jungles of concrete provide vast advantages—concealment, fortification, communication, intelligence—to the defender. In cities, troops on patrol are isolated and exposed; their location is always known, while that of the enemy is not. More patrols mean more targets. The superior firepower of the occupiers just means that a lot more innocent people get hurt.

So does the “crude” weaponry of insurgents. Car bombs, booby traps, and suicide belts are cheap and effective. Detonated by radio or wire from within a nearby building, roadside bombs equalize the insurgent and the invader. Detonated by fanatics, suicide bombs are extremely difficult to stop. Shaped explosives, which have started to appear in Iraq, are able to burn right through armor plate. To prevent these attacks means emphasizing force protection; this gets in the way of everything else.

The violence in Iraq is horrific, but it’s the media that makes it intolerable. Indeed, the violence is horrific only by modern standards. To truly cow a colonial population (as in British India in 1857, or on the American plains in the late 19th century) requires mass murder on a far larger scale. The presence of the media makes this most inconvenient. As we demonstrated at Fallujah, the sure way to subdue a hostile city is to destroy it. But that’s no way to win a political war back home—or hearts and minds in Iraq.

Jet travel is a military mixed blessing. Today’s army works on rotations; soldiers are deployed for about a year and then (in principle at least) they come home. When that happens, local liaisons and intelligence relationships must be rebuilt. On the other hand, if soldiers are denied the right to rotate home, their morale is going to suffer far more than in the old days when there was no such expectation. Email and blogs make sure that morale problems get home fast when the soldiers do not.

As if that were not enough, war today cannot escape the free market. When we invaded Iraq, the borders collapsed and import restrictions were eliminated. Imports surged, notably of electrical appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators. By the time the electricity supply was rebuilt, demand had skyrocketed, and the power could run for only a few hours a day. Without control over electrical demand, the reconstruction effort was crippled, and the Americans couldn’t win the Iraqi people’s respect and support. They were expecting miracles, after all, and they didn’t get them.

Finally, there has been a fundamental change of expectations: call it the presumption of independence. The British may have believed that their empire would always be the “dread and envy of them all,” but today no one believes the American presence in Iraq can endure over the long term. So unless you are in a safe zone (like Kurdistan) or part of an exiled elite with a posh flat in London, it does not pay to cuddle up to the occupying power. The retribution could be most unpleasant.

These are now the fundamental facts of wars of occupation. They tell us that foreign military power cannot long prevail over the territory of a people—in this case, the Sunnis of central Iraq—who are prepared to resist it to the death. This does not necessarily mean that the new Iraq will collapse when we leave. But if we cannot defeat the insurgency, then the insurgents will have to be accommodated, somehow, politically. Or else we leave the country to fight it out even more brutally in our absence.

We should have known we’d face this situation. In tiny East Timor, a ragtag band of resisters harried the Indonesian army for more than 25 years; that band (splendid people, by the way) now runs the world’s newest independent state. In Afghanistan, U.S.-assisted guerrillas drove out the Red army; their successors now make most of the country ungovernable. In Chechnya, the country has been destroyed but the rebellion hasn’t been subdued. And then there was Vietnam.

During the Cold War, we ringed the world with bases—but always in alliance with existing governments that were legitimate, at least up to a point. One may disapprove of the regimes we supported, but this model for the projection of military power works. It is called “containment.” It works as long as the host regimes remain viable and as long as the military power it projects isn’t tested in actual combat. When these conditions failed—in Iran, in the Philippines, in Vietnam—so did the strategy.

The successful use of military power—as Mao Zedong understood when he called America a “paper tiger”—entails a large element of bluff. Vietnam deflated the image that American power could never be challenged. To some extent, the Gulf War of 1991 restored that image, but the restoration was achieved by the limited aims and quick termination of that war. The Clinton successes in the Balkans came in part because all sides bought this lesson of the Gulf War. (With Serbia, the bluff came close to being called again; the Kosovo bombing campaign took 80 days and Russian diplomacy rescued us in the end.)

But now Iraq has once again exposed what military power cannot achieve, short of nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea have taken notice. Meanwhile, our friends, the Europeans and the Japanese, must be asking themselves: Exactly what sort of security does the American alliance buy, and at what price?

Bush and Cheney have done more than merely bungle a war and damage the Army. They have destroyed the foundation of the post-Cold War world security system, which was the accepted authority of American military power. That reputation is now gone. It cannot be restored simply by retreating from Iraq. This does not mean that every ongoing alliance will now collapse. But they are all more vulnerable than they were before, and once we leave central Iraq, they will be weaker still. As these paper tigers start to blow in the wind, so too will America’s economic security erode.

From this point of view, the fuss over whether we were misled into war—Is the sky blue? Is the grass green?—stands in the way of a deeper debate that should start quite soon and ask this question: Now that Bush and Cheney have screwed up the only successful known model for world security under our leadership, what the devil do we do?

James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He previously served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.. . . . . . . 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/commentary/columns/2006/03/withdrawal_symptoms.html
. . . . . . .

My hero!

Thanks for posting this. JKG as ever talks uncomfortable sense.

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

You're more than welcome!

[Saundra Hummer]

The DNA isn't a match.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
SRH

-- Boulder, Colorado, D.A. drops charges against John Mark Karr
in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, according to Karr's attorney.
.........

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Terrorism & Security
posted August 29, 2006 at 12:30 p.m.
Has the Bush doctrine failed?
Analysts say conflicts in the Middle East have halted aggressive US policy, and may hint at end of West's military superiority.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

When President Bush unveiled "the Bush Doctrine" in a speech on June 1, 2002, to the graduating class at West Point, it was seen as providing a framework for US foreign policy for years to come. According to Wikipedia, the Bush doctrine "outlined a broad new phase in US policy that would place greater emphasis on military pre-emptive, military superiority ('strength beyond challenge'), unilateral action, and a commitment to 'extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions.'"

Four years later, the San Francisco Chronicle reports in a news analysis piece that many analysts "across the political spectrum" believe the doctrine has failed — rendered obsolete by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States may find it hard, if not impossible, the analysts say, to again try in the near future to topple a hostile regime. Its military is stretched, its moral standing diminished. Even democracy itself is tarnished, often equated now with car bombs and chaos, rather than peace and prosperity.

"The kind of thing people in the administration prided themselves in understanding, namely the use of power, was actually the very thing they proved not to be able to use effectively," said David Holloway of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, which conducts research and training on issues of international security
But the Chronicle also reports that neither the Democrats nor the "foreign policy elite" have devised an effective alternative for the US in a post-9/11 world. The result is a US foreign policy "adrift."

"We're losing" in Iraq, said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supported the war. "The country is sliding into civil war, and the president doesn't seem to be doing very much about it. That has tremendous negative repercussions throughout the region and indeed the world, because it's really a black eye for the United States and a blow to democracy advocates around the region."

In a piece for the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Phllip H. Gordon, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, writes that while the administration's foreign policy rhetoric hasn't changed, its actual policies have. The Bush doctrine, he writes, has "run up against reality" and can't be sustained. And the return to a more realistic foreign policy, he says, should be "locked in."

The reversal of the Bush revolution is a good thing. By overreaching in Iraq, alienating important allies, and allowing the war on terrorism to overshadow all other national priorities, Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests.

It is not too late to put US foreign policy back on a more sustainable course, and Bush has already begun to do so. But these new, mostly positive trends are no less reversible than the old ones were. Another terrorist attack on the United States, a major challenge from Iran, or a fresh burst of misplaced optimism about Iraq could entice the administration to return to its revolutionary course -- with potentially disastrous consequences.

Coming at the issue from a different angle in July, Andrew C. McCarthy asked in National Review Online "Whither the Bush doctrine?," in regards to the administration's approach to dealings with Iran. "The nuclear negotiations with Iran: All carrot, no stick — and no mention of terror." This, McCarthy writes, is directly contrary to the idea of the Bush doctrine that the US would "make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them."

Not all analysts agree, however, that the Bush Doctrine had failed. In a lengthy piece for Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement, argues that President Bush has not abandoned the principles of the doctrine, nor has it failed in Iraq.

I must confess to being puzzled by the amazing spread of the idea that the Bush Doctrine has indeed failed the test of Iraq. After all, Iraq has been liberated from one of the worst tyrants in the Middle East; three elections have been held; a decent constitution has been written; a government is in place; and previously unimaginable liberties are being enjoyed. By what bizarre calculus does all this add up to failure? And by what even stranger logic is failure to be read into the fact that the forces opposed to democratization are fighting back with all their might?

Surely what makes more sense is the opposite interpretation of the terrible violence being perpetrated by the terrorists of the so-called "insurgency": that it is in itself a tribute to the enormous strides that have been made in democratizing the country. If this murderous collection of diehard Sunni Baathists and vengeful Shiite militias, together with their allies inside the government, agreed that democratization had already failed, would they be waging so desperate a campaign to defeat it? And if democratization in Iraq posed no threat to the other despotisms in the region, would those regimes be sending jihadists and material support to the "insurgency" there?

But other analysts say that it's not just the Bush doctrine that is in trouble, but the whole idea of Western military dominance. Writing Sunday in The Boston Globe, Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, argues that after the failure of the US and Israel to achieve decisive victories — in Iraq and Lebanon, respectively — it's time for a new strategy.

Despite a massive American and Israeli technological edge, including nuclear arsenals, mounting evidence suggests that the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end. Muslim radicals have evolved an Islamist way of war that is as complex as it is cunning. As a consequence, in and around the Persian Gulf the military balance is shifting. The failures suffered by the United States in Iraq and by Israel in southern Lebanon may well signify a turning point in modern military history, comparable in significance to the development of blitzkrieg in the 1930s or of the atomic bomb a decade later. Although the full implications of this shift are not clear, they promise to be huge, calling into question basic strategic assumptions that have held sway in the United States and Israel.
While this new "Islamist way of war" does not pose any existential threat to the US or its allies, Mr. Bacevich argues, it does have the ability to prevent conventional armies from achieving decisive results.

Resistance is a strategy not of conquest but of denial. Wars undertaken with the expectation that they will be short and conclusive -- on the model of the Six Day War or Operation Desert Storm -- instead become open-ended and inchoate. Politically, the Islamist way of war is demonstrating that the West can no longer impose its will on the Middle East. The inhabitants of that region now have options other than submission or collaboration. Both the United States and Israel must grapple with the implications of this fact. Predictably, the initial reaction of both is to look for ways of tipping the military balance back in the other direction.

Bacevich ends by offering a five-point alternative to the poor results of the quasi-permanent "war on terror," including an orderly exit from Iraq, a modified form of Cold War policies of containment and deterrence, a new Manhattan-style project to develop alternative forms of energy to free us from dependence on foreign oil, and nurturing of "liberalizing tendencies within the Islamic world, not by preaching or threats of regime change, but by demonstrating at home and inviting Muslims abroad to witness, the manifest advantages of freedom and democracy.".

Also...
Could this war produce a Sunni-Israeli alliance? (Ha'aretz)
Canadian woman to head major Muslim group (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
Nation's security depends on another war, too (Pasadena Star-News)
Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0829/dailyUpdate.html~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******Desperate Whistleblower Turns to YouTube
Engineer Accuses World's Biggest Defense Contrator of Jeopardizing National Security
By JONATHAN SILVERSTEIN, ABCNews.com
Updated: 12:27 PM EDT
(Aug. 30) -- "What I am going to tell you is going to seem preposterous and unbelievable."
YouTube.com
Michael De Kort, show here in his own YouTube.com video, claims Lockheed Martin knowingly failed to properly refit boats for the Coast Guard. He claims the camera surveillance on the ships is flawed and there are many blind spots in security.

Watch Video: 'Alarming Incompetence' (Go on-site to view - link follows article.


Those are a few of the first words of a video posted on YouTube by former Lockheed Martin engineer Michael De Kort, claiming that the defense contractor had built and the Coast Guard had accepted a number of boats that fall far short of government standards and leave our national security in question.

De Kort had tried going through the chain of command at Lockheed, and had contacted the government, the Coast Guard and various members of Congress, but no one seemed willing or able to help.

"YouTube was my last best shot -- I never wanted to do this publicly," he explained. "I had gone there to look at entertaining videos and saw that hundreds of thousands of people were visiting the site, and I thought that if there was something that was novel … maybe just the fact that I was doing it would be the story."

Entertaining videos are what YouTube is known for -- today the most-viewed video on the site is a clip from the 2006 Emmy awards, with more than 240,000 views.

And although De Kort's video has been viewed only a little more than 8,000 times since he posted it on Aug. 3, his story has appeared in print, on radio and TV -- further evidence that the Internet has given the average person a way to be heard.

'Criminal Negligence'

In De Kort's video, he makes scandalous accusations about Lockheed Martin's failure to properly refit boats as part of the government's Deepwater program, which works to update and lengthen the lives of ships already in the Coast Guard's fleet.

In the video, he claims that the ships' camera surveillance system, whose aim is to allow the ships to be monitored from shore and to prevent anyone from getting on one of the ships without being seen, had vast blind spots that the contractor was aware of.

He also claims that while the ships were to be fitted with technology that could withstand the elements, a little investigation showed that the equipment the contractor had ordered would not meet Coast Guard standards. De Kort said he was told to stop investigating the technology.

Finally, he argues that the communications system, which is supposed to be secured using shielded cable so no one can listen in or interfere with it, instead used unshielded cable. In some cases, he said, the contractor even replaced shielded cable already on the ships with unshielded cable.

Furthermore, De Kort told ABCNews.com that the vendor for the radios Lockheed Martin planned to use had told him they didn't work outside.

"These are Coast Guard guys who go out in bad weather all the time," he said. "I told them they can't have a boat where the primary means of communication doesn't work in the rain."

De Kort said all these issues were brought to the attention of his bosses at Lockheed Martin, but that his pleas fell on deaf ears.

"The situation needs to be dealt with," he said. "These things were not mistakes. They were done on purpose — not maliciously but for several reasons. We were over budget and the mistakes we were making were so glaring, I don't think they wanted anyone to know."

A Coast Guard representative said it was cooperating with a Department of Homeland Security investigation.

"He hasn't worked for the program since the spring of 2005, and some program personnel have been in contact with him … and obviously, he hasn't gotten the answer he's looking for, whatever that is," said Mary Elder, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard. "But I assure you, the Coast Guard would not operate its vessels in an unsafe manner."

Investigation or Coverup?

De Kort takes full credit for a Department of Homeland Security investigation that's been looking into the allegations since before he posted his video.

But he said he's been told by people at Homeland Security that the investigation has been regularly impeded by a lack of cooperation on the part of the Coast Guard.

Yet Elder maintains that the Coast Guard has provided the DHS inspector general's office with all the requested documentation and necessary access.

"The Deepwater office of the Coast Guard has cooperated fully with the office of the inspector general and has been working with them on this issue since February, and … we have provided them with over 100 different documents and access to various personnel and provided briefings to them to make sure that they have the information they need to complete the investigation," she explained.

Both the Coast Guard and Lockheed Martin maintain they have conducted internal investigations into De Kort's allegations, in addition to the ongoing Homeland Security investigation.

"Lockheed Martin has thoroughly investigated these allegations on several occasions and found them to be without merit," read a statement from Lockheed Martin. "In addition, Lockheed Martin has determined that the concerns do not pose safety or security issues."

Everybody's a Star on the Internet

De Kort acknowledges that his YouTube video was just a way to get his story out and into the eyes and ears of the public.

Because the Internet allows people the opportunity and, in some cases, the anonymity to say and do whatever they want, that freedom to be heard can be a double-edged sword.

But Noah Shachtman, editor in chief of DefenseTech.org, which monitors military happenings both at home and abroad, said it's necessary to ensure the public's ability to blow the whistle.

"I think it's never been easier for people to call BS on the shenanigans of their employers or their government," said Shachtman. "Whether it's soldiers from Abu Graib slipping out pictures and getting them to the press, or whether we're talking about bloggers reporting from the front lines. Digital media has really made it incredibly easy for people who want to get their message out and bring questionable practices to light."

Shachtman said there are many examples of these kinds of defense contract scandals, though he said he's unsure if this is one of those cases. He said the promise of digital media is fulfilled when people like Michael De Kort can be heard.

"There are plenty of honest people working at the nation's defense contractors, and there are a lot of very hardworking, very smart people," Shactman said. "Unfortunately, when there are abuses, it can be awfully difficult for someone to penetrate the corporate walls and the government walls that surround them."

Tell that to Michael De Kort -- if you can catch him in between interviews.

"They [the people] need to know the level of incompetence and the decisions that were being made," De Kort said. "Your ethics -- especially after 9/11 -- cannot be decisions of convenience -- they can't be decisions of economics."

8/30/06

Copyright 2006 ABCNEWS.com

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/desperate-whistleblower-turns-to/20060830071709990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?": Madeleine Albright, to General Colin Powell, as quoted in Powell's book
'My American Journey', 1995.

~~~
"The business of America is business": President Calvin Coolidge

~~~

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power.": President Franklin D. Roosevelt

~~~
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." : John Kenneth Galbraith
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
From Hype To Hysteria: Fox News Selling Preemptive War Against Iran
Tomorrow marks the deadline for Iran to comply with U.N. demands to suspend portions of its nuclear program. Fox is using the opportunity to sell another preemptive war.

Today Fox has aired multiple segments featuring pundits who claim that a U.S. military attack on Iran is both essential and imminent. Fox anchors repeatedly parrot these arguments. Watch a compilation of clips culled from the last several hours

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said recently that a military strike on Iran would be “disastrous, catastrophic,” and “would inflame the Middle East in ways we can’t imagine today.” A bipartisan group of national security experts agrees there are no good military options in Iran.

Digg It!:

Full transcript:

FOX ANCHOR: In a Washington Times article, Arnaud de Borchgrave writes, “Odds makers bet sometime before the end of his second term President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers.”
…
FOX ANCHOR]: Some though think a more hawkish approach is in order, suggesting that President Bush should order the military to hit targets in Iran sometime before he leaves office.
…
FOX ANCHOR: Do you see that as a possibility?
BILL KRISTOL: It sure is a possibility, Jon. And I think the President would hate to leave office with Iran well on its way to getting nuclear weapons (Don't forget that Bill Krystol is part and parcel of the PNAC, and "In Like Flynn" with those in control, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. So look out folks, it could be getting a lot worse and $2.00 a gallon gas could become a fond memory. SRH)
…
GEN. BURTON MOORE: It’s interesting that we’re discussing pre-emptive strike now as we get close to the deadline, which suggests that more and more people, particularly in conservative circles realize Iran’s not going to back down. The U.N. is not going to be able to enforce it and it will be up to the United States, perhaps Britain with some logistics support from perhaps France and of course Israel, will have to carry out a strike before Iran gets too far down the road here.
…
FOX ANCHOR: And could the Bush administration prepare to launch a massive air strike against Iran’s nuclear sites? This hour we will talk with one expert who says yes.
…
FOX ANCHOR: And I talked to a guest last hour who said military action could be imminent before Bush leaves office.
…
FOX ANCHOR: What about a pre-emptive strike on Iran? More and more reports on this now.

Yes, let’s do a war with Iran! But only if the US Fox News staff is in the first wave of the invasion forces, cleaning minefields by hand, with a toothpick as only tool.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — August 30, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
...
leading up the war in iraq, we were asked the question “are we safer with or without saddam”. the answer was revealed. The world and the middle east is a lot more chaotic place now since the war. Now we should ask ourselves the same question. If we can’t handle iraq, do you think we could add iran, a country much larger? could we handle more terrorists? can our tax dollars do more in iran and iraq than to help our own nations problems, ie. katrina, the unninsured, growing federal deficit, etc. are you willing to join the military in a draft? wouldnt we be better off if we shifted our attention towards terrorists? unlike the slogans for the iraq war, a war in iran will not pay for itself
Comment by g — August 30, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
...
The right wing will tell you the difference between us and them is that we are unwilling to defend our country with war and they are.
The truth is that we BOTH are willing to defend our country with war.
The difference is we just don’t CRAVE it like they do.
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
...
The truth is they LUST after it.
They WORSHIP it.
They THIRST for it. They thirst for blood.
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
...
Well, I must say the neo-cons are looking pretty desperate. As of yet, nobody’ is buying their hype about Iran, so they turn to Fox News, (once again), to do their dirty work. Let’s see if the sheeple will fall for this.
Comment by NMC — August 30, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
...
Poor jerk offs. They only get pleasure in their pathetic, little lives with some images of jets cruising the skies and waving flags, like any 7th inning. America is pathetic. Im sorry for the intelliget people here.
Comment by Juan C — August 30, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
...
Every single one of the Bush Cabal Cheerleaders who foment war on Iran should offer their services to the military right now. Then they need to go see how this works out for themselves. First hand. Live and in person. On the front lines.
With NeoCons, anything short of participating in killing people will only lead to more Chickenhawk leadership.
It’s always easy to tell someone else to go fight your Grand Wars. But it’s damned difficult to show up and do it in person. People run the risk of facing reality… which for NeoCons is more often than not WAY out of step with what rattles around in their little minds…
Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — August 30, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
...
To all our men and women in uniform and the civilians who should know better: I’ll understand and support you if you just say NO.
Comment by Udonnome — August 30, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
...
But for the small problem that, technically, according to the Constitution,
Bush cannot order an attack on Iran. But what the hell. Congress don’t seem to care much. War powers; whore showers. Let it rip.
Comment by bubba — August 30, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
...
As I’ve said before, the American public is growing immune to terror threats. We’ve seen too many of them turn out to be so much smoke and mirrors.
An interesting parallel exists in the natural world. The monarch butterfly is quite poisonous, and advertises this fact via its extraordinary color scheme. Predators know what the bright colors mean, and leave the monarchs alone.
The viceroy butterfly is so named because it sports a color scheme almost identical to the monarch’s. However, unlike the monarch, the viceroy butterfly is quite safe to eat. The viceroy counts on its false warning to bluff predators away.
After serving up the monarch of 9/11, the administration has followed with a long succession of viceroys, expecting us to react the way they desire us to on the basis of fear alone. For a while, this worked, but after terror threat after terror threat has been shown to be either a government entrapment scheme, a ridiculous exaggeration of a non-threat, or a outright hoax, we’re slowly figuring out that the orange and black butterflies are no threat at all.
In the natural world, organisms who mimic poisonous organisms evolve to look as much like the real McCoy as possible. This leads to a situation where there are as many frauds as originals, and a predator learns that any given mouthful may or may not be bad to eat. This undermines the effectiveness of the warning coloration of the original poisonous organism, so the evolutionary pressure on them is to evolve to look as unlike their imitators as possible.
The coloration of the administration’s terror threats is fast becoming meaningless. Faced with the knowledge that bluff is no longer effective, the administration will go beyond mere bluff to secure the currency of the terror threat.
In short, expect another butterfly soon. But this one won’t be a harmless viceroy, but a deadly monarch. The next ‘terrorist incident’ will cost lives. It’s the only way the neocons can revalue the terror threat.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 30, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
...
To bad that the strategy of the right wing is always to “shoot first and ask questions later”. What we need are people who are willing to use diplomatic solutions, but apparently diplomacy isn’t a word in George Bush’s very limited vocabulary. And, since he doesn’t understand the word, he is unable to use that approach. Stupid b*st*rd.
Comment by Willy — August 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
...
So we have a crazy person who denies science running our country and a crazy person who denies history running Iran, so why are we suprised that we have this mess? And I believe neither of them have more than 40% of their country behind them.
Comment by Elliot — August 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
...
Revolutions exploded in wiser leader’s countries…
Comment by Evil Spaniard — August 30, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
...
Draft all our fine Young Republicans, point to the map where Iran is (turn on Faux News so they know where to go) and send all those Johnny Keyboardists to the front lines (no, son, you can’t work for the Stars and Stripes either).
Comment by Schwede — August 30, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
...
Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them.
.And thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.-
.Mark Twain
.Chronicle of Young Satan
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
...
The world will be against America forever The minute the truth comes out that Iran only was after its right to generate elctricity after the first pictures of babies with legs blown off the world will not buy any American products and wipe their hands of you all
Comment by Tobey Tall — August 30, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
...
Hopefully, everyone here at least understands that Iran is nowhere near producing nuclear weapons.
.For those who know people who dispute this, here is a good analysis of the non-threat Iran poses to the civilized world.
.Rather than assume the administration is telling the truth until shown otherwise, I have found it to be a big time saver to simply assume they’re lying, until shown otherwise. I find that the practice of assuming everything the administration tells us is a lie has disturbingly accurate predictive value.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
...
The day the bombs begin to fall, the mullahs will join ranks with teenagers in the streets of Tehran. Dr. Ahmadinejad will become as politically immune from public criticism as Mr. Bush was on September 12, 2001.
.Iran’s program can be delayed a few years by bombing, but only at the price of solidifying Dr. Ahmadinejad’s rule in Iran and making him a regional symbol of Islamic defiance. In this non-elected office, he will replace Osama bin Laden. The difference is, Ahmadinejad is a legitimately elected President of a nation with a lot of oil.
. This is about oil, political power, currencies, and above all, legitimacy. It is about the ability of the United States to change regimes its way and then preserve these new regimes from replacement by domestic enemies.
. The United States and its client state regimes will be replaced in the Middle East. It is only a matter of time. If the United States bombs Iran, the timetable will speed up.
Comment by Tobey Tall — August 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
...
To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, ” Our country, right or wrong,” and urge on the little war.
. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?
. . Mark Twain
. . Glances at History
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
...
Well if Fox wants to start a war then maybe we should ask Fox how many of their employees would enlist in the US military to fight such a war.
Comment by Vincennes — August 30, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
...
Hopefully, everyone here at least understands that Iran is nowhere near producing nuclear weapons.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
...
Hopefully Trip. But unlikely.
. The right wing has a way of talking on future possibilities as if they are somehow present reaility.
. Not only do most people NOT realize that not only is Iran more than a decade away from any REAL nuclear capbility, but most people still think North Korea can hit the US with a TaiPoDong.
. They can’t.
. Idiot analysts on Fox took the range of the Tai Po Dong (around 2500 to 3000 miles) and decided it could reach the coast of Southern California by calculating Linear mileage. Of couse what these bozo’s DIDN’T do, was factor in that these were AIR MILES.

:|

..........Air Miles between LA and North Korea are about 6000 Air Miles.
..........TWICE as far as the Tai Po Dong can travel.

..........But that didn’t stop “security moms” all over the country from believing it.

...........And unfortunately, security moms vote.
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
...
PLEASE EVERYONE GO TO TODAY’S CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND AND THEIR LINK TO A JUNE ‘06 ARTICLE AT http://www.prospect.org/ web/ printfriendly-view.ww?id=11539 DETAILING THE LIES AND DECEPTION ALREADY IN PLACE REGARDING IRAN, BASED ON TWO IMPORTANT WHISTLEBLOWERS, WILKERSON (STATE) AND FLYNT LEVERITT (CIA). SEND THE LINK TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

Comment by Robert Olive — August 30, 2006 @ 2:35 pm ...
Of course if they would have been right.
. If the Tai Po Dong was a Torpedo.
Comment by WORFEUS — August 30, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
...
the administration is restricted by their own logic. by not acknowledging their self-imposed criteria for regime change (in which iraq and iran are mirror images) they reveal the inherent hypocrisy of what the US is trying to accomplish. attacking iran is almost a foregone conclusion at this point, because to the Republicans, not appearing wrong is worth any cost - in this case a staggering loss of lives.
Comment by chris — August 30, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
...
TripMaster Monkey! Thanks for the laugh!
“I have found it to be a big time saver to simply assume they’re lying, until shown otherwise”.
. I really needed that. Of course you may not have meant us to find humor in it. I guess it’s one of those things that you laugh to keep from crying. I have never seen such a bunch of liars in my entire life!
. We’re all going to have to help each other through these next few months. It’s already coming at us fast and furious!
. Attacking Iran is a really bad idea. The only ones who would enjoy it are the fools that have been saying, “Nuke Iran!” for years. Like that’s the answer.
Comment by Margaret — August 30, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
...
It’s not preemptive when there is nothing yet to preempt. It’s preventative. Preventing Iran from getting something from the endless list of claims.
. Pet peeve…
Comment by Geoff — August 30, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
...
Perhaps our military will call in an airstrike on Faux News.
Comment by yankeluh — August 30, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
...
#30
yankeluh,
They do have the practice in such raids.
Comment by dlet — August 30, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

Lot's more on-site, access this article and more by clicking on the following link:[/INDENT]
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/30/fox-selling-iran-war/

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Blogs about Katrina:
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Katrina
Standing in Jackson Square on Sept. 15, President Bush stated, “This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina” and promised to “get the work done quickly.” But on the eve of Katrina’s one year anniversary, here’s a look at the current state of New Orleans:
– Less than half of the city’s pre-storm population of 460,000 has returned, putting the population at roughly what it was in 1880.
– Nearly a third of the trash has yet to be picked up.
– Sixty percent of homes still lack electricity.
– Seventeen percent of the buses are operational.
– Half of the physicians have left, and there is a shortage of 1,000 nurses.
– Six of the nine hospitals remain closed.
– Sixty-six percent of public schools have reopened.
– A 40 percent hike in rental rates, disproportionately affecting black and low-income families.
– A 300 percent increase in the suicide rate.
Eighty-four percent of New Orleans residents rate the government’s recovery efforts negatively, while 66 percent believe the recovery money has been “mostly wasted.”

Digg It!

Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Amanda August 28, 2006 12:04 pm
Comment (65)

The Katrina Timeline
To mark the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the White House is planning a “public relations blitz” to counteract criticism that it bears some responsibility for “the government’s tardy response and the region’s slow recovery.” It started when the President met with a Katrina victim (later exposed as a right-wing political activist) who said, “I just wish the President could have another term in office.”

ThinkProgress is counteracting the spin with hard facts. We’ve created a Katrina timeline that documents all the key events over the last year — from the hurricane’s landing to today. Check it out HERE.

If there is something important we missed, let us know in the comments section or send us an email.

Digg It!

Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Think Progress August 25, 2006 10:34 am
Comment (68)

Bush Meets With Katrina Activist Who Wishes ‘The President Could Have Another Term In Office’ »
For the last several days, Katrina victim Rockey Vaccarella has been on television repeatedly requesting a meeting with President Bush so he could “thank him for what he has done.” This morning, Bush met with him. Standing with Bush, Vaccarella said, “I just wish the President could have another term in office.” Watch and learn what it takes to score a meeting with President Bush:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan — whose son died in Iraq — camped outside Bush’s ranch last summer, seeking to arrange a meeting with the President. But Bush disagreed with Sheehan’s message of bringing the troops home from Iraq and declined to meet with her.

Transcript of the video segments: expand post »

ROCKEY: When we have dinner with President Bush, all I want to do is first of all thank him. I want to thank him for what he’s done. [CNN, 8/19/06]

ROCKEY: You know, I want to thank the president. I am not going over there to throw any jabs or anything like that. President Bush did a lot for us. [CNN, 8/20/06]

ROCKEY: We are going to let the president know hey, thanks for everything you done, we know you are a busy man, and we feel safe with him as chief of our military. [CNN, 8/20/06]

ROCKEY: And when I talk to President Bush, I want to let him say, hey, you know what? There’s been enough mudslinging. And I just want to let him know that, you know, thank you for the FEMA trailer, thank you for what you have done. [CNN, 8/21/06]

ROCKEY: And, you know — you know, there’s been, you know, a lot of — a lot of negative publicity towards President Bush. And that’s not what we are about. [CNN, 8/21/06]

ROCKEY: And I just wish the President could have another term in office. You know, I wish you had another four years, man. If we had this President for another four years, I think it’d be great. But we’re gonna move on. Mr. President, it’s been my pleasure.
BUSH: You’re a good man, Rockey. Thank you all.
ROCKEY: You are too.
CNN: Well, if every meeting went like that, President Bush would meet everybody to come in and see him. [CNN, 8/23/06] « collapse postFiled under: Katrina, Iraq
Posted by Faiz August 23, 2006 12:56 pm
Permalink | Comment (139)

Bush’s Empty Promises: Katrina Victims Still Waiting For Homes To Be Rebuilt

On April 27, President Bush went to New Orleans for a photo-op and visited 74-year old Ethel Williams, whose house was badly damaged when Hurricane Katrina struck. Putting his arms around Williams, Bush promised that her house would be rebuilt:

Mrs. Williams has invited myself and the Mayor and the Governor and Congressman into her home which had been wiped out by the storm. And she went to Texas for a while and she made it clear to me she was glad to be out of Texas and back home. But the amazing thing that’s happened in her home is that there are people from across the country here who are helping to rebuild it.

But four months later, as NPR reports, “not much has happened.” Williams said, “[W]e all disappointed because nothing’s been done.”

Unfortunately, the rest of the New Orleans hasn’t fared much better. A recent report from the Brookings Institution found that rent prices have sharply increased over the past year, while unemployment rates remain higher than pre-Katrina levels. Crime levels are also up in certain districts, and 60% of houses and businesses are not receiving electricity. New Orleans’s current population is only at around half its pre-Katrina level.
– Rohan Mascarenhas
Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Guest August 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Permalink | Comment (121)

FEMA Abruptly Abandons Long-Term Recovery Office In New Orleans
On September 15, President Bush stood in downtown New Orleans and pledged, “Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.”
. Today, nearly eight months later, “Housing remains in very short supply, only a handful of public schools have reopened and many neighborhoods resemble ghost towns.” But according to WWL-TV, FEMA is choosing to abandon New Orleans anyway:
. The Federal Emergency Management Agency office charged with helping New Orleans devise a blueprint to rebuild destroyed houses, schools and neighborhoods after Hurricane Katrina is being closed and nearly all its workers reassigned. …
. FEMA says it’s closing the long-term recovery office because local officials have failed to begin planning the recovery adequately. …
. City officials are angered by the move, saying New Orleans is again being abandoned by the federal government. “We can’t plan on a paper napkin,” said New Orleans Deputy Mayor Greg Meffert.
. Two points emphasizing just how outrageous this move is:

1) FEMA was partly responsible for the delays in developing city plans. FEMA says it is leaving because it’s tired of waiting for a plan from city officials. But “[o]ne major hold-up was the late release of FEMA’s flood elevation advisories,” WWL reports, “which offer guidelines on how high homeowners should raise their homes to qualify for flood insurance.” The advisories were issued last week, months late.

2) FEMA had promised to fund city planning efforts. New Orleans officials say they need federal help to pay for the planning efforts, and the former director of the FEMA’s recovery office “made a verbal promise to city officials to fund the effort.” In fact, “[s]everal employees of the disbanded office agreed [that the city needs federal assistance], saying that at the beginning the office worked closely with city officials, helping implement their plans.” Now that promise has been broken.

Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Nico May 4, 2006 11:20 am
Permalink | Comment (41)

‘Katrina Kids’ Sing to Laura Bush: ‘Congress, Bush and FEMA…Have Come to Rebuild Us’
Today at the White House Easter Egg Roll, dozens of children “from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.” To the tune of “Hey Look Me Over,” the kids from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

“Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!”

Neither Congress, FEMA, nor President Bush should be proud of their response in the Gulf Coast. FEMA’s post-Katrina housing program has produced “vast sums of waste and misspent funds,” now likely to “top $1 billion and perhaps much more.” Despite President Bush’s pledge to build the levees “higher and better,” federal officials now say “there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.” And as even Newt Gingrich acknowledged this weekend, “it’s going to be really bad by September when we go back and have a one-year review and we realize how much of New Orleans is not fixed as of this coming September.”

It’s not yet clear who actually produced the song, but the mystery writer is definitely in the running for a Grammy.
Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Nico April 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Permalink | Comment (104)

Displaced Iraqis Have Better Voting Opportunities Than Displaced Katrina Victims
The upcoming New Orleans mayoral primary faces logistical problems because “tens of thousands of evacuees are still scattered across the country and eligible to cast ballots in the April 22 election, either by mail or at satellite polling places around the state.”

An estimated 75 percent of the New Orleans Parish’s displaced voters are African-American, and serious questions remain about how African-American voters will be adequately represented in the primary.

The NAACP estimates that “66 percent of those displaced are outside of Louisiana,” but a federal judge last month refused to “order Louisiana officials to provide out-of-state satellite polling places for displaced voters” in the primary. Instead, over 700,000 former city residents will receive “information packets” about how to vote by absentee ballot. (Worse, the address the city has on file may be unreliable.)

In response, local leaders have wondered why Iraqis living in the U.S. were given this right, yet African-Americans are not. “[Louisiana] had all kinds of excuses why that couldn’t happen,” New Orleans City Council President Oliver M. Thomas Jr. said. “But the Iraqi people voted [at satellite offices]. Why can’t we do that for all of our voters?“
Filed under: Katrina, Electoral Justice
Posted by Payson March 7, 2006 12:06 pm
Permalink | Comment (44)

McClellan Breaches Truth About Levee Failure
In today’s press briefing, a reporter challenges Bush’s assertion that there was no way to anticipate the levees breaching after Hurricane Katrina. McClellan’s response:
If you will recall, on August 29th, when the hurricane hit, and then it passed the New Orleans area, there were a number of reports, including media reports, saying that New Orleans had dodged the bullet, and there was some sense that the worst-case scenario did not happen. … We learned the next day — all of us learned — that, in fact, the levees had been breached and that there was a systemic failure in the levees. That was what was certain the next morning.
First, the media was not reporting that New Orleans had dodged a bullet. In fact, newspapers around the country were reporting on the “catastrophic” damage to the Gulf Coast.

Second, McClellan’s timeline is wrong. Katrina made landfall at 7 AM CDT on Aug. 29. As early as 7:30 AM CDT, the administration received word from New Orleans Homeland Security Director Col. Terry Ebbert that the levees in New Orleans had broken. By 11:13 AM CDT, the White House Homeland Security Council began circulating an internal memo called the “Katrina Spot Report,” reporting on the levee breach:

Flooding is significant throughout the region and a levee in New Orleans has reportedly been breached sending 6-8 feet of water throughout the 9th ward area of the city.

A total of 28 government agencies, including the White House, reported the levee breach on Aug. 29. Therefore, McClellan’s claim that the White House didn’t learn of the breach until Aug. 30 doesn’t hold water. Check out the right timeline here.
Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Amanda March 6, 2006 2:31 pm
Permalink | Comment (75)

Before Katrina Struck, Michael Brown Warned Bush ‘The Levees Could Actually Breach’
On September 1, two days after the storm hit, President Bush said “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.” Last night on CNN, former FEMA Director Michael Brown said he personally warned President Bush the levees could breach before the storm hit:

MESERVE: In the transcripts of the 29th briefing, you talk about conversations you had that morning with the president. This is the day of landfall…How did the president know to ask about breaches of the levees? Did he have reports in hand at that time already that that had happened in New Orleans?

BROWN: There’s no question in my mind he probably had those reports, because we were feeding in the Homeland Security Operations Center, into the White House sit room, all of the information that we were getting. So he had to have had that information. Plus, I think the president knew from our earlier conversations that that was one of my concerns, that the levees could actually breach.

The White House still maintains that Bush’s September 1 statement was accurate and the media continues to play along.
Filed under: Katrina
Posted by Judd March 3, 2006 10:47 am
Permalink | Comment (69)

Careless In Crawford: Catastrophes Gather While Bush Vacations »
A recently-released videotape shows Bush failed to respond to urgent warnings about Hurricane Katrina. The Washington Post describes the scene: “Bush was dialed into the conference Sunday at noon Eastern time from a meeting room at his ranch in Crawford.”

Though President Bush has famously spent a great deal of his presidency vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, the White House has always maintained that he is not distracted when he is down there.

MCCLELLAN: I don’t think the president of the United States ever gets a break. … I mean, it’s always been an opportunity for him to go home and spend some time at home. But it’s also a time when he continues to focus on the important priorities of the American people, when he continues to focus on fulfilling his responsibilities. [Press Briefing, 8/1/03]

Bush was warned about two of the most important, and catastrophic, events in his presidency — 9/11 and Katrina — while he vacationed in Crawford. And a comparison of the two events shows a disturbingly familiar pattern of Bush being distracted from his duty to protect the American people.

Bush Is Warned
9/11: “Bush told of threat before September 11”
KATRINA: “Video Shows Bush Being Warned on Katrina”
Bush Fails To Respond
9/11: “[T]he president had received an intelligence briefing — the contents of which were declassified by the White House Saturday night — warning ‘Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.’ But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday.”
KATRINA: “Bush did not ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured state officials: ‘We are fully prepared.’”
expand post »
After Catastrophe Occurs, White House Covers Up What It Knew
9/11: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,” said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.
KATRINA: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”
Truth Is Revealed
9/11: “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.”
KATRINA: “Video Contradicts Bush Katrina Statements”
« collapse post
Filed under: Katrina, Terrorism
Posted by Faiz March 2, 2006 2:12 pm
Permalink | Comment (97)

Media Sat On Katrina Video For 6 Months
A videotape of a briefing that occurred the day before Hurricane Katrina struck is blanketing television news. The coverage is appropriate; the tape proves that Bush and other top officials knew about the severity of the storm in advance and still were slow to respond.

What you won’t hear on TV is that the media have had this tape for six months but haven’t done anything with it. From the LA Times:

Department briefings are routinely recorded, said [Homeland Security spokesman Russ] Knocke, adding that Homeland Security does not know how Associated Press got the footage of the Aug. 28 briefing. It was also obtained that day or the day after by a network and a cable affiliate, but neither aired it, he said.

The contents of the tape are clearly newsworthy. Which media organizations obtained the tape and why wasn’t it aired?
Filed under: Katrina, Media
Posted by Judd March 2, 2006 11:40 am
Permalink | Comment (49)

Scarborough: Katrina Video ‘Won’t Hurt Bush So Much,’ Shows ‘Brownie Did A Heckuva Job’ »
Last night Joe Scarborough explained how “Bush-bashing bloggers and their allies in the press” are missing the real story from the new Katrina video. According to Scarborough, it’s a net positive for the Bush administration. Watch it:

Actually, what the tapes really show is that both Bush and Brown knew about Katrina’s potential devastation and still did nothing.

Full transcript below: expand post »

SCARBOROUGH: But first, Bush-bashing bloggers and their allies in the press. They’re already hyperventilating over the Katrina tapes. Or as one on this network breathlessly called them “The Bush tapes.” The Bush tapes! Just released today. Takes us all inside the President’s meetings with his top aides, the day before Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast.

[snip - Clip from Katrina video]

SCARBOROUGH: Now I’ve spent the past six months kicking the President squarely in the pants for his terrible reaction to Katrina. I suggest to my peers in the press breathe into a paper bag and take notes from one who was in the hurricane zone the day it hit and who sat through too many FEMA briefings the day before hurricanes who were about to slam into my hometown. And as one who’s been there and done that, two things are painfully clear from these tapes. First — Homeland Security Director Chertoff was out to lunch, literally. And two, former FEMA director and current goat Michael Brown was deadly accurate in his predictions. So these Bush tapes won’t hurt Bush so much as they will prove that Brown did a heckuva job, at least in predicting the aftermath of Katrina. So, my question tonight, why wasn’t Washington listening to Brownie? And why are we just now hearing tapes they told us no longer existed? « collapse post
Filed under: Media, Katrina, Administration
Posted by Amanda March 2, 2006 10:47 am
Permalink | Comment (107)

Four Days After Katrina Struck, Bush Learned Of Failed Response From DVD Of News Reports
In tonight’s interview on ABC, Bush revealed how detached he was from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina:
VARGAS: When you look back on those days immediately following when Katrina struck, what moment do you think was the moment that you realized that the government was failing, especially the people of New Orleans?
BUSH: When I saw TV reporters interviewing people who were screaming for help. It looked — the scenes looked chaotic and desperate. And I realized that our government was — could have done a better job of comforting people.
According to Bush, he didn’t realize there was anything wrong with the administration’s response until almost four days after the hurricane. The first time he saw newscasts of the situation on the ground was on the morning of Sept. 2, when White House “Counselor [Dan] Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.” Filed under: Katrina, Administration
Posted by Amanda February 28, 2006 8:24 pm
Permalink | Comment (135)

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Katrina
***

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Absolutely Chilling:
Read the words of George Allen's good racist friends
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/125558/900
VA-Sen: More on Allen's good racist friends
by kos
Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 09:55:58 AM PDT
See Gordon Baum in the picture with Sen. George Allen? He has a radio show called Right at Night with co-host Earl Holt. Here's a letter Holt sent Archpundit:(Go on-site to view and to access links)
Hey Commie:

Imagine my chagrin when I used a search engine to find commentary about myself, and there was your shallow, dilettante, asshole self, labeling me a "white supremacist."

Being the shallow, nigger-loving dilettante that you are, you probably DO consider niggers to be your equal (who am I to question this?): Yet, unlike you and your allies, I have an I.Q. in excess of 130, which grants me the ability to objectively evaluate the Great American Nigro (Africanus Criminalis.)

The nigro is 11.5 % of the U.S. population, yet he commits in excess of 55% of all felonies (although felonies are UNDER-represented in the nigro community, where observing the law is considered "acting White!") Moreover, he (or should I say she?)accounts for 48% of all ADC recipients in the U.S. We have spent over $7 TRILLION on "Urban Welfare Spending" since the mid-1960s, (black economists Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams) and the nigro is still as criminal, surly, lazy , violent and stupid as he/she ever was, while his illegitimacy rate is 80% nationwide, and over 90% in the "large urban areas."

By the way, those of us who tried to end forced busing in St. Louis did so because it is a colossal waste and nothing more than a symbolic gesture that has seriously deprived every school district in Missouri that doesn't benefit from a deseg program : It has cost the state of Missouri $3.5 BILLION since 1983, (another $3.5 Billion in Kansas City,) yet, the nigro "scholars" bussed to county schools under deseg "improve less academically than every other category of student in the St. Louis Public Schools," according to the Federal Court- ordered Lissitz Study.

Also, you lying asshole, in the 2003-2004 school year, St. Louis spent $11,711 per nigger -idiot in the public schools, yet, half of all students test at the 20th percentile (or lower) on nationally-standardized tests. (If I were Emperor, I would forcibly hand over you and all your commie apologists for nigro under-achievement to White, working-class parents of public school students, and let them have their way with you...)

Some day, You sanctimonious nigger-lovers will either have to live amongst them ("nothing cures an enthusiasm for integration like a good dose of niggers") or else defend yourselves against them. My guess is that you are such a cowardly and pusillanimous lot of girly-boys, they will kill fuck, kill and eat you just as they do young White males in every prison system in the U.S. That's right: When defending this savage and brutish lot, you must also consider their natural ( or should I say UN-natural) enthusiasm for buggery!

I honestly pray to God that some nigger fucks, kills and eats you and everyone you claim to love!

Earl P. Holt III
4029 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO
63110-3621

P.S. I dare you to print this e-mail verbatim: You know as well as I do that most people know I speak the truth, and you are a liar and whore who takes to heart Lenin's dictum that "The first duty of the propagandist is to subvert the meaning of words."

This is the CCC -- the modern, more "respectable" version of the Klan (since they don't wear sheets, at least in public).

These are the people with which Sen. Felix Macaca is proud to associate.

Only a decade ago, as governor of Virginia, Allen personally initiated an association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor organization to the segregationist White Citizens Council and among the largest white supremacist groups.

...After speaking with CCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum and two of his cohorts, Allen suggested that they pose for a photograph with then-National Rifle Association spokesman and actor Charlton Heston. The photo appeared in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

According to Baum, Allen had not naively stumbled into a chance meeting with unfamiliar people. He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about and, from Baum's point of view, was engaged in a straightforward political transaction. "It helped us as much as it helped him," Baum told me. "We got our bona fides." And so did Allen.

Descended from the White Citizens' Councils...the CCC is designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
...
I blogged this earlier, but in case you missed it, you can see more CCC quotes here. (Go on-site for links) And these are the people that Allen sought out to bone up his "bona fides".

Help Jim Webb clean house.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/30/125558/900

I just find it amazing that old, hurtfull and totally assinine attitudes still exist in what we think of as our "modern world". We seem to be regressing into anarchy and backward thoughts and behaviors, much like how we think of the Middle East, a once enlightened, progressive leader of thoughts which were educated and tolarant. This is shameful, not something I would ever want to be associated with. SRH*****

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Bush links Iraq success to U.S. safety
By
DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
42 minutes ago


Linking success in Iraq with the future safety of America, President Bush said Wednesday that withdrawing U.S. troops too quickly would lead to a terrorist state more dangerous than Afghanistan in the grip of the repressive Taliban regime.

Bush, who is beginning a series of speeches on Thursday to counter opposition to the war, spoke at a political fundraiser, which raised more than $1.5 million for the Tennessee GOP and Bob Corker, who faces a tough Senate race against Democratic nominee Harold Ford Jr.

If the United States leaves Iraq prematurely, Bush said, it would embolden an enemy that wants to harm Americans and shred U.S. credibility internationally.

"If we leave Iraq before the job is done, it will create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a terrorist state much more dangerous than Afghanistan was before we removed the Taliban, a terrorist state with the capacity to fund its activities because of the oil reserves of Iraq," Bush said.

Promising victory in Iraq, Bush said: "The stakes are high. it's very important for the American people to understand that the security of the United States of America, the capacity of our children to grow up in a peaceful world, in large part depends on our willingness to help this young Iraq democracy succeed. And we will succeed."

Bush delivers the first in a series of speeches on the war on terror at the annual American Legion convention in Salt Lake City. The appearances will continue through the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and culminate on Sept. 19 when Bush addresses the U.N. Security Council.

It is the third time in less than a year that Bush has launched a public relations offensive to try to rally support for the war in Iraq and his effort to spread democracy in the Middle East. He did it in November and December 2005 and again in March on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Back then, the speeches were aimed at countering news reports of daily bombings in Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops had died. The death toll has risen to more than 2,630 and in July, about 3,500 Iraqis died violently — the highest monthly civilian toll since the war began.

The new addresses come two months before congressional elections and at a point when Bush's approval rate is at 33 percent in the August AP-Ipsos poll. His approval on handling of Iraq also was at 33 percent in the poll.

"They are not political speeches," Bush said earlier Wednesday outside a restaurant in Little Rock, Ark., where he made his first campaign stop of the day. "They're speeches about the future of this country and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation will become even more in jeopardy.

"These are important times, and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."

While Bush said Iraq and terrorism shouldn't be politicized, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, only a day earlier, attacked critics of the administration's war policies and suggested they suffered from "cynicism and moral confusion."

Before traveling to Nashville, Bush attended a fundraiser in Little Rock for GOP gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson, a former congressman running against Democrat Mike Beebe. The fundraiser, at the home of former pro basketball player Joe Kleine, raised $650,000 for Hutchinson and the Arkansas GOP.

But after the fundraiser, Bush and Hutchinson stopped to hobnob with customers at Cotham's Restaurant, which has political signs plastered across the walls. It is home to the $9.15 oversized "Hubcap Hamburger," but Bush was toting a piece of fried chocolate pie in a takeout bag when he climbed back in his limousine.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush&printer=1

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.": John Milton

~~~

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent
task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of
indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies,
much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling instruments."
Noam Chomsky

~~~

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience.

Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem.": Howard Zinn, from 'Failure to Quit'

~~~

"With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the
demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe.
Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of
conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a
legitimate authority" Stanley Milgram, 1965

Stanley Milgram was a psychologist who performed a series of experiments that proved conclusively that obedience to authority was so ingrained in the average US citizen they were prepared to cause lethal harm to others when instructed by authority figures to do so.

All those who took part were first asked if they would be capable of
killing or inflicting severe pain on their fellow human beings. 100%
replied categorically 'no'.http://tinyurl.com/cm6xq
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
We, as individuals, are fast losing our reputation for honest dealing. Our nation is losing its character. The loss of a firm national character, or the degredation of a nation's honour, is the inevitable prelude to her destruction: William Wells Brown

~~~

The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself: Jane Addams

~~~

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst: Aristotle

~~~

Man is subject to innumerable pains and sorrows by the very condition of humanity, and yet, as if nature had not sown evils enough in life, we are continually adding grief to grief and aggravating the common calamity by our cruel treatment of one another: Joseph Addison

~~~

"If we do not maintain Justice, Justice will not maintain us.": Francis Bacon
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.......
Hizbollah's Outlook in the Current Conflict

By Amal Saad-Ghorayeb
Publisher: Carnegie Endowment
Policy Outlook No. 27, August 2006
Part 1, Full Text (PDF)
Part 2, Full Text (PDF)

To read this Policy Outlook in Arabic, please visit Carnegie's Arabic portal.

Part One: Motives, Strategy and Objectives

As the international community scrambles to resolve the current crisis in Lebanon, the motives and objectives of Hizbollah and Israel remain unclear. How did the conflict escalate so quickly? What do both parties hope to gain? With diplomatic efforts to achieve a resolution of the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah in a critical phase, understanding Hizbollah’s outlook and intentions is crucial.

In a new Policy Outlook, Hizbollah’s Outlook in the Current Conflict (Part One): Motives, Strategy, and Objectives, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb provides vital insights. Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese political analyst writing from Beirut, draws on interviews she carried out with Hizbollah officials both before and after the outbreak of fighting in mid-July.

Some of the author’s main findings are:

• Hizbollah’s July 12 attack on an Israeli convoy was intended to provoke a prisoner exchange; it was not an Iranian-directed effort to trigger a wider conflict.

• Although prepared for it, Hizbollah did not expect a massive Israeli counter-strike.

• Hizbollah perceives Washington as the engineer of Israel’s current offensive and now views itself as in direct confrontation with the overall U.S. agenda for the region.

• Hizbollah aims to compromise the perception of Israeli military supremacy in the region, with the hope of undermining the stability of Israel itself.


This is a web-only publication.

Click on the link above for the full text of this Carnegie publication.


Part Two: Accommodating Diplomacy and Preparing for the Post-War ContextThe adoption of UN Resolution 1701 represents to many Lebanese citizens the possibility of a return to normal life, but doubts abound about the possibility of a lasting peace. Israeli forces remain in Lebanon for now but Hizbollah is unwilling to tolerate their presence and has yet shown no signs of willingness to disarm. What is the likelihood Hizbollah will disarm as the peace process unfolds? What is Hizbollah’s post-conflict agenda? How will the outcome of this war change Hizbollah, domestically and internationally?

A second Carnegie Policy Outlook by Lebanese researcher Amal Saad-Ghorayeb writing from Beirut, Hizbollah’s Outlook in the Current Conflict (Part Two): Accommodating Diplomacy and Preparing for the Post-War Context, offers answers to these questions.

Some of the author’s main findings are:

• Prospects for the cessation of hostilities are very poor during the period immediately ahead; until UN peacekeepers and Lebanese army forces arrive, Israel and Hizbollah will still be face to face.

• The postponement of yesterday’s special Lebanese cabinet meeting over the issue of Hizbollah’s disarmament is a troubling sign of potential future conflict.

• Hizbollah’s view of itself as the winner against the Israeli Defense Forces has only hardened its position concerning disarmament. If the Lebanese government pushes too hard for Hizbollah’s disarmament, the result could be the collapse of the government or worse, civil conflict.


This is a web-only publication.

Click on the link above for the full text of this Carnegie publication.
Go on-site to access links and other articles by clicking on the following address:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18611&prog=zgp&proj=zme


About the Author
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is an assistant professor at the Lebanese American University. She is author of Hizbullah: Politics and Religion (Pluto Press, 2002). She lives in Beirut. .............

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"I'm often amazed at the way politicians, who spend hours poring over opinion poll results in a desperate attempt to discover what the public thinks, are certain they know precisely what God's views are on everything.": Simon Hoggart

~~~

"Going to church no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car.": Garrison Keiler

~~~

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind: James Madison. Federalist No. 63.

~~~

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison. Federalist 47.

~~~

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce

~~~

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is
wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk
this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an
unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your
country, let men label you as they may: Mark Twain

~~~

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle:
George William Curtis

~~~

It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long survive when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single small globe against the stars: Arthur C. Clarke
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Munch's stolen "The Scream" recovered by police

By
Marianne Fronsdal
1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"The Scream" and another stolen masterpiece by Norwegian artist Edvard Munch were recovered by police on Thursday, two years and nine days after gunmen seized the paintings from an Oslo museum.

"'The Scream' and 'Madonna' are now in police possession," police chief Iver Stensrud told a news conference. "The damage is much less than we could have feared."

He said the pictures were recovered on Thursday afternoon in "a successful police operation" but dodged questions about how it was done. He said no ransom had been paid "as of today."

"The Scream," Munch's most famous work, is an icon of existential angst showing a terrified figure against a blood-red sky. "Madonna" shows a bare-breasted woman with long black hair.

Two masked gunmen walked into the Munch Museum in Oslo in broad daylight in August 2004 and yanked the two works from the walls in front of dozens of terrified tourists. They escaped in a car driven by another man.

The paintings are both from 1893. Three men were convicted in May of taking part in the theft and were sentenced to up to eight years in jail.

Two of them were ordered to pay $122 million in damages. Three other men were acquitted.

Police said no new arrests or charges had been made in connection with the recovery of the paintings.

Experts at the Munch Museum had examined the pictures and judged them authentic, a museum official said. A scientific examination will also be carried out to verify the works.

A spokeswoman for a City of Oslo foundation that owns the Munch Museum collection said she hoped the paintings could be put back on display soon.

TWO SCREAMS STOLEN, RECOVERED

Munch painted two famous versions of "The Scream," including the one recovered on Thursday.

The other was stolen in 1994 from Oslo's National Gallery by thieves who broke a window and climbed in with a ladder. It was recovered after several months by police posing as buyers.

After the August 22, 2004, robbery, the Munch Museum underwent a $6.4 million security upgrade.

Stensrud declined to answer questions about media reports last week that a jailed bank robber, David Toska, had promised information about the paintings if he won a reduced sentence.

Toska was sentenced to 19 years in prison for his part in a 2004 bank robbery in which a policeman was shot dead. Last week an appeals court suspended a three-year sentence he had received for another 2001 robbery and said it could reconsider the case, which caused Norwegian media to speculate he had cut a deal.

"Out of consideration of police working methods, it will be hard to give details about how the operation was carried out," the police said in a statement.

In the foreground of "The Scream," on a bridge with railings, is a human figure, hands to its head, eyes staring, mouth agape. Further back are two men in top hats and a landscape of fjord and hills against a red sky.

The painting is regarded as an evocative depiction of angst in a world of man-made horrors such as genocide. It and "Madonna" were bequeathed with a large body of Munch's work to the City of Oslo in the painter's will.

Munch, who lived from 1863 to 1944, was a pioneer of modern expressionism.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831
*****

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Fox News Calls In The Experts On Hurricane Katrina:
Richard Simmons And Don King

Today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto devoted much of his show’s coverage to the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. To give the real picture of what’s going on, Cavuto brought in two “experts” on back-to-back segments — exercise guru Richard Simmons and boxing promoter Don King:

Only in America!

Digg It!

Go on-site to view this an links

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Katrina

Filed under: Media, Katrina
Posted by Amanda August 29, 2006 5:08 pm

Permalink | Comment (128)

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Bush names new faith-based czar
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange
08.31.06 - The appointment of Jay Hein, a relatively unknown right-wing think tanker, to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives may be a sign that the George W. Bush administration has just about thrown in the towel on promoting what was supposed to be -- when announced in January 2001 -- the centerpiece of the president's domestic policy initiatives.

Unlike the high-profile appointments of John DiIulio, an independent-minded academic who first headed up the faith-based office and who resigned after being undercut by movement conservatives and his successor Jim Towey, the announcement of Hein's appointment came without any fanfare.

Moreover, the appointment of Hein followed on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that raised serious questions about the faith-based initiative. "There are two big issues facing the faith-based initiative these days," both of which do not look good for the future of the program, Rob Boston, the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, told me in a telephone interview.

"Number one, to what extent religious-based discrimination will be tolerated in a taxpayer funded program. And number two, the question of effectiveness and results."

Boston also pointed out that "From the very beginning, it appears that the faith-based initiative was at least in part designed with political goals: keep the religious right happy and, as a side, yet significant, benefit, bring a host of Latino and African American organizations to the Republican Party."

According to the Indianapolis Star, Hein "was not originally on the short list of people being considered" to head up the Office, "but when White House officials -- at the suggestion of former Sen. Dan Coats, (R-IND) -- went to Hein for advice on candidates, they soon came to see him as more than an adviser."

"Jay has long been a leading voice for compassionate conservatism and a champion of faith and community-based organizations," Bush said in a statement issued on Friday, August 4. "By joining my administration, he will help ensure that these organizations receive a warm welcome as government's partner in serving our American neighbors in need."

Hein follows in the footsteps of other Indiana-based politicians who have advocated for faith-based organizations. Coats "sponsored some of the first legislation in that area while in Congress at the same time that then-Mayor Stephen Goldsmith was developing alliances with religious groups," the Indianapolis Star reported. "During the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush used Indianapolis -- and Goldsmith's initiatives -- as a backdrop to announce his intention to give faith-based groups a chance to use federal money. 'Indianapolis is clearly the epicenter of this, and we want ripples to go out across the country,' Coats said. He predicts Hein will make that happen."

Hein has most recently served as president of the Indianapolis-based Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, an organization he founded in 2004 and which the AP described as "a national think tank that specializes in community-based reforms." And, according to the White House's official announcement, Hein also serves as Executive Vice President and CEO of the Foundation for American Renewal, "which provides financial grants and other support to community-based organizations and educates the general public on effective compassion practices."

"This is a terrific opportunity to impact the national response to poverty," Hein said after accepting the President's invitation. "My appointment is a function of the high-quality research we have been doing at Sagamore from the very beginning. And I see this as an opportunity to continue and advance that important work, albeit from a new perspective," he explained.

"I look forward to serving, and I appreciate the support and encouragement of the Sagamore Board and research team as we put together a transition plan," he added. "I also look forward to returning to Sagamore and Indianapolis after my tenure in Washington."

"Hein is very smooth, very bright and he certainly comes across better than Jim Towey, who generally sounded (to me at least) like someone in way over his head," Sheila Suess Kennedy, an Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, told me in an e-mail exchange.

"Where Towey appeared to come across as an none-too-bright ideologue who was too stubborn even to listen to the concerns of those who disagreed with him, Hein comes across as courteous and willing to listen, and seems possessed of a far more sophisticated intellect."

Up from the think tanks

In his native state of Wisconsin during part of the 1990s, Hein served as a welfare reform policy assistant to the state's former Gov. Tommy Thompson. In 1996, he was recruited by the Hudson Institute, and he eventually moved to Indianapolis, then Hudson's headquarters. While at Hudson Hein served as executive director of Civil Society Programs, "where he managed a twelve person, interdisciplinary staff; and a number of major research centers, including the Welfare Policy Center, the Faith in Communities initiative, and community-based healthcare reform," according to his official bio posted at the Sagamore website. When Hudson moved to Washington two years ago, Hein founded Sagamore.

According to its website, the name Sagamore is "from an Algonquin term used to describe a trusted person who helps build consensus, grapples with serious questions, and provides wisdom and advice."

Sagamore's mission is to:

"...provide independent and innovative research to a world in progress. In keeping with its commitment to pragmatic independence and hands-on innovation, SIPR is headquartered in Indianapolis, enabling its research team to influence the Washington Beltway and beyond, while making a difference in America's Heartland."

Sheila Suess Kennedy, the author of the forthcoming book, "Charitable Choice at Work: Evaluating Faith-based Job Programs in the States (Public Management and Change)," pointed out "Sagamore was formed by staffers who elected to stay in Indiana when the Hudson Institute decamped. It has a number of employees, and offices near IUPUI, where I teach, and it has a very effective PR operation. PR will only take you so far, however."

"Jay's appointment to this important position is a reflection not only of his innovative leadership," said former Indiana Senator Dan Coats, who serves as co-chairman of Sagamore Institute's Board of Trustees, "but also of Sagamore's success in the field of public policy research, especially faith-based research and civil society research."

"Jay's experiences and profile in Washington will prepare and position him to strengthen Sagamore Institute and Indianapolis upon his eventual return to the think tank," Coats added.

"When you carry out research and programming like Sagamore, research that is innovative and influential, people are going to take notice," said Jerry Semler, Sagamore's co-chairman. "It's a good thing for Sagamore and for Indianapolis that Jay's efforts here have gotten noticed in Washington. But it's also bittersweet, since we have to share Jay for a while."

According to the Sagamore website, "Semler and Coats are in the process of working with the rest of the Board to put together a transition plan and to appoint an interim director."

"We are thinking about it as an interim role, because Jay wants to return to Sagamore after his service in Washington," said Coats. "And we definitely want him to return. Between now and then, we plan to build on the foundation Jay helped establish. Part of that foundation is the people who are here at Sagamore, nationally known researchers, writers and policy analysts who have a heart for the heartland and a vision for the world. They are continuing their work, and that's why we are confident about what lies ahead for Sagamore."

Hein helped bring together a star-studded, mostly local, Board of Trustees that includes himself, Coats; C. Patrick Babcock, the Vice President for Health Programs at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan; Paul M. Brooks, the Co-Founder and Managing Director of The Helixx Group of Zionsville, Indiana; Dr. Carol D'Amico The Executive Vice President of Indianapolis' Ivy Tech Community College who from 1990 to 1999 was both a Senior Fellow in Education and Co-Director of the Center for Workforce Development at Hudson Institute; Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky, a Professor of Public Affairs and Philanthropic Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, who between 1990 and 1997 was president of Hudson Institute, and later was appointed by President Bush to serve as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service; Reverend Herbert H. Lusk II, the Founder and CEO, People for People, Inc. and Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which, in January 2006, hosted "Justice Sunday III," a gathering of conservative evangelical leaders. Lusk's operations have received substantial amounts of faith-based money from the Bush Administration.

Other Trustees are Dr. Beverley Pitts, the President of the University of Indianapolis; Jerry D. Semler, CLU, Co-Chair, Chairman of the Board of Indianapolis' OneAmerica Financial Partners; Stephen A. Stitle, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Indianapolis-based National City Bank of Indiana; and P. Douglas Wilson, Vice President of Guidant Corporation of Carmel, Indiana.

Hein is an elder at Grace Community Church in Noblesville and has hosted weekly Bible study groups at his home. Grace's pastor, the Rev. Dave Rodriguez, described Hein as "a brilliant intellect and a great thinker" who has a "deep and abiding faith."

Questionable future for faith-based initiative

"The (faith-based) initiative is unfinished work," Hein told the Indianapolis Star in an interview. "There are some things that need to be strengthened."

"The White House's comment to me was that they have 2 1/2 years left, and that is the equivalent of the entire Kennedy presidency," Hein said. "They feel that is a healthy amount of time to accomplish unfinished business that they deem a high priority."

Americans United's Rob Boston maintained that it would be counterintuitive for the administration to hire someone whose so-called unfinished business will be to question the program's efficacy.

"I expect that Hein will be more in the mold of Jim Towey, that he will take a partisan approach and act as an administration mouthpiece, rather than follow in the footsteps of the more research-oriented John DiIulio. There is no reason at this stage that the administration wants someone in that office who will bring a discerning scientific approach to the table."

At the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Hein -- who was also appointed as deputy assistant to the president and will advise him on such domestic policies as immigration or responses to emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina -- will likely concern himself with playing patch-up, mending some of the huge holes exposed by the GAO report.

While the president's faith-based initiative has not been institutionalized, or given the full congressional stamp of approval, it has nevertheless spread its tentacles to more than a dozen administration offices and several dozen states, and has handed out several billion dollars to religious organizations.

"Despite experiencing legislative gridlock, it has certainly become a permanent part of the political landscape," Boston noted.

"Since Bush was unable to get a comprehensive faith-based bill through congress -- despite the best efforts of Bush point men, Sen., Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) -- the president brought the initiative into play through a series of executive orders and regulatory changes within certain cabinet level departments. Those orders have become the perpetual motion machines that future administrations may not even think to shut down."

(c) 2006 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21300

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Half a truth is often a great lie: Benjamin Franklin

~~~

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.":
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

~~~

"The process [of mass-media deception] has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has
to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt.... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing
in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then,
when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for
just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective
reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one
denies — all this is indispensably necessary.": George Orwell in the
book 1984

~~~

Like the effect of advertising upon the customer, the methods of
political propaganda tend to increase the feeling of insignificance
of the individual voter: Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and social
philosopher, 1900-1980

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Speaks Truth to Power

Keith Olbermann makes a brave and worthwhile effort to restore faith in at least one American Journalist.

"The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet."

08/31/06 Runtime 7 Minutes

CLICK PLAY TO VIEW: Go on-site to view at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14765.htm

Windows Media File

You may need to download Windows Media Player 10 to view this video. Its FREE

Click below to read or post comments on this article
Comments (14) | Trackback (0)

TRANSCRIPT

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and

shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

We end the countdown where we began, our #1 story.
with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion

yesterday. It demands the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every

American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or

intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who

oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land;

Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our

employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither

common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad,

suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of

human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the

kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still

fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it

is right - and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was

adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis.

For, in their time, there was another government faced with true

peril - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the

facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true

picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in

terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s - questioning their intellect and their

morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone to

England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all

treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which

contradicted it’s own policies, it’s own conclusions - it’s own omniscience - needed to be

dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew

the truth.

Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics

needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost

of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile - at

best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name… was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this

evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way

Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England

- had taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own

confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the

man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy

excepting the fact that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute and exclusive in its knowledge, is not the

modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern

version of the government… of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient Ones.

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this:

This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such,

all voices count - not just his. Had he or his president perhaps

proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin

Laden’s plans five years ago - about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago

* about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago - we all might be able to

swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful

recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own

arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or

intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to

Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this

nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently

or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and

the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the

Emporer’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day

to fight?

With what country has he confused… the United States of

America?

*

The confusion we - as its citizens - must now address, is

stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when

men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and

obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier

Americans always found their way to the light and we can too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and

this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the

terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for

which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City,

so valiantly fought.

*

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country

faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew

everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he

said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

*

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble

tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist

Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could

come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of

us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew

everything, and branded those who disagreed, "confused" or "immoral."

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954.

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction

depends upon evidence and due process of law.

We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be

driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history

and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men;

Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to

defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."

And so, good night, and good luck.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Go on-site by clicking on the above links for more videos and topical articles.*****

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Israeli unease grows over conduct of war

A majority want a commission of inquiry into its leadership.

By Ilene R. Prusher
Staff writer of
The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 01, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/p01s04-wome.html
JERUSALEM
Soon after Israel's war with Hizbullah came to a halt with a tenuous cease-fire, Israel's internal war began.

Now, amid widespread disappointment over how the war was waged, the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is under pressure to set up a state commission of inquiry on various aspects of a war in which Israelis see innumerable mishaps.

Sixty-four percent of Israelis, according to an Israeli Radio poll released Thursday, want an independent inquiry into the war - not unlike the 9/11 Commission in Washington. Such high figures serve an embarrassing blow to Mr. Olmert, who has tried to downsize the issue by appointing two lower-level committees Monday to investigate the handling of the war.

The possibility of a wider probe evinces the degree of disillusionment with the war, but also the extent to which Israelis are now willing to put the decisions of a sitting government and even the country's near-omnipotent military under a critical microscope.

Internal critique over the war appears to be making its impact on both sides of the border: Olmert has acknowledged that there were shortcomings, while Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview this week that had he known how Israel would retaliate, he would not have ordered the kidnapping attack.

Commissions of inquiry have only been held at grave moments in Israeli history, such as the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and after the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

"The public impact of a commission of inquiry is much greater than any other. The public confidence in officials who direct a commission of inquiry is huge," says Prof. Stuart Cohen, a political scientist at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.

"They also have judicial powers which no internal committee possesses," he explains, meaning that the commission has the power to hold officials personally responsible for civil or criminal offenses, order them dismissed from their positions, and ban them from holding similar positions in the future.

The crux of the controversy focuses on how the war was conducted, and not whether it should have been waged at all. But even those questions have the potential to sway policy, and an inquiry could have a lasting impact on the military options Israel exercises in the future.

Israelis also want an investigation into the government shortcomings in protecting civilians during the war. Volunteer organizations and not government officials, critics say, did most of the aid work. A decision to evacuate bombarded northern towns did not come until a month into the war.

"The rights and wrongs are not the issue - nobody here disputes the justice of the use of force," says Dr. Cohen. Israel began bombing Lebanon soon after Hizbullah staged a cross-border attack on July 12, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two. The men are still being held.

"People are upset but they're not saying, 'My son died for no reason.' He died because somebody made a mistake," he adds. "The mistake was not to have gone to war, but not to have conducted the war properly."

Much of the criticism over the war focuses on tactics, strategy, and logistics. Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and military Chief of Staff Dan Halutz decided to go war in Lebanon within a day of the kidnapping raid, a decision some see as a poor one that left no time for planning or considering a variety of options.

Older reservists, many of whom did not have up-to-date training over the past few years, say they were sent into battle unprepared. Some lacked flack jackets and helmets. Once in Lebanon, according to various media reports, they were running out of ammunition, food, and even water. In the last weekend of the 34-day war, Mr. Halutz ordered a ground offensive that some here view as too little, too late.

Indeed, much of the criticism surrounds Halutz. Military commentators have seized on the fact that he is a pilot who was the first chief of staff lacking experience with deploying ground forces, and tried to run a war against Hizbullah guerrillas by attacking Lebanon from the air.

Halutz is scheduled to meet with a conference of some 100 Israeli reserve generals next week, who are expected to ask that he step aside, according to reports in all of Israel's major newspapers.

If the Israeli Defense Forces' top man does take a fall for the war's shortcomings, it might take some of the heat off of Olmert. Neither he nor Defense Minister Peretz, who had been an union leader, had strong military backgrounds, which have usually been an unwritten requirement for both the premier and defense minister positions. Still, Olmert has already declared his opposition to a state commission of inquiry, which could work against him if the pressure to form one mounts.

Ever since Israel's first postwar commission of inquiry, in 1973 after the Yom Kippur War, politicians and military officials have often found themselves liable to be brought to task for their actions.

The Agranat Commission investigated the military following heavy losses of soldiers in the war and recommended that the chief of staff should be dismissed. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Prime Minister Golda Meir both eventually resigned.

After Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Kahan Commission found then-defense minister Ariel Sharon personally responsible for indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilla Refugee Camps.

Internal crisis have also led to commissions of inquiry. In one of the most recent, the Orr Commission was set up to investigate the killing of 13 Israeli-Arab citizens during a demonstration at the start of the intifada, in October 2000.

"The Orr Commission was extremely important, just trying to get it on behalf of the grieving families, and the impression the public had then, just as now, was that the officials wanted to whitewash it," says Julie Gal, an Israeli-American filmmaker who directed and produced the recently released documentary on the subject, "October's Cry."

Although many proponents felt that the commission wasn't effective enough in assigning personal responsibility for the deaths, it did have an impact. The minister of internal affairs at the time was banned from ever serving again in the post and several senior police officers were demoted.

"That's why we want an official commission now. It has legal aspects and it can investigate much further," Ms. Gal says. "The argument that they're citing is that a commission will paralyze everything, that we're in for a war again very soon, we need to replenish the troops, and it will take away from that." But that should not be used as an excuse, she notes. "Otherwise, " she says, "There's a sense that the government is really not accountable."

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.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/p01s04-wome.htm~~~~~

Will they, the concerned Israeli's, have as much influence for so many years as many of us have had here in the states and in the UK? Little or next to nothing? That is until it all unraveled due to the stupid adminstration's blunders? Now after so many deaths and debacles, things are turning a bit, but not fast enough, and now Iran is looming in our future. What doom and gloom! We can hardly wait to see what new thing tomorrow will bring us all.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity: Roman Polanski ~~~
Fear always springs from ignorance: Ralph Waldo Emerson : American
lecturer, poet, and essayist, 1803-1882

~~~

Everything, everything in war is barbaric... But the worst barbarity
of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against
which individually they would revolt with their whole being: Ellen
Key

~~~
Political history is largely an account of mass violence and of the
expenditure of vast resources to cope with mythical fears and hopes
:Murray Edelman

~~~

Democracy don’t rule the world, You’d better get that in your head;
This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that’s better left unsaid. : Bob Dylan : American folksinger, b.1941

~~~
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely
or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear: Bertrand Russell: English logician and philosopher 1872-1970
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

.~.~.~.~.~.
IN THE NEWS:
September 2, 2006
The New York Times and Washington Post have jumped aboard a blatant White House train aimed at smearing Patrick Fitzgerald, the Boy Scout of prosecutors.

Why is this happening now? As we pointed out on August 27, the attempt to claim Armitage as the first leaker to Novak is a red herring aimed at confusing the issue of Bush Administration accountablity for outing a CIA operative specializing in Weapons of Mass Destruction.

For the Times and Post, both ready to aid the White House in times of need, to pile on the sliming of Fitzpatrick with such gusto is a true sign of a feverish White House strategy unfolding.

But why now?

Larry Johnson, a counterterrorism expert, may have the answer. We're sure he won't mind our reposting of his recent column:How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed at Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush Administration officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's cover and exposing her as a CIA operative. Hitchens battle with the bottle may account for his addled thinking, but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du Soleil contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In watching their behavior we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones who gathered in Guyana almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.



Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In today's Post editorial page, Hiatt writes:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.



The claim that Joe Wilson’s op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies and misrepresented the truth is an old rightiwng, White House canard. Here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed: Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January 2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by the intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors that reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reoirts, were not credible.

What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course, they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared. If, as Hiatt claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the record by confirming the substance of his claim?



Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's "culpability" for exposing his wife's job: He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets.



There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him. That is another of Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing hacks. As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:“They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post.” (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)

We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage’s role as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in the President’s State of the Union address.

While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July 6, 2003, “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” Sometime after Novak’s column appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game.”

And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of notes Cheney had written in the margins of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed. In a court filing, Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were “acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House’s handling of the Niger intelligence. Those notes became the basis for Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated by Ken Mehlman and others.

Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again trying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its policies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of intelligence on Iran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra. They whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame's undercover work, which was focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran. They may not have fully understood what Val was doing because of her cover status. But that's the point. They don't think these things true. Their only goal is political survival.

Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently in the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.

We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States. As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.
Posted by Larry Johnson on Friday, 01 September 2006 at 13:24

The irresponsibility of the Washington Post and New York Times in this
slander is breathtaking.

A News letter excerpt from: http://www.buzzflash.com.......

[Saundra Hummer]

.~.~.~.~.~.
Bush's big success
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
-
Washington Post Writers Group

09.01.06 - WASHINGTON -- After a week of revisiting the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, the most depressing realization is how easily our leaders forgot their fervent promises to lift up our nation's poorest citizens.

All manner of politicians and columnists said in Katrina's wake that this was the time to revisit the problems of the destitute. The anguish of the people of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward would have at least some redemptive power if the country took poverty seriously again.

It didn't happen. The innovative ideas that came from all sides were swept off the table. The poor became unfashionable, once more. Congressional conservatives changed the conversation. A concern for the struggling gave way to debate over how to offset spending on Katrina with budget cuts -- directed in large part at programs for the needy.

Perhaps the release of the Census Bureau's annual report on income, poverty and health insurance coverage on this particular week is a sign that God and the statisticians have a sense of humor. The report reinforces what we knew at the time of Katrina -- that the poor are still with us, and that the middle class keeps losing ground.

The "good" news is that the poverty rate, the proportion of Americans who are poor, didn't change much between 2004 and 2005, falling in a statistically insignificant way from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent. The bad news is that the poverty rate, having risen steadily in recent years, is still higher than it was in 2001, when it stood at 11.7 percent.

Worse is that the proportion of the poor who are very poor has risen. People are considered in deep poverty if they have half or less of the yearly income of those at the poverty line. In 2005, half the poverty line for a family of three was $7,788; for a family of four, it was $9,985. (Try living on that.) According to the new report, 43.1 percent of poor people lived that sort of deep poverty -- a record since 1975, when the government started assembling such statistics.

In the six economic recoveries since the early 1960s, this is the first time the poverty rate was higher in the recovery's fourth year than it was when the recession was at its worst.

The number of Americans without health insurance rose, too, to 46.6 million in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004 and 41.2 million in 2001. The proportion without insurance is up from 14.6 percent in 2001 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

What about the middle class? Yes, the median income of American households rose by 1.1 percent last year after five years of decline. But most of the growth was in households headed by Americans 65 and over -- who are helped, rightly, by substantial government benefits. Households headed by people under 65 saw their incomes fall yet again.

Want to know why so many men out there are mad? Check out Table A-2 on page 38 of the Census report. (I'm grateful to my friend Bill Galston for calling it to my attention.) Adjusted for inflation, male earnings were lower in 2005 than they were back in 1973.

Dear liberals, who worry about the political leanings of angry men, and dear conservatives, who exploit that anger, do you have any proposals to end this income stagnation?

Yes, women have been slowly closing the gender gap in income. Among full-time, year-round workers, women earn 77 percent of what men do now, compared with 57 percent in 1973.

But in the most recent year, the gap closed because women lost income at a slightly slower rate than men. Between 2004 and 2005, the earnings for those working full time year-round dropped 1.8 percent for men and 1.3 percent for women. That's not how most women imagine achieving equality.

But the census had some very good news for the well-to-do. The top fifth of American households received 50.4 percent of all income last year, the highest proportion since 1967 when the Census Bureau started following that trend. The biggest gains were concentrated in the top 5 percent.

"The economy is growing, and someone is getting the growth," said Sharon Parrott, a senior analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "So now we know who it is."

President Bush and the Republican Congress, take a bow: You took power to make the well-off even better off, and you have succeeded brilliantly.

As for the poor and the middle class, maybe they'll do better after the next hurricane, or the one after that.

(c) 2006, Washington Post Writers Group

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21307
.........

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Terrorism & Security
Polls show opposition to Iraq war at all-time high
posted
September 1, 2006
at 12:15 p.m.

Sixty percent also say terrorism is more likely in US because of Iraq.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

A series of polls taken over the last few weeks of August show that support for the war in Iraq among Americans is at an all-time low. Almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war, the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago. Many of the polls were conducted in advance of the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos poll that surveyed the country, and more specifically residents of Washington and New York, shows that many feel the cost in blood and money in Iraq may already be too high and that Osama bin Laden will never be found. The poll also showed that 60 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of a terrorist attack in the US.

"I think there's a fatigue about the price of doing these activities," said Robert Blendon, a specialist in public opinion at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "There's also a concern about the competency of how well we're doing them."

Some of the divisions are from political differences. For example, Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to think the cost of the terror fight may be too high and twice as likely to think Iraq is making terrorism worse. And this comes when the nation has gone five years without an attack � possibly making the terror war seem less urgent to some.

Popular support for the war on terror helped neutralize opposition to the Iraq war for a long time, said political analyst Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. "Now the negative effect of Iraq is dragging down support for the war on terror," he said.

On the question of which political party can do a better job of protecting the US, both parties lost support since an April poll. But in another sign of trouble for the Bush administration, the AP/Ipsos poll also shows that more Americans believe the Democrats will do a better job than Republicans, 47-40 percent.

A new CNN poll shows that only about one-third of Americans now support the war in Iraq, with 61 percent opposed. Fifty-one percent of Americans see President Bush as a strong leader, although he doesn't do well in other areas of the survey.

Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence. Bush's stand on the issues is also problematic, with more than half (57 percent) of Americans saying they disagree with him on the issues they care about. That's an indication that issues, not personal characteristics, are keeping his approval rating well below 50 percent ...
Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference Monday.

"I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." He added, "I'm going to do what I think is right, and if, you know, if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is."

A Princeton Survey Research Associates International poll conducted Aug. 24-25 for Newsweek shows that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president has handled Iraq. A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted Aug. 17-21 shows 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president is dealing with Iraq. Among those who identified themselves as independents, 67 percent disapprove.

Finally, a survey by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 60 percent of Americans believe screening of people who look "Middle Eastern" at airports and train stations is OK.
Quinnipiac's director of polling, Maurice Carroll, said he was surprised by the apparent public support for racial profiling. "What's the motivation there -- is it bigotry, or is it fear or is it practicality?" he said.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Americans considered the 9/11 attacks of more significance than the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the findings varied considerably among age groups, with 9/11 being the most important event among those 35 and under, but with Pearl Harbor being more important those 65 and older.

"People have fresh memories of 9-11 and many don't have any memories at all of Pearl Harbor, and those who do don't have fresh memories of it," said Bruce Schulman, a Boston University professor of history and American studies. "We also feel pretty confident that we know how the results of Pearl Harbor turned out, and we certainly don't know what the consequences of 9-11 are going to turn out to be.

Go on-site to view article and it's several links by clicking on the following address:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/dailyUpdate.html
.........

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Playing our fears..... again! SRH
...

TOUGH TALK: President Bush, in Utah Thursday, said the Iraq war is central to the 'ideological struggle of the 21st century.'
JIM YOUNG
REUTERS
Bush escalates war-on-terror rhetoric
He warns of 'totalitarian' terrorists – as other officials attack his critics as 'defeatists' and 'appeasers.'
By
Linda Feldmann
Staff writer of
The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – As the nation fights wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seeks to keep the American homeland safe, another sort of conflict is heating up: a war of rhetoric.
Thursday, President Bush launched a series of speeches aimed at building support for efforts to combat terrorism and for the Iraq war. His address before the American Legion in Salt Lake City followed tough speeches this week by other top administration officials that characterized Iraq war opponents as "defeatists" and "appeasers," likening the threat of Islamic fundamentalist-driven terrorism to "fascism."
With the death toll mounting in Iraq, Mr. Bush has moved away from trying to portray a sense of progress there to warning of the consequences of pulling out. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks - and a little more than two months before crucial congressional elections - Bush appears intent on framing all the wars as part of the larger war on terrorism.

"They're playing to [an issue] that's one of the few things they've got going for them," says John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University.

Bush and the Republicans made terrorism a winning electoral issue in 2002 and 2004, but it's not clear that strategy will work for them again. A majority of Americans no longer see the Iraq war as part of the larger war on terror, according to a CBS-New York Times poll released last week.

Bush: 'They dream to destroy'

In his speech Thursday, the president pushed his message on terrorism hard. He laid out differences between the Sunni Muslims of Al Qaeda and the Shiite Muslims adhering to groups like Hizbullah, noting the state sponsorship of Syria and Iran. "Still others are homegrown terrorists, fanatics who live quietly in free societies. They dream to destroy," he continued.

Despite their differences, "these groups form the outlines of a single movement: the worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology," the president said.

On Wednesday, Bush maintained that his series of speeches, which will culminate in an address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 19, are not political. But Democrats did not buy that argument, and have come out with their own rhetorical guns blazing, denying accusations that they are "appeasers" and rejecting GOP inferences that they would vote to cut off funding to the troops when Congress comes back. The Democrats' stated plan is to leave no charge unanswered, with party leaders at the ready to respond.

It's hard to reverse public opinion

Furthering the GOP's challenge, it remains an open question whether many Americans who now oppose the administration's foreign policy are listening to the arguments and are willing to change their minds. History has shown that once public opinion turns sour on a war, such as Vietnam, it is impossible to win it back.

"If he really wants to improve public support for the war, speeches alone won't do it," says Christopher Gelpi, a political scientist at Duke University who is studying this issue. "He has to improve conditions on the ground in Iraq."

DICK CHENEY: The vice president, at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska on Tuesday, said calls to withdraw troops from Iraq only embolden terrorists.
DAVE WEAVER/AP

Given the steepness of that task, he adds, perhaps the best Bush can hope for from his speeches - and from his surrogates' suggestions that Democrats would weaken the nation's defenses - is to keep the Republican base from getting discouraged in November and failing to vote.

"A key point in getting people to vote Republican is getting them to believe that fighting this war is the right thing to do - not so much focusing on success, but focusing on what's the reason for the mission," says Mr. Gelpi. "Shifting his rhetoric to that may help to support Republican candidates. Certainly, he wants to avoid losing control of one of the houses of Congress this fall."

Probably the most politically pungent speech of the week came from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who spoke of "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the larger war on terror as he criticized Bush's critics and the news media.

On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney spoke at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, where Bush came on 9/11, right after the attacks. He sounded a familiar theme: "We have only two options in Iraq - victory or defeat."

Go on-site for the numerous links and photo's by clicking on the address below:

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/p03s03-uspo.html
.........

[the magnificent goldberg]

.~.~.~.~.~.
Bush's big success
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
-
Washington Post Writers Group

09.01.06 - WASHINGTON -- After a week of revisiting the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, the most depressing realization is how easily our leaders forgot their fervent promises to lift up our nation's poorest citizens.

All manner of politicians and columnists said in Katrina's wake that this was the time to revisit the problems of the destitute. The anguish of the people of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward would have at least some redemptive power if the country took poverty seriously again.

It didn't happen. The innovative ideas that came from all sides were swept off the table. The poor became unfashionable, once more. Congressional conservatives changed the conversation. A concern for the struggling gave way to debate over how to offset spending on Katrina with budget cuts -- directed in large part at programs for the needy.

Perhaps the release of the Census Bureau's annual report on income, poverty and health insurance coverage on this particular week is a sign that God and the statisticians have a sense of humor. The report reinforces what we knew at the time of Katrina -- that the poor are still with us, and that the middle class keeps losing ground.

The "good" news is that the poverty rate, the proportion of Americans who are poor, didn't change much between 2004 and 2005, falling in a statistically insignificant way from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent. The bad news is that the poverty rate, having risen steadily in recent years, is still higher than it was in 2001, when it stood at 11.7 percent.

Worse is that the proportion of the poor who are very poor has risen. People are considered in deep poverty if they have half or less of the yearly income of those at the poverty line. In 2005, half the poverty line for a family of three was $7,788; for a family of four, it was $9,985. (Try living on that.) According to the new report, 43.1 percent of poor people lived that sort of deep poverty -- a record since 1975, when the government started assembling such statistics.

In the six economic recoveries since the early 1960s, this is the first time the poverty rate was higher in the recovery's fourth year than it was when the recession was at its worst.

The number of Americans without health insurance rose, too, to 46.6 million in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004 and 41.2 million in 2001. The proportion without insurance is up from 14.6 percent in 2001 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

What about the middle class? Yes, the median income of American households rose by 1.1 percent last year after five years of decline. But most of the growth was in households headed by Americans 65 and over -- who are helped, rightly, by substantial government benefits. Households headed by people under 65 saw their incomes fall yet again.

Want to know why so many men out there are mad? Check out Table A-2 on page 38 of the Census report. (I'm grateful to my friend Bill Galston for calling it to my attention.) Adjusted for inflation, male earnings were lower in 2005 than they were back in 1973.

Dear liberals, who worry about the political leanings of angry men, and dear conservatives, who exploit that anger, do you have any proposals to end this income stagnation?

Yes, women have been slowly closing the gender gap in income. Among full-time, year-round workers, women earn 77 percent of what men do now, compared with 57 percent in 1973.

But in the most recent year, the gap closed because women lost income at a slightly slower rate than men. Between 2004 and 2005, the earnings for those working full time year-round dropped 1.8 percent for men and 1.3 percent for women. That's not how most women imagine achieving equality.

But the census had some very good news for the well-to-do. The top fifth of American households received 50.4 percent of all income last year, the highest proportion since 1967 when the Census Bureau started following that trend. The biggest gains were concentrated in the top 5 percent.

"The economy is growing, and someone is getting the growth," said Sharon Parrott, a senior analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "So now we know who it is."

President Bush and the Republican Congress, take a bow: You took power to make the well-off even better off, and you have succeeded brilliantly.

As for the poor and the middle class, maybe they'll do better after the next hurricane, or the one after that.

(c) 2006, Washington Post Writers Group

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21307
.........

This is one of the more important articles you've posted Sandi. I've written to E J Dionne to ask for further details from the Census report. I'll probably post something substantive when he responds.

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * * * *

The Great American Oligarchy
By
Stephen Fleischman

09/03/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- I never thought I'd ever hear the United States of America called an "oligarchy". But now I have.
My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, "Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed." Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?

For all my life, ever since grade school, I've been taught that the United States of American is a paragon of democracy. We have popular elections on every level-local, state and Federal. We have two houses of Congress, a President and a Supreme Court, a system of checks and balances, a Constitution second to none, and a Bill of Rights, the pride of our forefathers. Most Americans see our country as Ronald Reagan did-the shining city on the hill-beacon to the world.

But here we are, today, when, according to the most recent CNN/USA Today poll, six of ten Americans see the Iraq war as a huge mistake and want our troops out of there, yet they are incapable of making that happen. Why? It's simple. It's the oligarchy that's keeping them there-that tight little group around Bush in the White House and Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, who run things for corporate feeders. You know who they are, Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin, to name a few of the no-bid war profiteers. They can make 18 billion dollars, allocated for the reconstruction of Iraq, disappear in the blink of an eye. That is really slight of hand.

The war in Iraq is the best example of an oligarchy at work-produced and managed to make money and to secure the remaining reserves of oil in the world. As they say, the world's oil has "peaked". It's all down hill from here, so we better grab it before somebody else does. To do this, we're got to keep a perpetual war spinning in the best oil-producing areas, the Middle East and the Caspian region. (We'd do it in Venezuela if we could.) With Iraq as a pivotal base, the oligarchy is planning to stay there into the foreseeable future. Any talk about drawing down troops is just that, talk-a tease offered for the 2006 mid-term elections. Using Iraq as a military base also explains the moves on former Soviet states, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and others in the Russian orbit-targets of the giant oil conglomerates.

Oligarchies operate in secret. They spawn conspiracy theories. The 9/11 World Trade Towers collapse, for example. That garnered more than a million references in Google. Enough conspiracy theories for everyone. But the event caused a number of reputable construction engineers to raise their eyebrows. They saw it as a controlled demolition, as did Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist of Brigham Young University, who has done a major investigation on his own. He asks, why was this possibility not investigated by the 9/11 Commission and other governmental investigating agencies at the time? Not much help from the mainstream media, either. They accepted the Commission finding that it was an al-Qaeda attack. That's been the conventional wisdom ever since.

Everything is up for questioning. Does the media have the Chutpah to investigate any of them? No way. The Israel Lobby? No way. Untouchable. Look what happened when somebody tried to touch it. Two esteemed academicians, Professor John J.Mearsheimer of the Political Science Department of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard did a study and wrote a report on the Israel Lobby for the London Review of Books giving their views on the influence of Israel and the Israel Lobby in Washington on US foreign policy. Of course, the establishment, media and otherwise, came down on them like a ton of bricks. Alan Dershowitz, Professor at Harvard Law School and proponent of torture, reflects the kind of hysteria that was generated "it is fair to ask why these distinguished academics chose to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards, especially given the obvious risk that it would be featured, as it has been, on neo-Nazi and extremist websites, and even those of terrorist organisations, and that it would be used by overt anti-semites to 'validate' their claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy"

All Mearsheimer and Walt were trying to do was bring a few facts to public attention and open the subject for discussion.

The oligarchy knows how to lock down.

Spike Lee's documentary, When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts reveals, with heartbreaking accuracy, the devastation that hurricane Katrina caused to a truly shining city, New Orleans, and the Gulf Coast, one year ago. What's equally devastating is the fact that our care-less Federal government, the oligarchy, overwhelmed in its own bureaucracy, allowed it to flounder for a year doing little to heal a part of its own body and help its own people.

We used to say, if we can land a man on the moon, why can't we end poverty; or why can't we solve the race problem in America? Now, we say, why can't we heal a severely injured and traumatized part of our nation, the Gulf Coast? How about a Marshall Plan for the Gulf Coast. We did it in Europe after World War II. In a very few years, we saved a continent, in many areas little more than a pile of broken bricks. We saved it from despair, and some say, from Communism. We restored a thriving Capitalism. It takes a thriving democracy to do that. No job for an oligarchy. Sorry, Gulf Coast.

So, what we see is more of the same. But remember. What goes around comes around.

Stephen Fleischman, television writer-director-producer, spent thirty years in Network News at CBS and ABC, starting in 1953. In 1959, he participated in the formation of the renowned Murrow-Friendly "CBS Reports" series. In 1983, Fleischman won the prestigious Columbia University-Dupont Television Journalism Award. In 2004, he wrote his memoir. See: www.ARedintheHouse.com, E-mail: stevefl@comcast.net


http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14807.htm
...........

[Saundra Hummer]

This is one of the more important articles you've posted Sandi. I've written to E J Dionne to ask for further details from the Census report. I'll probably post something substantive when he responds.

MG

Thank you MG. Your posts are informative and well thought out. Looking forward to your post on this.

How do you do it all? Music to politics and lots in-between, your thought processes are amazing to me.

[Saundra Hummer]

. . . . . . . . .

Holy Land churches condemn Christian Zionism
By
Matthew Tostevin

09/01/06 --- -JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Vatican's envoy in the Holy Land and bishops from three other churches have launched a rare joint attack on the Christian Zionist movement, accusing it of promoting "racial exclusivity and perpetual war."


Christian Zionists form a growing part of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, the Jewish state's main ally. They believe the return of Jews to the Holy Land and establishment of Israel are proof of God's promises to biblical patriarchs.

Churches in the Middle East often appear closer to the Palestinians, whose Christian minority makes up a substantial portion of their clergy in the region.

The "The Jerusalem Declaration On Christian Zionism" was signed by Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, a Palestinian, and by bishops of the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran and Syrian Orthodox Churches in Jerusalem.

Many Christian Zionists are evangelical Protestants, and the declaration is a sign of a growing struggle between the groups.

"The Christian Zionist programme provides a world view where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism," said the declaration, accusing Christian Zionists of hurting hopes for Middle East peace.

"We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war," the declaration added.

The three main Christian Zionist groups in Jerusalem said in a statement that they were concerned at the declaration's "inflammatory language" and that it was far from the truth.

Christian Zionists stress Christianity's Jewish roots. Some back the movement to settle the occupied West Bank, the cradle of Jewish civilization, which Palestinians want as part of an independent state.

INFLAMMATORY

"We pray for peace. But we note with sadness that the present Palestinian government is totally dedicated to the destruction of Israel," the Christian Zionist groups said in their statement, referring to the governing Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.

The prospect of Middle East peace talks has looked even more unlikely since Hamas's election victory in January. The group is formally dedicated to destroying Israel.

"The problem in the region is not as simple as the Jerusalem Declaration makes out," the Christian Zionists' statement said.

Some Christian Zionists believe that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land will bring about the end of the world and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Some also believe Jews themselves will have to become Christians or perish.

The Christian Zionist groups in Jerusalem said they had no "thirst for Armageddon" and do not base their theological position on "end time prophecy." They called for dialogue with the clerics behind the declaration that condemned them.

Christian Zionism is strongest in the United States, where support is much higher than in Europe or other parts of the world for Israel in its conflicts with the Palestinians and in its recent war with Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

James Rudin, senior advisor on inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee in New York, said there are "millions and millions of American Christians" who support Israel but who do not consider themselves Zionists.
He said they represent a core of support far larger than those who base their backing of Israel on the Bible.

(Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan in Paris and Mike Conlon in Chicago)

© 2006 Reuters

Go on-site to view this article and more, to access links, video etc. While on-site you may join ICH's mailing list, just click on their home page and follow the instructions:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14789.htm
.......

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men: George Orwell

~~~

Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind: George Orwell

~~~

They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality,
because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of
them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice
what was happening : George Orwell

~~~

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed
by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even
hearing about them: George Orwell

~~~

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear :
George Orwell : English novelist, essayist, and critic, 1903-1950

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Going to War with the Leaders you have

By
Mike Whitney

“As you know, you go to war with the army you have. They’re not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

0903/06 "Information Clearing House"
-- --
Name one part of the occupation of Iraq that has succeeded?

From the shortage of soldiers, to de-Ba’athification, to the disbanding the Iraqi military, to the lack of body-armor, to leaving the ammo-dumps unprotected, to Falluja, to Abu Ghraib, to Haditha, to the stage-managed, public relations Jessica Lynch incident (which was later exposed as a sham) every facet of Iraqi fiasco has been a complete and utter failure.

And whose name is on that failure? Whose name features most prominently on the greatest strategic disaster in American history?

Don Rumsfeld. Hands down, Don Rumsfeld is the biggest flop in American history. No one else even comes close.

Major General Paul Eaton summarized Rumsfeld’s dismal performance this way:

“Rumsfeld has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq”.

Keep in mind that Eaton is a conservative Republican and a firm believer in America’s preemptive war in Iraq. His comments simply reflect his ability to objectively judge performance and to assign blame where blame belongs. In this case, the person who is most responsible for the bungled policy in Iraq is Don Rumsfeld.

Fellow Lt. General Gregory Newbold was equally critical of Rumsfeld and said, “The decision to invade Iraq was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions---or bury the results.”

Newbold is right; they don’t “bury the results” at the American Enterprise Institute, or at the Pentagon, or at the many smoke-filled, bastions where American plutocrats like Rumsfeld lark about, but in small-town America; Bakersfield, Winooski, Devils Lake, where parents and young widows choke back the tears for the men who lost their lives in Rumsfeld’s folly. That’s who pays the bill for Rumsfeld’s arrogance.

Rumsfeld’s failures are legion, but they do not compare to the disgrace he has heaped on the United States through his authorization of the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in American custody. There is a clear record of official memoranda which lead straight to the office of the Secretary of Defense connecting Rumsfeld to a regime of torture and abuse directed at men who have never been charged with a crime and who are the unwitting victims of a terrorist witch-hunt.

Rumsfeld’s involvement in these crimes puts him well-outside our fundamental traditions and beliefs as Americans. His conduct is an assault of the basic principles which we hold most dear and which are written into our founding documents.


“We hold these truths to be self evident…”

It is impossible to grasp how someone can be raised in America, matriculate at American universities, participate in the American political system, and spend the bulk of his life breathing in the same American customs and mores as the rest of us, and yet, be so completely divorced from the most essential values of the culture.

Rumsfeld is like a man who has passed through his entire life impervious to his surroundings and to the nations’ prevailing ethos. He is, quite simply, the most un-American character to ever serve in high-office.

So, it is surprising, then, that the amoral Rumsfeld, whose litany of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan follow him like the plumage on a peacock, would decide to take aim at his many critics in a speech delivered to the American Legion on Thursday. It just shows that there are really no limits to the obtuseness of the men who currently hold power in America.

“Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,” Rumsfeld opined. “But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons. Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or someway, vicious extremists could be appeased?”

Rumsfeld’s words are aimed at the 61% of Americans who no longer believe that the war in Iraq is “worth it”. He dismisses them as “appeasers”. Of course, at one time many of these same people supported the war and didn’t care about the moral or legal issues as long as America prevailed. So, in fact, many of these “appeasers” actually changed their minds due to Rumsfeld’s staggering incompetence in managing the conflict. The Sec-Def must examine his own performance to truly understand why public support has eroded so dramatically.

Tom Friedman summarized Rumsfeld’s strategy as the “Rumsfeld Doctrine” that is, deploying “just enough troops to lose.” And, as we have already shown, Rumsfeld has failed in every phase of the occupation without exception.

It is pointless to dispute Rumsfeld’s allegations that his critics are “appeasers” or “fascist” sympathizers. It’s just a silly attempt to set up a straw man and then knock him down. Rumsfeld is a master at shifting attention from his own wretched performance and dumping the blame on someone else. In this case, he attacks not only those who have lost faith in the war but, also, takes a few swipes at his old nemesis “the media”.

The media has played a central role in sustaining support for the war; keeping anti-war critics out of their studios and off the air. They’ve limited their Iraq coverage to scenes of Arab’s killing Arabs rather that the daily digest of American bombing-raids, decimated Iraqi cities and an entire nation reduced to anarchy. Still, in Rumsfeld’s mind, any information that leaches through the fissures in the media façade and doesn’t promote the blinkered goal of American corporate-hegemony, is tantamount to treason.

“Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of (media) myths and distortions that are being told about our country and our troops,” Rumsfeld moaned. “The struggle we are in is too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”’


Rumsfeld’s words were immediately followed by an announcement from the Pentagon that they would tender a “$20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of US and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage from Iraq.” (Wa Post)

Again, we see how utterly disconnected from reality Rumsfeld truly is. Rather than try to grasp the real issues involved, he cynically applies his energy to “attacking the messenger” or “perception management” strategies. These are the signs of someone who is completely incapable of personal accountability and who seriously believes that everyone else is to blame for his own failures.

No one is “manipulating the media” to oppose the war, quite the contrary. The corporate media has been a vital cog in the Pentagon’s information stratagem and is probably the most successful part of the war effort. They have maintained an astonishing level of public support for a war that has yet to provide any moral or legal justification or any recognizable “metric” for achieving victory. It simply goes on day by day grinding out more carnage while reducing the “cradle of civilization” into a pile of smoldering wreckage.

The Pentagon’s own report provided the most scathing account of America’s failed crusade. The report admitted that, “Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than anytime since the invasion in 2003…The illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.” (NY Times)

In other words, everything has gotten worse and there are no tangible signs of improvement.

Is the Pentagon part of the “Blame America First” crowd too? Is the High-Command trying to “manipulate the media and demoralize public opinion” as Rumsfeld claims? ( Note: Bush disputed the Pentagon’s findings the very next day giving his cheery predictions precedent over the dismal facts from the Big Brass)

Opposition to the war is now emerging from all segments of society and continues to grow despite the optimistic accounts of progress in the media. America was defeated in Iraq when the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad in March 2003. It's been downhill ever since. After 4 years of the most pitiless warfare against a civilian population, the magnitude of that defeat has only increased.

Donald Rumsfeld is mistaken when he says that antiwar Americans suffer from “moral confusion.” Moral confusion is a condition of men who deliberately inflict pain on other human beings in violation of the most fundamental standards of human decency. In fact, those activities far exceed mere confusion and indicate a state of total moral decay. Such people are not fit to make even the most elementary ethical judgemnts, let alone to decide on the important issues of war and peace.

Support for the war is on a steady downward trajectory. That decline in support will not be altered by the delusional accusations of a man who, more than any other, is responsible for the shame and degradation that conflict has brought on our country.

That man is Don Rumsfeld.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14809.htm
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

*********


Pitt Shows 'Green' New Orleans Designs
Reuters
Updated:2006-09-01 09:15:25

NEW ORLEANS (Sept. 1) - Actor Brad Pitt Thursday unveiled a "green" housing design for New Orleans's Lower Ninth Ward and said he was appalled by the slow pace of rebuilding since Hurricane Katrina hit last year.

AP
Pitt said he was appalled at how slow the recovery and rebuilding effort post-Katrina has been.


Two New York City architects won a contest, underwritten by Pitt, for an affordable, environmentally sound housing design.

Their complex of single family homes and apartments would be built from modular pieces into long houses on a site that connects to the neighboring Mississippi River levee with a wide pedestrian ramp.

But Pitt said the recovery would not work if the city did not assure critical services such as schools, and that he did not see much progress in the area that needed it most.

"I am appalled and embarrassed that residents still do not have the opportunity ... to decide if they want to get back into their neighborhoods and recreate their communities," Pitt told a news conference.

While historic and tourist-friendly areas such as the French Quarter look barely touched by the storm that hit a year ago, killing about 1,500 across four states, many parts of New Orleans remain sparsely populated and full of ruined houses.

There is a housing shortage, which Pitt and partners said they hoped to help address.

Environmental group Global Green USA, which sponsored the effort with Pitt, is raising money to build the project for roughly $3.5 million to $5 million, a spokesman said.

Ninth Ward resident Pam Dashiell, a community association leader who was part of the jury for the contest, said that it was the first quasi-commercial development in the area since Katrina roared through, flooding 80 percent of the city.

Architects Andrew Kotchen and Matthew Berman of Workshop/APD dubbed their design Greenola, which plays on the nickname for New Orleans, Louisiana -- NOLA.

The plan, modified after discussions with the community, calls for six houses, two multifamily units and services such as child care and a community garden.

Using resource-saving appliances and fixtures, solar electricity and hot water heaters, and recycled building materials, the team hopes to cut pollution and decrease operating energy use by 50 percent to 60 percent compared with traditional homes.

Whether the new homes will look like they belong in New Orleans may depend on the eye of the beholder. Berman said that exterior materials and the addition of porches, as well as the long forms, could make them echo other buildings in the area, but the core building is intended to be reproducible anywhere.

2006-09-01 06:59:48

http://news.aol.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

***********
Big Sugar Sours Florida Governor's Race with Falsehoods
Outside groups funded by U.S. Sugar mount deceitful attacks on a Democratic primary candidate

September 1, 2006

Summary
In the Florida Democratic primary for governor, Rep. Jim Davis has been the target of a series of attacks by outside groups funded largely by U.S. Sugar Corp. According to state records, one group is 100% funded by U.S. Sugar; the other has recieved $1.6 million in contributions from U.S. Sugar over the past two weeks alone.

A TV ad sponsored by one of the groups says Davis "voted to deny some struggling workers the minimum wage." However, the bill Davis voted for actually called for a raise in the minimum wage for the vast majority of workers.

The other group used recent donations from U.S. Sugar to fund two pieces of direct mail. One was aimed at Florida's Jewish community and says Davis failed to "condemn attacks against Israel" when he actually did condemn the attacks. The other mailer, aimed at African-Americans and accompanied by a radio ad, faults Davis for voting against restitution for two wrongly imprisoned men, but even one of the ex-prisoners thought the ad was "dirty politics."

Analysis
Rep. Jim Davis and State Sen. Rod Smith are dueling for the party's nomination in the state's Sept. 5 primary.

Big Sugar Bankrolls Smith

If he didn't have a sugar daddy, Smith's campaign would be practically out of business. From Aug. 15 through Aug. 31, U.S. Sugar contributed 20 times as much money to outside groups supporting Smith as Smith had left in his own campaign coffers, according to forms filed with the Secretary of State's office.

The connection between the sugar industry, a powerful force in Florida politics, and Smith is well documented by the state press. As a state senator, Smith was instrumental in passing Everglades cleanup legislation that went easier on the sugar companies than prospective alternatives. Also, a top consultant to the Smith's campaign serves as a U.S. Sugar lobbyist.

In addition, the group Florida's Working Families has a history of large contributions from U.S. Sugar. This pattern continued as the group's most recent report, filed on Sept. 1, showed that U.S. Sugar donated $1.6 million in the last two weeks of August alone.

Also, according to disclosure forms filed with the IRS, U.S. Sugar and its subsidiary Southern Garden Groves Corp. pumped over $430,000 into a group called Floridians for Responsible Government during an 8-day period around the end of May. The majority of this money was spent on "voter contact." Local media reported on pro-Smith mailers sent out by the group in June.

At this point in the campaign, Smith's coffers are practically empty. As of Aug. 18th, he had barely $75,000 left. U.S. Sugar's actions thus loom all the larger in Smith's effort to get the Democratic nomination. By comparison, Davis has nearly 1.7 million in the bank.

Florida's Working Families Ad: Davis Attendance
Announcer: You. Should. Know. Congressman Jim Davis has the second-worst attendance in Congress. Jim Davis voted to deny some struggling workers the minimum wage. Jim Davis voted against capping rates credit card companies can charge us. Jim Davis voted against allowing seniors to order low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. Maybe we should be glad Jim Davis rarely shows up for work.

Deny Some ... Improve Most

On Aug. 22, Florida's Working Families began running a TV ad attacking Davis. The ad accurately represents Davis's attendance record and a vote he made against capping credit card interest rates, but then makes the grossly misleading statement that he "voted to deny some the minimum wage." The bill cited actually called for a raise in the minumum wage.

Language in the bill exempted certain jobs such as funeral directors, computer programmers, and some sales positions, but for everyone else the minimum wage would have gone from $5.15 per hour to $6.15. So while it is true to say that some would be denied the minimum wage, the overwhelming majority would have received a raise. Additionally, exemptions to the minimum wage have always existed. For example, fishers, farm workers, and janitors are not covered currently.

The bill was never introduced in the Senate and thus never enacted into law; other recent efforts to raise the minimum wage have stalled as well.

Targeted Mispresentation I

According to documents filed with the state, U.S. Sugar Corp. supplied 100% of the budget for the newly formed Coalition for Justice and Equality with a $100,000 donation. The group has released two direct-mail pieces attacking Davis. One piece is aimed at the Jewish community saying, "Jim Davis fails to condemn attacks against Israel" based only on the fact he missed the vote on a House resolution after Hezbollah's attack. However, Davis actually did condemn the attacks three days before the symbolic vote even took place.

While it is true that Davis missed the vote on July 20th, he had already released a statement on July 17th saying, "I strongly condemn Hezbollah’s brutal and unprovoked attack on Israeli soldiers, and support ’s right to defend its people."

Targeted Mispresentation II

The same group sent a second mailer, this one targeting African-Americans. It accurately describes a vote Davis made as a state representative in 1990 denying restitution to two black men who were wrongly imprisoned for 12 years, though it's quite a stretch to say that the vote is part of Davis' "record of shame." An accompanying radio ad "dramatizes" comments of the two ex-prisoners. While the men have been critical of Davis, one of them has recently characterized the use of their case in the attacks as "dirty politics."

Freddie Pitts and Wilbur Lee were convicted of murder in 1963 but pardoned after someone else confessed to the crime. For years, starting in the late 1980s, the state legislature considered awarding the men damages and eventually granted each $500,000 in 1998.

Davis was no longer in the legislature by then. However, in 1990, he had joined the majority of his statehouse legislative committee in a 6-4 decision against restitution. Davis has said he didn't believe there was enough evidence at the time to justify the payments. The mailer concludes that this is evidence of Davis' "record of shame" in the African-American community.

Perhaps, but Davis supported the interests of the NAACP 91% of the time, according to the civil rights group's 2005 scorecard. Even Smith has condemned the mailer as going "too far."

Coalition for Justice and Equality Radio Ad


ANNOUNCER:Twelve years. Two African-Americans, Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee, sat in tiny cells. Nine years on death row. Convicted of murder by an all-white jury for crimes they didn’t commit. A white man confessed. All they asked for was a little of their lives back. To be treated fairly. Jim Davis voted no. Voted to deny justice to Pitts and Lee. Listen to the words of Freddie Pitts:
Actor: Davis is a backwater politician. He voted to renege on justice. He’s a cold-hearted man.
Announcer: Fortunately, there’s Rod Smith. Smith led the fight to close the boot camps after a fourteen-year-old black kid was beaten to death by sheriff’s deputies. Rod Smith is a man we can trust to do the right thing. Paid electioneering communication paid for by Coalition for Justice and Equality. 201 SW 8th Terrace, Boca Raton , FL 33486

The mailing was followed by a radio ad. An actual copy of the ad could not be obtained by FactCheck. Stuart Rosenfeldt, the registered agent for the Coalition for Justice and Equality, responded by email that he was "not going to supply" the ad. However, quotes have appeared in local press accounts, and the Davis campaign supplied a full transcript at our request.

The ad discusses the pair's wrongful imprisonment and then says, "listen to the words of Freddie Pitts." An actor portraying Pitts claims "Davis is a backwater politician. He voted to renege on justice. He's a cold-hearted man."

However, Pitts didn't say that. He did make the "backwater politician" remark in a Miami Herald story, but the other lines were actually said by Wilbur Lee in a different story.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Rosenfeldt " stands by the ad" but will produce a new spot "that removes any 'dramatization' of the facts."

Some local black leaders have said the ad is "attempting to polarize the black community."
by Justin Bank

Sources

U.S. House, 106th Congress, 2nd Session. House Vote No. 45.

Caputo, Mark and Reinhard, Beth, "Big Sugar plays rough in governor's race," Miami Herald. 26 Aug 2006.

Leary, Alex and Liberto, Jennifer, "Sugar dollars pour into pro-Smith group," St. Petersburg Times. 19 July 2006.

Reinhard, Beth and Caputo, Mark, "Davis Discusses 'Bad Vote' with Black Voters ," Miami Herald. 28 Aug 2006.

Reinhard, Beth, "Some tough questions for two Democrats," Miami Herald. 22 July 2006.

Wallsten, Peter, "Telephone Companies, Sugar Industry Fare Well in Florida Legislative Session," Miami Herald. 3 May 2003.

"Straight Talk on Rod Smith and Sugar," press release. Jim Davis for Governor Campaign. 25 Aug 2006.

http://www.factcheck.org

Go on-site to access the numerous links in this report and in article's about radio etc. , and hey, the left wing Move On.org political action committee, which I'm a member of, just recently according to FactCheck.org has done some manipulating as to how things really are as well . Go on site to view.
.......

[Saundra Hummer]

*******

The Worst Person in the World: And 202 Strong Contenders
By Keith Olbermann
BuzzFlash.com's Review (excerpt)
"A collection of top-ranked stinkers, rascals, and reprobates, plus a few just-plain-dumb folks, as seen and shared on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Controversial, outspoken, and wildly entertaining, Keith Olbermann hosts a popular nightly newscast on MSNBC. A key feature of Olbermann’s unique and witty countdown of the day’s top stories is his daily award for "The Worst Person in the World." Honorees range from dumb criminals to the likes of Tom Cruise, Amber Frey, Geraldo Rivera, the Coca-Cola Company, assorted members of the Bush Administration, and FEMA spokesperson Mary Hudak. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has a bumper crop of gold medals. From sports figures to schoolteachers, no one is exempt from Olbermann’s ire.

One hundred and twenty of these incisive presentations, featuring bronze, silver, and gold medal recipients, have been packed into this tongue-in-cheek treatise on the past year’s events. Along with actual transcripts, Olbermann shares his methodology for selecting the winners from the vast pool of possibilities presented by each day’s news. Finally, he selects his top pick for the "worst of show" and reports some of the fallout from his awards, such as the mysterious disappearance of certain remarks from a transcript on Rush Limbaugh’s Web site after Olbermann called them out on Countdown.

In the style of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Al Franken, Keith Olbermann’s The Worst Person in the World presents a brash and scalpel-sharp appraisal of the depths to which humans can slide socially, politically, and morally–and what fun it can be to find out."

Read The Full Review >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/325

The BuzzFlash Wings of Justice Award to Keith Olbermann from August 30, 2006

Keith Olbermann

Most of mainstream media's television and print news are proving that Eric Boehlert was exceptionally accurate when he titled his book "Lapdogs." One rare exception is Keith Olbermann.

If it weren't for his MSNBC show, COUNTDOWN, we may not have seen a more damning report, titled "The Nexus of Politics and Terror," on the politically advantageous "perfect timing" of many of the "terror threats" the Bush Administration has issued from 2002 through October of last year.

Olbermann updated and reaired the segment on August 14 (see the video), following the announcements of arrests in a British terrorism investigation. The timing of those announcements were a request of the Bush administration and were preceded by "excoriating comments by leading Republicans about leading Democrats" and came on the heels of anti-war Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Yet, has even one other television reporter checked the facts of those threats or dug as hard to uncover the truth as Keith Olbermann? We're still waiting.

Instead, the mainstream media keeps rolling over on their backs, begging the White House to scratch their bellies with a new "terror threat" they can sell to their viewers. As the lapdogs well know, fear sells -- and it has considerable partisan political benefits.

Olbermann is a model for a new pro-democracy media on television because he understands that to get anywhere in mainstream news, you have to be entertaining and have an appealing personal style.

However, Olbermann stands above the pack, using his wit, class, and credibility to do what most other mainstream media reporters refuse to do -- hold the Bush Administration's feet to the fire with the hard facts!

That's why Keith Olbermann is being honored with this week's BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice Award."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO
http://www.wingsofjustice.com/06/08/woj06035.html

Learn More >>>
http://www.buzzflash.com

BuzzFlash | PO Box 618354 | Chicago | IL | 60661-8354

[Saundra Hummer]

*******Bush's Legacy in Afghanistan:
More Heroin on the Streets of America

By
BuzzFlash
Created 09/03/2006 - 6:26am
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Published on BuzzFlash
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles

Bush "conquers" Afghanistan and it shoots up to become the all-time leader in producing opium, [1] as in more heroin on our streets.

Bush "invades" Iraq and precipitates a civil war and creates a magnet for terrorists, where none had the ability to function before.

Bush cuts taxes for the wealthy and spends on the military-industrial complex like a drunken sailor, proceeding on a course to bankrupt America.

Bush allows the rapid outsourcing of American jobs to nations like China, our real future adversary as a world power.

Bush dismantles the Constitution, what he claims the terrorists are attempting to do, but he does it for them.

What more evidence is that we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House?

Could the terrorists do any more harm to America than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing?

The terrorists don't have to lift a finger. Bush is doing their work for them.

They can just sit back, take a nap or two, and dream of the virgins in their heaven.

They've found their stooge -- and he's our president.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
.......
COMMENTS
BE FOREWARNED: SOME COMMENTS MAY SEEM TO YOU, TO BE FULL OF RADICAL BELIEFS AND/OR THOUGHTS
SRH

follow the money
Submitted by wastedspace.com on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 4:53pm.
The book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia by Alfred McCoy, first published in 1972, documents the CIA's involvement in running drugs around the globe since WWII. Reporter Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series of stories, published in the Los Angeles Times in 1996, along with Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn, update the story with details of CIA drug trafficking used to finance covert operations in Central America. The Iran Contra hearings also revealed some of this stuff, so it's pretty much on the record, and yet the mainstream press won't touch the subject with a ten foot pole--what happened to Gary Webb still serves as a powerful object lesson to journalists everywhere. Regaining control of the nearly entire world supply of opium was probably as critical to the invasion of Afghanistan as gaining control of Iraq's oil reserves was to toppling Saddam Hussein.

wastedspace.com

Afghanistan Opium Cultivation Skyrockets...and none too soon
Submitted by aahpat on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 4:31pm.
The U.S. government predicted that, as they interdicted heroin production in South America that Mexican heroin would not satisfy the 18 ton a year sophisticated American consumer. That prediction is proven by the deadly spiking of Mexican heroin with fentanyl which has killed more than 500 Americans in the past year.

As the government gets control of the fentanyl production the second part of their prediction about heroin will come to pass.

SEE: Afghanistan Opium Cultivation Skyrockets...and none too soon

According to the "heroin" section of the 2006 Drug Threat Assessment of the U.S.-D.O.J.:
"....shortages in South American heroin availability would most likely result in an increase in Southwest Asian (Afghanistan) heroin distribution in U.S. drug markets"

The United States government has been predicting, hell orchestrating an increase in Afghan heroin distribution into the United States. Increasing the Afghan crop now is the only way to fill the 18 metric ton annual U.S. demand(United States--Canada Border Drug Threat Assessment - December 2001-PDF) and still supply the record levels of heroin flooding Europe and Great Britain.

New World Order Pawn:
Submitted by perldude69 on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 4:19pm.
New World Order Pawn: King George is only a New World Order pawn. This excerpt from Ted Gunderson, former Senior Special Agent-in-Charge of Los Angeles, California, tells the deeper darker motives behind the influx of mind numbing drugs into American cities:

"On May 1, 1776, after having been commissioned to devise a plan to control the wealth, natural resources, and manpower of the entire world, Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit who had defected from Christianity, announced on behalf of the Illuminati the twenty-five goals for achieving this plan. The goals included the corruption of youth through sex and drugs, as well as control of the press (See the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947, where Congressman Calloway announced that the J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media). "
If your want to know more, and read the whole paper, go to http://wachadoo.com/forum/ftopic529.html

_________________
Anyone who can handle a needle convincingly can make us see a thread which is not there.
- EH Gombrich
“May Virtue Enlighten; Majority Judgment Save Us Now!”
- Brian Amrine

"....more heroin on the streets of America."
Submitted by Vierotchka on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 2:18pm.
Well of course there's more heroin on the streets of America, and there's going to be lots more. Who did you think controls the global drug market? Or rather, I should ask, which family did you think controls the global drug market?

My commercial
Submitted by stevehigh on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 1:39pm.
#1 Congressman X rubber-stamped every bad idea George Bush ever had.

Pic: 2800 dead G.I.s (stamping sound effect). Rubber stamp image, OKAY, with Congressman's signature underneath.

Pic: Newspaper story, "1500 Dead; Bush Blamed" (stamping sound effect)Rubber stamp image, "OKAY," with Congressman's signature underneath.

Pic: Osama bin Laden, caption Bush Never Got him; (stamping sound effect) Rubber stamp image, OKAY, with Congressman's signature underneath.

As a young man, George Bush took illegal drugs. As a candidate, he lied about it. Now Afghanistan is the wholesale heroin capital of the world. What about that, President Bush?

Dead U.S Troops NOT okay!
Dead Katrina victims NOT okay!
Live Osama NOT okay!
Narcotics flood U.S. NOT okay!

Don't rubber-stamp Bush failures. Dump rubber-stamp Congressman X. (Pic: Stamp across face-"NOT okay!")

#1 Congressman X rubber-stamped every bad idea George Bush ever had.

George Bush invaded Afghanistan and bungled the war on terror. Now the country is growing illegal drugs for export to American young people.

(Pic: Syringe hitting tied up forearm, sucking blood).

As a young man, George Bush took illegal drugs. As a candidate, he lied about it. Now Afghanistan is the wholesale heroin capital of the world. What about that, Candidate X?

Candidate X has rubber-stamped ALL of George Bush's bad ideas, but increasing the supply of illegal drugs in our town has got to be worst.

Vote no on Bush, no on heroin, no on Congressman X.

Mission Acomplished
Submitted by mattnet on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:46am.
It is great to see in these comments that at least BuzzFlash readers are well aware of the long history of CIA and covert US military involvement in the Drug trade. The Taliban drew the ire of the American imperialists when they destroyed the opium crop in 2000. And it is no coincidence that after the false-flag war provocation of 9/11 the neo-cons went after Afghanistan first. There were at least two goals of that invasion; building an oil/gas pipeline across the country, and restoring opium production. When you look at the dollar value of each, it is clear that opium had to be the higher priority. Now you understand the phrase: "Mission Accomplished" Mattnet "All great truths begin as blasphemies." G.B.Shaw 9eleven.info

Drugs and CIA
Submitted by John Boly on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:30am.
It's not just drugs in Afghanistan. Former Wall Street Journal reporter Alexander Cockburn has written an excellent study with Jeffrey St. Clair entitled "Whiteout." They offer well-researched evidence that since the end of WWII, the CIA has organized, supervised, and protected the international drug trade as a means of financing its covert operations (such as overthrowing the democratically elected governments, whether in Iran in the early 'fifties, Nicaragua in the 'eighties, or Venezuela in the present.)

Even more chilling, Cockburn and St. Clair provide vivid proof of how the mainstream American media has knowingly hushed up the whole thing. Any journalist who wants to put a swift end to his or her career need only write an expose of the CIA-drug connection. Example: Gary Webb, who proved that the CIA was behind the crack-cocained plauge that hit LA in the 'nineties and then spread to the rest of the country.


Insurgent Last Throes
Submitted by mattfromark on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:10am.
Liars prosper, cheaters expand, and disrespect for the law of our land, the constitution provokes weak protests of Republican leadership. Is it any wonder,that the only export of a country, prior to the Taliban, of any consequence, was poppy? Nothing more than a continuance of short term benefits of more cash in circulation, and payoff to the Afghan warlords, that supported us in the overthrowing of the Taliban. With the added benefit, of a ready made excuse for never leaving Afhanistan, due to the "War on Drugs/Terror/Poverty/Long Term Memory". Our borders are nonexistant(virtual)and law enforcement for aliens results in ACLU protection, of the law breakers. Where's the respect?

Profits are Up
Submitted by sulphurdunn on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:04am.
Everything is going according to plan.

Who is Running Our Government
Submitted by webpatty on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 9:32am.
Afghanistan & drugs: according to Mike Ruppert, the US gov't and the CIA has been using drug money from Afghanistan for decades. The launder it through the stock market. The stock market crashed just as the Taliban stopped all growth of the poppies. Iraq: Greg Palast says that main purpose of Iraq invasion was to keep the oil off the market. He says the history of Iraq has been to keep as much of their oil in the ground because it reduces prices in other countries. The oil companies can't make big profits. Neither can Saudi Arabia. If that was their goal, they've done very well. It will be decades before Iraq can do much with their oil - unless they throw us out. The rest of it: tax cuts for the rich (mostly repubs), defense contractors- repubs and Bush investment buddies. Also Cheney's options with Halliburton. Getting rid of jobs: gut the Democrats base. No money and no power. Secret agendas and no discussion anywhere outside of congress on what to do. We're back where we started. The rich have everything including power. Every one else is reduced to poor. Destroy the education system and there is no one who knows anything. Exactly who's side is the government on? It's not our side. And the Democrats are the enablers. They talk a little, but do nothing.

buzzflash editorial afghanistan opium
Submitted by albiescott on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 9:25am.
So, the profits from opium rise dramatically in Afghanistan, filling the coffers for more arms acquisition for exactly the kinds of people we don't want armed. Does this present situation remind ANYONE of events from a few short decades ago in the same locale? We can expect warfare to escalate in the South of Afghanistan, and an already untenable area of the country will serve as a secure base of operations for expanded attacks in the rest of the country. Afghanistan is another country about to implode. Our window of opportunity to effect positive change there has closed. Through mismanagement,ignorance, and greed, we have wasted billions in a country that now has virtually no infrastructure and no security for it's population to attempt to recover from 40 years of war.

Brave New World
Submitted by shpostal on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 7:59am.
In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" we read about a lower caste system that ended with the lowest caste being systematically drugged with the then-fictional "Soma" that kept the poorest people sedated and non-threatening to the ruling class. Rome too knew an intoxicated society was easier to control. Coincidence? Don't make me laugh.

Today's "Soma"
Submitted by John Boly on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 10:38am.
A surprising number of food and water additives are known neurotoxins: fluoride and aspartame for starters. Check out the video, or book, "Fluoride Deception." The Nazis gave fluoride to Russian prisoners and concentration inmates because they discovered it lowered their intelligence and made them more docile. It's now banned in Europe and, guess what, their cavity rates have not gone up. Yet thanks to a decades long con-job, responsible parents clamor to have it pumped into their kids.

As for aspartame, check the documentary, "Sweet Misery." This poison is yet another gift to America from Donald Rumsfeld. (It's hard to say whether that man is more dangerous to the country when he's in government or in private business. Oops, my bad: in assuming there's a difference.)


Born and growing up in Europe...
Submitted by Vierotchka on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 2:31pm.
I had fluoride tablets pumped into me daily throughout my childhood in the fourties and fifties - that didn't stop Mensa from contacting my mother when I was eleven or twelve years old to ask if they could "enrol" me. I refused. My Goodness! Had I not had all that fluoride, I might have been smart!

They still put it in toothpaste, though, and surely some is absorbed through the mucus membrane.

The next Republican "culture war" issue
Submitted by ETS on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 7:30am.
And the Democrats too.

Herion flooding the streets of America just in time to ramp up the drug war for the '08 election.

Hillary and McCain denouncing the evil of illegal drugs.
More minority kids swept up in highly publicized local and federal law enforcement drug raids of our inner cities.
More violent criminals released from prisons to make room for non-violent criminals serving draconian drug sentences.
Organized crime bosses lavish contributions to their favorite politicians because the longer the "war on drugs" lasts the higher their profit margins.
More fear.
Our politicians are as much to blame for this as anyone. Maybe more so. The "war on drugs" is a diversionary tactic. A cat's paw to keep our attention on bullshit "issues," illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, that neither party really wants to solve.

Bush had help
Submitted by cagey on Sun, 09/03/2006 - 7:00am.
It's important to remember that those who have supported Bush in the media and in the Congress are just as guilty and have just as much blood on their hands. We need to remember this as we "consume" the news and as we "vote" in November. And "blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism", for all you sheep out there.
» login or register to post comments

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
A Newsletter to me from: Progressive States Network.org
SRH

~~~
Saundra R,

Today is Labor Day -- the day we honor the working men and women of America, the people who built this country, the people who brought us the weekend. I hope you'll join all of us at Progressive States in taking time today to consider the contributions of the organized labor movement that has made such a difference for all Americans. I've included a new op-ed by Progressive States co-chair David Sirota below. The piece appeared in today's San Francisco Chronicle and is a succinct reminder of how much all Americans owe organized labor. The piece also explains the extent to which the far-right has declared war on labor unions.

I hope you enjoy it.

Joel Barkin,
Progressive States Network

On America Working -- The War on Workers
by David Sirota,
San Francisco Chronicle

U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige labeled one "a terrorist organization." Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called them "a clear and present danger to the security of the United States." And U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., claimed they employ "tyranny that Americans are fighting and dying to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan" and are thus "enemies of freedom and democracy," who show "why we still need the Second Amendment" to defend ourselves with firearms.

Who are these supposed threats to America? No, not Osama bin Laden followers, but labor unions made up of millions of workers -- janitors, teachers, firefighters, police officers, you name it.

Bashing organized labor is a Republican pathology, to the point where unions are referenced with terms reserved for military targets. In his 1996 article, headlined "GOP Readies for War With Big Labor," conservative columnist Robert Novak cheered the creation of a "GOP committee task force on the labor movement" that would pursue a "major assault" on unions. As one Republican lawmaker told Novak, GOP leaders champion an "anti-union attitude that appeals to the mentality of hillbillies at revival meetings."

The hostility, while disgusting, is unsurprising. Unions wield power for workers, meaning they present an obstacle to Republican corporate donors, who want to put profit-making over other societal priorities.

Think the minimum wage just happened? Think employer-paid health care and pensions have been around for as long as they have by some force of magic? Think again -- unions used collective bargaining to preserve these benefits. As the saying goes, union members are the folks that brought you the weekend.

The government's numbers explain how unions have helped their members. According to an analysis of federal data by the Labor Research Association, average union members receive a quarter more in compensation than nonunion workers. Eighty-nine percent of union members have access to employer-sponsored health care, compared to just 67 percent of nonunion workers. Unionized workers receive 26 percent more vacation than nonunion workers.

Unions also benefit nonunion workers. That's thanks to the "union threat effect" whereby anti-union companies meet higher standards in order to prevent workers from becoming angry and organizing. For instance, Princeton researchers found in industries that are 25 percent unionized, average nonunion workers get 7.5 percent more compensation specifically because of unionization's presence.

The flip side is obvious: The more corporations and politicians crush unions, the more all workers suffer. It is no coincidence that as union membership and power has declined under withering anti-union attacks, workers have seen their wages stagnate, pensions slashed, and share of national income hit a 60-year low. As Council on Foreign Relations scholars put it, the decline in unions "is correlated with the early and sharp widening of the U.S. wage gap."

Big Business claims union membership has declined because workers do not want to join unions -- a claim debunked by public-opinion data. In 2002, Harvard University and University of Wisconsin researchers found at least 42 million workers want to be organized into a bargaining unit -- more than double the 16 million unionized workers in America. A 2005 nationwide survey by respected pollster Peter Hart found 53 percent of nonunion workers -- that's more than 50 million people -- want to join a union, if given the choice.

Increasingly, however, workers have no real choice. According to Cornell University experts, 1 in 4 employers illegally fires at least one worker during a union drive, 3 in 4 hire anti-union consultants, and 8 in 10 force workers to attend anti-union meetings. When workers petition the government to enforce laws protecting organizing rights, they are forced to go before the National Labor Relations Board, which is both run by anti-union presidential appointees, and chronically understaffed so as to slow down proceedings. When Democrats have tried to expand workers' union rights by introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, the GOP has prevented a vote on the legislation.

So when GOP lawmakers pledge their commitment to workers at Labor Day celebrations today, remember -- Republicans are waging a war on the very workers they purport to care about.

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover (Crown, 2006). He is the co-chair of the Progressive States Network

www.progressivestates.org


Progressive States Network
101 Avenue of the Americas
4th Floor
New York, NY 10013

[Saundra Hummer]

*******Health Care Insurance
We have an aquaintance whose wife has been in the hospital for over 30 days now. He is beside himself with worry and grief. This poor man is exhausted and at a loss as to what to do about their situation, as he is receiving letters from doctors, as are others he knows of, telling how they will no longer accept Medicare. This is a horrible situation for too many of us to be in. She is now having to go into a rest home, as the doctors here can't find the cause of her illness, and it is severe enough that she can't go home and be taken care of there. I have to wonder if this is another case of HMO abuse.

Mr. Shields on PBS, has stated that if those on the hill had to go 30 days without the insurance they have, the best in the world he tells us, that they would have to take what the rest of us have, which is little to none, they would pass legislation overnight to insure that health care would be available to all of us, and at the same level of care.

Here is a newsletter excerpt on health care which I received a couple of days ago.

Strengthening Communities
CA:Legislature Votes for Single-Payer Health System to Cover Uninsured
Yesterday, the California Assembly voted for a bill, SB 840, that would provide health care to all state residents under a government-run universal health insurance system, joining the state Senate which enacted a similar bill last year.

The bill, which needs an additional vote in the Senate, faces a possible veto by the governor and will need additional votes in coming years as a new California Health Insurance Agency develops the details of the system, but it represents a trend this year of state legislatures taking significant action towards universal health care. And unlike the Massachusetts law enacted earlier this year, which accomplished "universal coverage" by the nasty parlor trick of punishing individuals who don't get insurance, the California plan actually requires the state to create an affordable plan for all state residents.

As the Progressive States Network detailed in our July 24th Stateside Dispatch to its thousands of state legislators and state policy advocates who subscribe, new legislation and proposals are not waiting for DC to move towards universal health coverage. These efforts include:

San Francisco enacted a plan to combine an employer "fair share" mandate with public funds to provide health care for all city residents.
Vermont created a new "Catamount Health" plan to provide subsidized health care for individuals and families making up to 300% of the poverty line. Massachusetts created a plan promising the same, although with fewer details than Vermont and the pernicious individual mandate condemned by many health care experts and activists.
Illinois started implementing its AllKids law, which has created a plan that provides subsidized universal health care for all children in the state.
A bi-partisan group of Wisconsin legislators introduced a proposal to provide health coverage for all working families in the state.
While the rightwing and health insurance lobbies will be out in force condemning the California plan and other moves towards eliminating the profiteering by insurance, pharmaceutical and other players in the health industry, Progressive States also recently highlighted the success of the Veterans Administration in containing costs and providing efficient health care for our veterans under a completely government-run system. Similarly, by eliminating the administrative overhead of multiple state, federal and private programs, an analysis by the independent Lewin Group estimated that the California plan could save $8 billion per year overall in the state that could be used to finance universal coverage.

What is clear is that the corporate-dominated health care system has failed the American people. Since Washington leaders have refused to fix the system, states are stepping in to take up the leadership for health care reform.

More Resources:

CA: Legislature Votes for Single-Payer Health System to Cover Uninsured
California Senate, SB 840
Health Care for All-California: Coalition supporting SB 840.
Physicians for a National Health Program- resources on single payer health proposals around the country

Go on-site to view the numerous links in this article and to view Resources about this issue: http://www.progressivestates.org

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Mussolini's grandson wants Il Duce exhumed

Mon Sep 4, 2006 2:32pm ET
By
Phil Stewart

ROME (Reuters) - The grandson of Benito Mussolini has lodged a legal request to exhume the body of Italy's fascist dictator to find out how "Il Duce" really died, his lawyer told Reuters on Monday.

World War Two resistance accounts say Mussolini was executed by a partisan fighter "in the name of the Italian people" after he was captured in April 1945 while fleeing Allied forces with his mistress.

"All lies," said Luciano Randazzo, Guido Mussolini's lawyer, in an interview with Reuters. "The real story is not what they told you ... Absolutely not."


The accounts name the executioner as the late Walter Audisio, also know by his war name "Colonel Valerio". They say the execution took place at the gates of a villa overlooking Lake Como in northern Italy.

Randazzo, who said he lodged the request with Como prosecutors on Aug 27, said that research showed Audisio was not even mentioned as the executioner until two years later.

The prospect of an exhumation threatens to provoke a family tug of war. Mussolini's better-known granddaughter, Alessandra, told Reuters she opposed an exhumation.

"Apart from the fact that we don't know about this request, it should come unanimously (from Mussolini's heirs)," the right-wing politician said. She suggested the truth about Mussolini's fate could come through more historic research.

"My grandfather ... should be left in peace."


Partisans found Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci, and high officials of his rump fascist republic hidden in a retreating column of Nazi troops headed for Switzerland.

Their corpses were moved on April 29 to Milan and hanged upside down for public view at a petrol station in Piazzale Loreto, the square where fascists had executed 15 partisans in August 1944.

An exhumation would revive speculation about the dictator's final moments, long the stuff of legend and controversy.

The resistance fighter who captured Mussolini, Urbano Lazzaro, said in 1995 that Mussolini and Petacci had been dead for four hours when their partisan "execution" took place.


Citing a partisan he said had been present, Lazzaro said the couple died some way from the reputed site when Petacci tried to grab a gun from one of the guards who were escorting them to Milan for Mussolini's planned public execution.

"She was screaming 'They want to kill you'. Two or three shots went off in the struggle and hit Mussolini who dropped in agony. They finished him off on the spot and then shot Petacci for causing the accident," said Lazzaro, who died in January.

"The rest was all staged."

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-04T183533Z_01_SIB466675_RTRUKOC_0_US-ITALY-MUSSOLINI.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1
***

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth: Adolf Hitler

~~~

I believe that justice is instinct and innate; the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing and hearing: Thomas Jefferson : 3rd US president, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, 1743-1826.

~~~

To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business: Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy : Russian author, 1828-1910

~~~

Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere: Martin Luther King, Jr. : 1929-1968

~~~

"that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there is no longer any first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; that until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained: Speech by H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE I - California 28th February 1968 -

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
You don't see, you don't feel, and you don't look"

An Israeli Combat Soldier Breaks the Silence

By
Daniel Sturm

09/04/06 -- The midday news showed Israeli tanks shelling the Gaza Strip. In a Jerusalem coffee shop, 23-year-old former combat soldier, Yehuda Saul, told me he had made it his personal mission to speak out against the Israeli army when its actions were immoral. The Canadian American-Israeli veteran said that his "arch-conservative family" had slated him for a career in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). But during his third year of service the young platoon sergeant witnessed a scene of looting and killing at a combat mission in Hebron that had troubled him so much that he decided to leave the army. In June 2004 Saul founded "Breaking the Silence" (Shovrim Shtrika in Hebrew), an organization whose 350 members are all former Israeli combat soldiers who can share similar experiences. "Breaking the Silence" is currently preparing a world speaking tour and photo exhibition, offering a critical look at the Israel military's occupation of Palestine.

Daniel Sturm: You criticize Israel's army, yet you served as a soldier in the defense forces yourself. Isn't this hypocritical?
Yehuda Shaul: I think that I and every member of "Breaking the Silence" deserve the attention of the public. From the first diaper that my mom changed, it was obvious that I was going to be an officer. It's not as if I woke up one day, when I was 18, and said, "Hey, let's go and have fun in the Occupied Territories." In a way, we are all ex-soldiers. When I was in the Occupied Territories, you could have said that I was an American soldier. After all, I owned an M-16 that wasn't produced in Israel. I shot grenades that weren't produced with Israeli money, but by American money. Everyone, and especially Americans, have a responsibility to know what's going on in the world. And since I am from here, I am talking about here.

Daniel Sturm: When did you first realize that "occupation corrupts," as you say?
Yehuda Shaul: I grew up in a very right-winged family in Jerusalem. I went to high school in a settlement near Ramallah. When I was 18, there was no question of whether or not I would join the IDF. The only question was how high I would climb. Would I be in an elite commander unit, or just a regular infantry combat soldier? That was the mind-set I joined the army with. But what I took part in and witnessed in the Occupied Territories opened my eyes.

Daniel Sturm: Could you explain?
Yehuda Shaul: In Hebron settlers put a poster on the wall that called for soldiers to refuse to evacuate the settlements [as had been agreed upon in the treaty]. The poster said something like, "Soldier, commander, you must distinguish between good and evil, between enemy and beloved." In the Israeli army we learned that one must deport the enemies, meaning the Palestinians, but never those who were beloved, meaning the settlers. When I joined I had a black and white vision of right and wrong. Later I learned that everything is gray.

Daniel Sturm: What happened in Hebron?
Yehuda Shaul: Hebron is the second largest city in the Palestinian West Bank, with 150,000 Palestinians. Around 600 Jewish settlers live in the heart of the city, and 450 combat soldiers guard them. Under the Oslo agreement of 1997 Hebron was divided into two parts, with 120,000 Palestinians left under Palestinian authority and 30,000 Palestinians left under Israeli authority. At the beginning of the Intifada, from 2000 until mid-2002, the Palestinians began shooting at night, from the mountains down to the settlements. My company officer told us that if they shoot, we have to shoot back. We had three well-positioned posts in Palestinian neighborhoods. We posted snipers and grenade guns. My post was at a former Palestinian school in Hebron. Our mission was to target Palestinian houses. I remember being shocked when I heard this. "You mean we should shoot into the neighborhoods, where people live?" I thought about the safety rules I had learned during training. In order to shoot live grenades, no one should be within a distance of one mile on each side of the target. And now I was supposed to shoot into a neighborhood where people lived. The grenade gun is not an accurate weapon. One grenade kills everyone within the radius of eight meters, and injures everyone within the radius of 16 meters. At night, after the Palestinians shot, we received the order to pull the trigger. On the first day, during the four to five seconds before the grenades hit, you prayed that you didn't hurt anyone innocent. On the second day you are less tense, and on the third day even less. And after a week, it's a game.

Daniel Sturm: Was this when you became critical of the army's mission?
Yehuda Shaul: Not really. I first began to fully understand the corruption after I was discharged. When you are a combat soldier in the Occupied Territories, you can't see Palestinians as equal human beings. Because then you couldn't hop through a roof in the middle of the night, wake up a family, force the women into one corner and the men into another, and tear apart the place. At least when you stand at a checkpoint you see the shape of human beings: One head, two hands, and two legs. But when I was shooting live grenades into neighborhoods where people lived every night - why, that was a computer game!

Daniel Sturm: Weren't your actions justified, considering the violence the Palestinians were using?
Yehuda Shaul: You can't ignore that the Palestinians were using violence. But what is our moral and legal boundary, as a society or a nation? Can we really condone shooting grenades into neighborhoods, as a way of getting back? When we realized we were unable to prevent the Palestinians from shooting back at us, we started a strategy called "making our presence felt." We conducted silent patrols. We walked through streets, shooting onto houses, and shoot off grenades in parks.

Daniel Sturm: At what point did you begin to sympathize with the victims of this war?
Yehuda Shaul: The terminology of "victim" doesn't apply when you're in the field. When in combat you don't see, you don't feel, and you don't look. The name "Breaking the Silence" therefore refers to two levels of silence. The first is the personal level, where we realize what is really going on around us. The second level refers to the silence of society. As I was sitting in Hebron, firing grenades, my parents were just across the street in Jerusalem, hearing on the radio the sentence that every Israeli knows by heart: "IDF forces returned fire to the sources of fire." Of course, there were no sources of fire! We shot without ever finding any specific sources. But this is how Israeli society and human beings around the world receive information.

Daniel Sturm: How have people responded to your criticism?
Yehuda Shaul: Very ambivalent. Some people understand me, some don't. In the beginning, the IDF military police investigators broke into our exhibition, confiscated some items and brought us into interrogation. The idea was to frighten us and to declare us as an extreme case of "rotten apples." For me, it's no longer a question. I can't see myself acting any other way.

Daniel Sturm: Does the military occupation make any sense at all?
Yehuda Shaul: We all want to think that we are immune, that we can perform an "enlightened" and civilized occupation of Palestine. We want to believe that we are the most moral army in the world. But the truth is, every time you have a case in the press about Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians, the example is treated as if, "that's a rotten apple." If you were to send every Israeli soldier who has abused a Palestinian during his service to jail, every soldier who has served in the Occupied Territories would have to stand in line. Because you can't serve there without acting like an occupier.

"Breaking the Silence," contact information Email: yehuda@shovrimshtika.org - Internet: http://www.shovrimshtika.org.............

[Saundra Hummer]

***********
The War Is Lost
By
Paul Craig Roberts

09/04/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The Pentagon’s latest quarterly “progress” report to Congress on Iraq is a grim tale of a lost war. The Pentagon told Congress what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and propaganda organs such as Fox “News” never tell the American public, namely:

(1) The Sunni-based insurgency remains “potent and viable” despite spiraling Sunni-Shiite violence and beefed up US forces.

(2) Since the last report three months ago, Iraqi casualties from “sectarian clashes”--the Pentagon’s euphemism for civil war--have soared by more than 50 percent.

(3) From May when the new Iraqi government was established until August, the average number of weekly attacks increased sharply to 800.

(4) Since the previous report, Iraqi daily casualties have jumped by 50 per cent from 80 per day to 120 per day. Currently, Iraqis are dying at the rate of 43,800 per year from violence.

The Iraqi government cowers behind the fortified walls of the “Green Zone.” On August 31, the Kurds in the north took down the Iraqi flag and replaced it with the Kurdish one. Most of Iraq is ruled by Shiite and Sunni militias. Conflict between them has forced 160,000 Iraqis to flee their homes.

Who is going to tell Bush that the war is lost?

Is Rumsfeld going to tell him?

Is Cheney going to tell him?

How can they tell him after all the bravado and false reports?This is a delusional administration. Confronted with three major polls showing that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Iraq war, Bush declared that he is staying the course, demonstrating yet again his disdain for common sense and the will of the American people.

If Bush and his neoconservative cabal were judged by their performance they would be ridden out of town on a rail. If a court of law judged their actions, they would walk the plank.

Everything this moronic regime promised about a “cakewalk” war and the ease of pacifying Iraq and turning it into an American puppet democracy has turned to ashes in President Bush’s mouth.

Having lost the Iraq war, the neoconservatives are determined to initiate war with Iran.

National security expert John Prados says, “The pattern of manipulation and misuse of intelligence that served the Bush administration in the drive to start a war with Iraq is being repeated today for its neighbor Iran.”

It is now established beyond a reasonable doubt that the neocons intentionally cooked up false intelligence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, an invasion that has resulted in tens of thousands of Iraqi and American casualties, both dead and maimed.

Aggressive wars are themselves war crimes. To intentionally create a false basis for an aggressive war is an act of high treason.

Alarmed by the neoconservative drive to start a war with Iran before the US can extricate itself from the Iraq catastrophe, the CIA firmly declared that any Iranian nuclear weapon is a decade away. This undermines the neoconservatives’ urgency to attack Iran now.

Neoconservative fanatics tried to discredit the CIA with a recent report by the House Intelligence Committee Republican staff written by neoconservative Frederick Fleitz, a protege of neocon heavyweight John Bolton, a person active in concocting the false case for war against Iraq. Fleitz alleges that the CIA is a know-nothing agency that lacks the ability to assess Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons.

Neocons also dismiss the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which issued a report on August 31 reaffirming that there is no tangible proof that Iran’s nuclear energy program has a military aspect.

The neoconservatives plan to plunge America into war with Iran before they can be held accountable for the lost war in Iraq.

This neoconservative conspiracy against the United States and Iran must be stopped. Neocons must be removed from the government that they have betrayed and held accountable for their crimes.

Before America can preach democracy to the world, we must first rescue American democracy from the Bush regime and re-establish government accountability to the people.~~~
Paul Craig Roberts , was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington ; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice~~~http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14829.htm*******

[Saundra Hummer]

"It's My Duty to Speak Out"
A Film by Scott Galindez
Marine Corporal Grant Collins describes what it was like to participate in the war in Iraq. He also describes what it is like to live with giving orders that resulted in the deaths of civilians.

09/04/06 Runtime 8 Minutes

Click Play To View (Go on-site to view and listen to:

This video provided by Truthout.org - Visit: http://www.ivaw.net

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Study shows fruit and vegetable juice consumption may reduce risk of Alzheimer's disease
September 01, 2006 - Drinking fruit and vegetable juices frequently may delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease. In a study published in the September issue of The American Journal of Medicine, researchers followed almost 2000 subjects for up to 10 years and found that the risk for developing Alzheimer's disease was reduced by 76% for those who drank fruit and vegetable juices more than 3 times per week compared with those who drank juices less than once per week. A lower reduction (16%) was obtained for juice consumption once or twice per week.

Recent studies of Alzheimer's disease biochemistry have focused on the accumulation of beta-amyloid peptide in the brain, and the action of hydrogen peroxide in mediating this process. Various studies have suggested that polyphenols, strong anti-oxidants available in many foods, might disrupt these processes and provide some protection against Alzheimer's disease. Although some studies of anti-oxidant vitamins have been disappointing, this study is the first to examine juices rich in polyphenols as a preventive measure for Alzheimer's disease.

The subjects were already part of the Kame Project, a prospective study of Japanese populations living in Hiroshima, Japan; Oahu, Hawaii; and the metropolitan area of Seattle, Washington. Drawing from the Seattle population, 1836 people were identified as free of dementia in 1992-1994, and were followed at 2-year time intervals until the end of 2001. Dietary consumption of fruit and vegetable juices was determined from self-administered questionnaires developed for Asian populations. Cognitive function was assessed by trained interviewers using a standardized test, with clinical follow-up resulting in clinical diagnoses for those patients showing impairment.

Writing in the article, Qi Dai, MD, PhD, states, "We found that frequent drinking of fruit and vegetable juices was associated with a substantially decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease. This inverse association was stronger after adjustments for potential confounding factors, and the association was evident in all strata of selected variables. These findings are new and suggest that fruit and vegetable juices may play an important role in delaying the onset of Alzheimer's disease". Qi Dai also said that the next step is to investigate whether high blood concentrations of polyphenols high in major fruit and vegetable juices are associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease.

Elsevier Health Sciences
Printed from: http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/26098/Study_shows_fruit_and_vegetable_juice_consumption_ may_reduce_risk_of_Alzheimers_disease.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BrightSurf.com Science News and Events
www.brightsurf.com

[Saundra Hummer]

*******The Armitage Red Herring
The right wants you to believe the Plame scandal is over. It isn't.

Daniel Schulman
MotherJones.com
washington_dispatch / 2006
September 04 , 2006 ~~~If you believe the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, the conservative wing of the blogosphere, or any number of right-wing commentators, the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame has amounted to a non-scandal, a conspiracy theory drummed up for political ends by the left. This owes to the recent disclosure in Newsweek that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the initial and primary source for the now infamous column by Robert Novak that touched off the controversy. Plugging “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War,” a soon-to-be-released book co-authored by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and The Nation's David Corn (who was the first to raise the question of whether the Plame leak broke the law), the magazine reported that Armitage, who has a reputation as a gossip, may have inadvertently leaked Plame’s identity to Novak in the course of making chit chat.

In the Journal's interpretation, one shared by like-minded ideologues, this means that: “… the leaker wasn't Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House who has been accused of running a conspiracy against Ms. Plame as revenge for her husband Joe Wilson's false accusations against the White House's case for war with Iraq. So what have the last three years been all about anyway? Political opportunism and internal score-settling, among other things.” Not quite. The very significant news about Armitage’s role in all of this is but one strand in a many-tentacled scandal that has led, among other places, to the office of the Vice President and to the President himself. Attempts to portray this news otherwise are just the latest effort by the right to mute the scandal, which has included questioning whether Plame was really covert and not just a Langley office hand.

Corn, for his part, seems somewhat amused that his reporting has been held up to vindicate those who believe the Plame leak was not the act of political retaliation it certainly appears to have been. “White House defenders are chortling,” he writes on his blog. “For some reason, they believe that the news from ‘Hubris’ that Richard Armitage was the original leaker means there was nothing to the CIA leak case.” He goes on to say that the body of evidence that has been unearthed over the years disputes this fact. “Rove's leak (to Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) and Libby's leak (to Judith Miller and Cooper) were part of a campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson. That's no conspiracy theory.”

In the spring of 2003, as details emerged about a then-unnamed former ambassador who had traveled to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had sought to buy yellow cake uranium from the African nation and found the claims meritless, there was clearly an unhealthy fixation on Wilson and his wife within the White House — and an effort to run damage control to salvage one of the administration’s key assertions about Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs. The facts are clear: On June 12, 2003, more than a month before Novak's column, Libby learned of Plame’s identity in a conversation with the vice president. Authorized by the president himself to disclose part of the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in order to defend the administration’s position on Iraq, Libby met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller later that month. According to Libby’s indictment, at least part of their conversation centered on Wilson's Niger trip and Libby suggested to Miller that Wilson’s wife might work for the CIA. When Libby and Miller met again on July 8, they again discussed Wilson’s trip and, possibly to cover his tracks, Libby asked that his comments be attributed to “a former Hill staffer” instead of a “senior administration official.” During this conversation, according to the indictment, Libby was critical of the CIA’s report on the fact-finding mission and again “advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.” Three days later, Karl Rove spoke with Time magazine’s Matt Cooper, telling him not to “get too far out on Wilson” and that the Niger trip had been authorized by “Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues” – (actually, the trip had been authorized by the CIA, though Plame had suggested her husband, who had contacts in the region, for the job). The following day, the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus, spoke with an administration official who, using similar talking points, also sought to play down the significance of the Niger trip, telling him “that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.” Meanwhile, during this timeframe, the Post has reported that “two top white house officials contacted at least six reporters and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.”

And that just scratches the surface. Now that Armitage’s long-suspected role in the leak has been clarified, one chapter in this convoluted saga has closed. But there’s more to the story.

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/washington_dispatch/2006/08/plame%20case.html~~~~~
*

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~Our fruits and vegetables are dying in the fields, on the vine, bush and on the trees from which those south of our border usually derive a living from, according to those who own the crops. It seems the legals are not so much into picking our foodstuffs, as they are now in higher paying jobs, such as construction. The backbreaking and very difficult work of picking foodstuffs is usually left to the illegals it seems. Not always, but for the most part, this is the case, and besides, our government has cut back on the numbers they will allow in to work, so they are bankrupting our farmers.

Jay Leno wasn't just kidding when he said, something to this effect: the good thing is, the border has been closed, the bad thing is lettuce is now $20 a head. We're already paying premiem prices for Lemons, etc. A dollar a piece where we are. Unimaginable not so long ago. SRH~~~~~
MotherJones.com / News / Feature

Exodus: Border-Crossers Forge a New America
Coyotes, pollos, and the promised van
Charles Bowden
September/October 2006 Issue

In America

The birds can no longer be trusted. Our government suspects a duck or a goose, perhaps that rare swan, will bring plague to our shores. The ice is melting, also. The polar bears are fated to die, the seas are guaranteed to rise and flood our coasts. The skies have mutinied and new monster winds whip off the ocean. We've already lost one city and there is concern about future storms. We worry about nuclear weapons that are not controlled by white people. The government eavesdrops on many people and says this is necessary for our protection. The enemies can be anywhere and appear as almost anything.

The boy sits by the road on a dirt embankment in Arizona about four miles north of the Mexican border. His clothing is dark, his shoes casual. He wears a cap and a daypack. He is the face of yet one more official enemy. And he is lost and afraid. He's been trying to flag down Border Patrol vehicles but he says they pass him by. He is 17 and afraid to give his name. He is afraid of the desert. He is afraid to talk of the coyote he hired. He is not afraid of the Border Patrol, but he cannot seem to get the agents' attention.

The night before, he left Sásabe, Sonora, a small Mexican town of several thousand less than 10 miles away. He was hauled along the fence to the west and then started walking north in a group of about 30. A chopper with searchlights appeared in the dark, his group scattered and he could not find them again. A 26–year–old woman from Chiapas died near this spot last summer, one of the 400 or 500 who now perish each year crossing the border in this new version of the Middle Passage. But he knows nothing of that. What he fears is the desert of night that he just endured.

His father paints houses in Florida and knows the boy can get work. So he has brought his son north from Veracruz and guaranteed a smuggler $1,700 for his passage to Florida and then in the darkness all went wrong.

The boy wonders if his coyote will return for him. I tell him, Not likely.

He wonders if he can make a phone call using Mexican money. I tell him, No.

I point north to an Indian village just 500 yards away. I give him 20 bucks and say, Go there, give them the money, they will let you call your father in Florida. Most likely, the boy will be picked up by the Border Patrol, dumped back in Mexico, and tomorrow or the day after that join a new group of migrants, probably with the same smuggling organization, and move toward his future, again.

Mesquite clots the land here and a hundred people moving 50 yards away would be invisible. On the ground by the highway are clumps of one–gallon water bottles marking where coyotes picked up migrants. Nearby trees lining the arroyos hide temporary camps where men and women and children waited for rides.

Thirty years ago, I was in almost this exact spot with an old Indian man who still raised crops in the desert by capturing the summer rains, a tactic called ak–chin. At night he'd sleep in his field on a cot. He had ropes racing out from beside his bed and linked to suspended tin cans he'd rattle in the darkness when he heard coyotes –– the real and native canines of the desert –– come for his squash and melons. (Like humans, coyotes are omnivores.) Now that old man is dead, his field abandoned, and no one does traditional agriculture here. The tribe has moved on to welfare, casino gambling, and smuggling illegals and drugs.

One day, after I left that old man, I found two Mexicans wandering in the desert with gallon jugs of water. They had been walking toward farm work in the upper Altar Valley. But they'd been crushed by the summer heat and looked at me with broken faces. I put them in my car and drove them almost a hundred miles there without a thought. Now, I won't drive a frightened boy 500 yards to a phone because I'm worried about getting busted by the Border Patrol and facing huge legal expenses.

Depending on the sector of the line, an estimated 10 or 20 percent of the Mexicans moving north give up after being repeatedly bagged by the Border Patrol. Or they do not. On the line, all numbers are fictions. The exportation of human beings by Mexico now reaches, officially, a half million souls a year. Or double that. Or triple that. What is for certain are the apprehensions by the Border Patrol (during one week this April, agents caught 12,434 people in the 262–mile Tucson Sector, for example). And that any reduction of poverty in Mexico takes two forms: the exportation of brown flesh to the United States, and the money those people send home to sustain the people, la gente, whom their government ignores.

Everything else is talk. And bad talk.

There are no honest players in this game. People cut the cards to fit their ideology. More Mexicans come north than either government admits. They do take jobs. (They say Mexicans take jobs Americans refuse to do. This is probably true in some instances. But in the mid–1960s slaughterhouse workers earned twice the current wage for their toil. Now such jobs are held by Mexicans.) They do commit crimes. And if the arrival of millions of poor people in the United States does not drive down wages, then surely there is a Nobel Prize to be earned in studying this remarkable exception to the law of supply and demand.

They are no longer migratory workers. And it is not seasonal labor. The people walking north all around me are not going home again. This is an exodus from a failed economy and a barbarous government and their journey is biblical.

And all the solutions in political play are idiocy. Worker permits? Demand at this moment is certainly the 12 million illegals in the United States today, and it climbs each year by maybe a million more. Open the border? Mexicans would be trampled to death by Asians storming up the open route and, also, by other Latin Americans, those folks the Border Patrol calls OTMs, Other Than Mexicans. Build a wall? The border consists of 1,951 miles of desert, mountains, and scrub, a zone legally traversed by 350 million people a year–the busiest border in the world. Employer sanctions to make illegals unemployable? Fine, then Mexicans go home and Mexico erupts and we have a destroyed nation on our southern border and even greater illegal migration. In 1910, the Mexican Revolution ripped apart a nation of 15 million souls. One out of 15 died. But 892,000 fled to the United States. Now there are 108 million Mexicans. Do the math.

There are piles of studies on these matters, studies that prove illegal migration benefits the United States, studies that prove it does not benefit the United States, studies that show it enhances the GDP or has little or no contribution to the GDP. There are plans to manage this migration and plans to stop it dead in its tracks. There are proposed solutions. And, of course, there are claims that we don't really need a solution, because mass migration is natural for a nation of immigrants and as American as apple pie.

But in the end, you don't get to pick solutions. You simply have choices, and by these choices you will discover who you really are. You can turn your back on poor people, or you can open your arms and welcome them into an increasingly crowded country and exhausted landscape.

I think this country already has too many people and that the ground under our feet is being murdered and the sky over our heads is being poisoned. I find these beliefs pointless when I stand on the line.

Across it flows the largest migration on earth. Nearly 15 percent of the Mexican workforce now resides in the United States. When the dust settles, this exodus will influence us more than the Iraq war. The war is who we are; the migrants are who we will be. For a century, the United States has tolerated and sponsored various nondemocratic rulers in Mexico. When Porfirio Díaz ruled as a dictator, we celebrated him. When the revolution came, we tried to corrupt and control various factions and repeatedly invaded. When a new dictatorship settled on Mexico disguised within single–party rule for 71 years, we celebrated it. When the students were butchered in Mexico City in 1968 on the eve of the Olympics, we focused on gold medals and ignored the murders. When Mexico became a narco state in the 1980s, we denied this fact. When NAFTA proved ruinous to most Mexicans, we denied this fact. And now as millions flee this charnel house, we pretend it is simply a mild structural readjustment of globalization, something that provides us cheap labor and grows that thing we call our economy.

For several decades now our economic theology has outsourced not only American jobs but also the reality that most people on this planet must endure. We buy clothes made by children and comment on the good price. Oceans have largely sheltered us from the consequences of our actions. But the Third World has finally said hello and this time not even a wall will keep it silent or at bay. What is happening on our southern border has penetrated our entire country and the border is simply a point where we watch the world race toward us at flood level. The issue is not securing a broken border any more than the real issue in New Orleans is building a better levee. Storms are rising, and the walls and levees are simply points where we taste their initial force as they move inland.

We have entered the future even as we pretend it is simply a version of our past.
.
Some of us protest this future. Kyle, 37, wears a camouflage hat and a green T–shirt. He's a man of some heft and does not smile easily. He's getting ready for a patrol at a ranch house about 40 miles north of Sásabe. It's early April, and the Minutemen are bivouacked just above the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Last year, Kyle took part in the Minutemen's initial action, an event of media brilliance that recalled guerrilla theater masterpieces of the '60s. With only a few hundred people, mainly retirees, the Minutemen, outnumbered by print, radio, and television media, captured the imagination of many Americans, caused a national conversation about the perils of the border, and danced across television screens for weeks. Their leader, Chris Simcox, came off as a smooth–talking John Wayne defending a new Alamo. I liked them all and thought I had stumbled into a geriatric Woodstock. To avoid any unseemly incidents, Mexican soldiers had told the coyotes to take a holiday and so the entire month was tenting, talking, lawn chairs, and not much else.

This year is different. Like so many outsider movements, the Minutemen have had their thunder stolen by the mainstream pols. Their issues are now legitimate talk on the floors of Congress. But still Kyle's here to "protect the American Dream, live in a free country, own a home, and make a decent living without tyranny."

Kyle owns a kind of janitorial service in the Phoenix area, and in a few days that city will host a march by illegals protesting the bill in Congress that would make them felons, deny them a chance for citizenship, and possibly deport them. He says a bunch of his employees have told him they are going to skip work for the march.

He begs to differ. "You can't," he offers, "legitimize 15 to 30 million lawbreakers. There's some people here who plain shouldn't be here."

Just then, Chris Simcox ambles up. He's dressed in black and holds a hacksaw in one hand (he's been cutting PVC pipe) and a cigar stub in the other.

Simcox is a natural American genius at publicity. "We're going to grow," he explains, "until we equal the number of the Border Patrol if we have to. We have 7,000 members and next year we'll have 14,000 to 15,000. We have Americans here taking jobs that the government won't take. Try and remove us."

He speaks darkly of an incident like Tiananmen Square should the authorities try to remove Minutemen from their stations.

He loves the marches by illegals and their supporters. "It's already backfired," he says. "We couldn't ask for a better situation–hundreds of thousands showing no respect for this country. The silent majority is not out there yelling and screaming."

In a few days, Simcox will unleash his new idea: have the Minutemen build fences on private property along the line to demonstrate that the U.S. government could easily stop this brown invasion of America. First, there will be a 6–foot–deep trench backed by coils of concertina wire and then a 15–foot–tall steel mesh fence with the top angling toward Mexico. Behind this will be a dirt road and video cameras so that anyone on a home computer can watch for illegals. Across the road will be another 15–foot fence and more concertina wire. The group figures the whole deal will run only $125 to $150 a foot.

I stroll around the corner and see the tally board. One day the Minutemen's morning shift sighted 92 illegals and bagged 34. The midday shift saw 83 and caught 59. The night crew sighted 54 and nailed 23. These numbers stun me because they mean that, unlike last year, the coyotes have so many customers they cannot afford to avoid routes known to have Minutemen plopped in their path. Imagine rush hour and you see the reality. Of course, bagging the quarry means calling the Border Patrol to pick them up. The Minutemen are punctilious about the niceties of law, and what they are doing––armed patrols against lawbreakers––is legal.

They are the inevitable consequence of illegal immigration, part of a new page in American nativism. They are neither alarming, nor unfriendly, nor relevant.
.
Forty miles south of the Minuteman camp, I hit the drag road, a dirt track swept by the Border Patrol looking for the footprints of men, women, and children heading north. The ground is littered with cast–off water bottles, clothing, food cans, shoes, gloves, backpacks. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, covering about 185 square miles, was created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1985, in part to save the masked bobwhite, a bird that was extinct in the United States and barely clinging to life in Mexico. What killed off the bird was settlement in both nations. Now it is being slowly stomped to death in its last refuge. Migrants have created 1,320 miles of trails and resurrected 200 miles of old roads, now littered with abandoned cars, some decorated with bullet holes.

I load my truck up with trash and head out to the main gate. A pair of Border Patrol trucks sit empty, the agents off on ATVs hunting Mexicans. Two kids sit nearby. The girl is 22; her brother, 16. They've been trying to flag down Border Patrol units that roar by, but no one will stop. They came up from Oaxaca City. They're Zapotec Indians, but because they haven't been raised in an Indian pueblo, they see themselves as city kids, as Mexicans. For 16 days, they've been on the road.

First they took the bus up to the border. Then they paid a coyote $800 to guide them across. The first time, they got caught and deported. This time, they got separated from their group and they say they have now wandered the desert for four days. I don't believe them about the four days––they look too clean––but clearly they are broken in spirit.

They're headed toward friends in Madera, California, a spot outside Fresno. But for now, they want to go back to the border. They need to reconnect with the smuggler (coyotes usually include three attempts in their price) and make a call to their people in California. And they need to eat and drink. The boy, despite my warnings about the trash I've collected off the migrant trails, grabs from this garbage a bottle with some pop left in it and guzzles.

He weighs maybe 110 pounds, and she not more than 85. They are small–boned and their skin is dark and shines with life. Both move with the light tread of cats. An hour ago, I found a shawl out in the desert of a pattern and style made only in Yucatán. Everyone is moving.

More than 40 years ago, when I was a boy starting to notice the way girls moved when they walked, I camped on a street in Durango, Mexico, with my old man in a bread van he'd converted into some notion of a camper –– a slab for him to sleep atop cases of beer, a Coleman stove, and the floor for my bunk. It was hot and he opened the back doors and tossed a canned chicken into a pot for his idea of a meal. Soon a gaggle of kids gathered with hungry eyes. The old man stood there with his hand–rolled cigarette and then started giving out cans of food –– potatoes, chickens, corn, beans, Spam, hash, all the staples of his menu. When he was done and all our food was gone, I asked him why. He said nothing but opened a quart of lukewarm beer from the reserve he slept on. I knew he'd come up hard, but it was years before I understood what he taught me that night.

I give the girl $40 and tell her to hide the money because Sásabe is not an easy place. They climb in and I take them to the border crossing and wish them good luck. The agents manning the U.S. station watch them climb out and walk into Mexico.

They ask me if the pair worked for me, and I say no, that they are two kids from Oaxaca sneaking into the United States, that they said they'd wandered in the desert for four days and were very thirsty and hungry.

They tell me what I have just done is illegal and could cost me a lot of money and put me in jail.

I say I know that fact.

They look at me with sad eyes and wave me on.

It's not easy for anyone in the future.
.
In phoenix, 200 miles to the northwest, Mexicans have always been present but not accounted for. Fifteen years ago, I was talking to the publisher of the city's major lifestyle magazine, and when I mentioned Mexican Americans as an element of the city absent from his slick rag, he looked puzzled and suggested there were a few around doing gardening. Recently, the metropolitan area has been growing like a weed, choking out the desert with subdivisions. And a large part of the growth has been illegal migrants. Home invasions have exploded as rival gangs steal migrants from stash houses, which now number more than 1,000 in Phoenix alone.

In mid–March, the local Spanish–language radio stations promoted a protest at U.S. Senator Jon Kyl's Phoenix office. The senator had tossed some tough provisions into an immigration bill. Twenty thousand people showed up. Until then, Phoenix had feasted on golf, traffic jams, and sun and remained largely oblivious of a secret city within the city. Now, after the massive protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas, Phoenix joins a national network of marches on April 10. The city simply waits, silent, a bit worried and at the same time curious: Just how big will a gran marcha be?

The parade route sleeps in the early morning light as men unload cases of water at aid stations along Grand Avenue. Inside Mel's, a hash house decorated with American flags and slogans ("Let Freedom Ring"), the manager talks in Spanish with three young illegal guys about some remodeling; each wears big decals with the march slogan, "Somos America" (We Are America). The back room is wall–to–wall cops chowing down and plotting how to handle the marchers. The customers, buzzing about the event, are black, white, and brown, and one black guy pretty much sums up their attitude: "As long as they do it right, it's okay." Frank, 47, who's Mexican American, sounds the only dissent. He's pissed by the display of Mexican flags in the earlier march on Kyl's office.

He's got huge tattoos on each arm and a quick mouth that says, "They got more rights than we do. They got cars, cell phones. I was born here, worked all my life, I can't get no car. They talk about how wonderful Mexico is, well, kick their ass back there then. I take the day off, I lose my job. They ain't gonna pay my rent."

He rolls on about how his mom's neighborhood is overrun with illegals living 7 to 10 to a house. Then he turns to a customer and instantly shifts into Spanish.

Around 10 a.m. at the march's origin point, the state fairgrounds, bands and speakers entertain maybe 10,000 people. They are all ages and they are all brown. It is difficult to give simple categories such as legal and illegal. Take the Garcia family.

Sandro's been here 14 years, was brought north by his farmworker dad. He has some kind of papers. Next to him is his wife, and she's illegal. She holds their child, a girl Sandro calls Pretty Girl, who is a U.S. citizen by birth. Technically, this family has one illegal, but as a state of mind, they are all migrants, all living and working in a kind of shadow world. And they all are festooned with small American flags.

Police and media choppers hover overhead. The crowd chants, "Sí Se Puede" (Yes, It Can Be Done). A burly young guy has an American flag sprouting out of his hat and a huge tattoo on one arm that reads "Hecho en Mexico" (Made in Mexico). All this is watched by Pete Rosales. He did Nam in '64 and '65 and has a big scar on one leg as a keepsake of that frolic. He's been watching the crowd since 7:30 a.m. "to make sure they get it right." And getting it right for him means no more of those damned Mexican flags and lots of people so that the gringos will stop treating Mexicans like second–class human beings. He needn't worry –– those few who arrive at the fairgrounds with Mexican flags are pounced on by march organizers.

At 12:25 p.m., the march steps off. I've seen flash floods roar down desert arroyos, the wall of brown water churning and tumbling. Now I see one made of human flesh. For more than two hours, la gran marcha sweeps past me. The people fill Grand Avenue from building to building. There is no space for spectators except on rooftops. The lines flooding the street are at least 60 people across. Each line takes one to two seconds to pass me and features three to four baby strollers. The water station next to me is gutted in 50 minutes flat. And still they keep coming. In two hours, I see maybe 10 whites, 1 black, and no more than 30 Mexican flags. And at least 50,000 American flags: flags fluttering from poles, flags held in hands, decorating cowboy hats, sprouting from manes of black hair on the heads of mothers pushing strollers. The signs are almost all the same: WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS, WE ARE AMERICA OR TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE. A herd of Prussians could not be more organized and on message.

When it is over, there will not be a single reported incident. Nothing but at least 200,000 people peacefully walking down the street of the city that ignores them. And I never see a single can of beer. This is the largest gathering of human beings for any reason in the history of Arizona. The state press is largely silent about the march. It was too big, now what? Deportation begins to sound like a pipe dream. After all, this is the nation that could not get 100,000 of its fellow citizens out of New Orleans and to safety.

In Mexico

Yellow dogs laze in the afternoon of the plaza. Altar, 60 miles of dirt road south of Sásabe, is home to 18,000 people and a way station for 500,000, 600,000, 800,000 souls a year who pass through on their way to El Norte. A month ago, an undercover Border Patrol agent surveyed the traffic and pegged it at 5,000 people a day. No one knows for certain and hardly anyone really wants to know. But you can go to the bank with this: Each year more Mexicans move through Altar and illegally enter the United States than our government admits illegally cross the entire 1,951–mile border. Altar is the beginning of the lie and the beginning of the pain.

Two things happen to visitors in Altar: first stunned silence and then a search for some metaphor to wrap around the dusty town. A visiting novelist, Phil Caputo, noticed the 20–odd stalls selling black daypacks, black T–shirts, and other clothing and deemed it a migrant Wal–Mart. On the east edge of the community is a boardinghouse for migrants named Éxodo, Exodus. There are dozens of such flops in town.

Here is the basic script: You get off a bus you have ridden for days from the Mexican interior, increasingly from the largely Indian states far to the south. This is the end of your security. On the bus, you had a seat, your own space. Now you enter a feral zone. With money, you can buy space in a flop ($3 a night) and get a meal of chicken, rice, beans, and tortillas (about $2.50). You stare out on an empty desert unlike any ground you have ever seen. Men with quick eyes look you over, the employees of coyotes, people smugglers. On the bus, you were a man or a woman or a child. Now you are a pollo, a chicken, and you need a pollero, a chicken herder.

You will never be safe, but for the next week or so, you will be in real peril. If you sleep in the plaza to save money, thugs will rob you in the night or, if you are a woman, have their way with you. If you cut a deal with a coyote's representative (and 80 to 90 percent do), you still must buy all that black clothing and gear, house and feed yourself. Then one day, when you are told to move, you'll get in a van with 20 to 40 other pollos and ride 60 miles of bumps and dust to la línea. Each passenger pays $25. The vans do not move with fewer than 17, prefer at least 20, and do, at a minimum, three trips a day. A friend of mine recently did the ride and counted 58 vans moving out in two hours.

Fifteen miles below the border, you will face a checkpoint set up by Grupo Beta, the Mexican border patrol that's supposed to help pollos. Early this year, a group of American reporters stood at the checkpoint and counted 1,296 people in 180 minutes. Signs there warn of venomous creatures and high desert temperatures. The officials are under an orange ramada, one with a crudely painted single word, gallo, rooster. The vans stop; their bodies are beat up but the tires, always, are excellent. You will be sitting inside, possibly on an iron bar so that dozens of pollos can be packed in. The men of Grupo Beta will count you –– everyone gets a cut in this business. The head of the state police in a town just ahead on the line is said to take in $30,000 a week.

At the moment, though you are penniless, unemployed, and frightened, you are worth a few hundred dollars, almost like an oil future. But you must get to that stash house in America before you are worth real money and worth protecting. And you must do it by force of will. In this sector of the line, the 262–mile–long Tucson Sector, a few hundred will officially die each year. Others will die and rot in the desert and go uncounted. A year ago, a woman from Zacatecas disappeared in late June. Her father came up and searched for weeks to find her body in the desert, a valley of several hundred square miles. He stumbled on three other corpses before finding the remains of his own child.

At dusk, you will go through the line with 20, 30, or more Mexicans. There will be a guide. You will carry a gallon of water and that black daypack. The temperature in summer could be 115 degrees. You will walk anywhere from 10 to 60 miles, depending on the route and what you have agreed to pay. There will be rattlesnakes, cacti, trees. And almost no sign of people. Everything will have thorns that rake your skin as you stumble through the darkness. You will keep up or be left behind. If you are a woman, you have a fair chance of being raped. And you will most likely never speak of these nights again so long as you live. You will have children and grandchildren and teach them many things. But if you are like the others who have passed this way, these nights will remain your secret.

The middle passage ends at the stash house in Tucson or Phoenix. The price from there to distant spots –– North Carolina, Los Angeles, Chicago, and so forth — is $1,700 and rising. And this price does not cover getting to the border or crossing the border or food or a place to stay. It only covers getting from the stash house to another destination in Los Estados Unidos.

Somewhere between Altar and Phoenix, new Americans are being forged in a burning desert. No one is really counting the people, no one is really recording their journeys. Soon, they and their descendants will number 30 million. And this vast silence is likely to be the savage part of their repressed history.

On the plaza at Altar, pollos sit in rows, waiting for their van rides. They wear dark clothing and have daypacks and gallons of water by their side. Inside the church, they often light $1 votives before heading into the desert. A mile to the west, two new motels have risen, one mainly for pollos, the other for polleros. A tourist would have a hard time finding lodging in Altar.

Everywhere around Altar, new houses are coming out of the ground. The nicest run 2,000 to 5,000 square feet, have fine windows and doors, good walls surrounding a lot of flowering trees and shrubs. These belong to drug traffickers, sharks who swim in the same sea as the migrants and find that thousands of pollos mask their own hikes with backpacks full of dope. They tend to carry AK–47s as well as water bottles. The going rate for moving marijuana across the fence is $10 a pound — one night hauling a 100–pound pack can mean $1,000. There is a fantasy that drugs and migrants are separate matters. Both are moved by the same organizations and both come north to satisfy American hungers — those seeking people who will work for low wages and those seeking highs. And both mock the pretenses of Homeland Security.

Near the plaza are two guys from Guerrero in the regulation pollo black. They are Indians and plan to go to Taylor, Texas. They say they have friends there — pollos always say they go to friends, not family, an act of caution.

One guy, 19, gives the basic biography of a pollo: "I have never been in the U.S. before. I plan to spend a couple of years, and then go back to Mexico. There are no jobs in Guerrero. Why even go to school? When you graduate, there are no jobs. Last week, in the state capital I saw 300 young schoolteachers demonstrate because they could find no jobs. I work in the fields. I can grow beans, corn, and squash.

"His eyes are anxious. He has heard Americans think people such as himself steal jobs from them. But he does not believe this because "people who have been in the United States tell me Americans don't work in the fields."

He has two worries: dying in the desert, and not finding a job. He's heard of the recent big marches and thinks people have a right to march.

"Why," he asks, "won't the U.S. let us work and then go home? We don't want to do anything bad to America. In my village, 20 percent of the people have gone to the U.S., and in the state, about 50 percent have gone. I've been in Altar two days waiting to cross."

This story plays out of mouth after mouth in the plaza. There is no work in Mexico. Do you know where Oregon is? Do you know where Tennessee is?

Juan Hernández, a dark Mixtec Indian who has already been caught once by the Border Patrol, explains, "There is no work, no rain, nothing to do in the fields. We are very poor there. I don't know what the U.S. is like," but, he adds, already 20 to 30 people from his village have gone to America.

In the stalls, black T–shirts say "Retired Army" or "U.S. Navy." They sport huge American flags or soaring bald eagles. Racks hold medallions of Jesus Christ and Jesus Malverde. One was said to be a carpenter, the other a bandit hung in Culiacán, Sinaloa, in 1909 and now a favored santo of the narcotraficantes. A line snakes out of the telegraph office where pollos wait for money orders to pay the coyotes; others line up at the pay phone, checking in with relatives despite some of the highest phone rates in the world.

There are two sounds: pigeons, and the low rumble of vans as they load pollos.

Francisco Garcia, 39, has smooth skin, black hair and mustache, and the slack gut of a man who does not work in the fields. Until recently, he was the mayor of Altar. Now he works for the Catholic aid center for migrants six blocks off the plaza. Those defeated by the desert and the Border Patrol come here for food and shelter. And then they head north again — Garcia knows one migrant who tried 25 times before he succeeded. He thinks at least 90 percent of the migrants get through.

He explains that the traditional economy of Altar was cattle and farming. Now it is pollos and drugs. "The migrants are like a curtain that hides the money of the drug business." Almost all the people in the pollo industry — the people running phone services and boardinghouses, the coyotes — come from outside Altar.

He describes the people–smuggling business as like a string of rosary beads, with each bead a self–contained cell. In the Mexican south, men recruit pollos, then other men round them up and ship them on buses to, say, Altar. Here another cell plants them in flophouses and arranges van rides. Sixty miles north, another cell moves them through the wire. At the end of their desert trek, they brush against the next cell, which loads them in vans and takes them to stash houses. Here a key representative of the coyote arrives, copies down names and phone numbers and destinations, makes the calls to tell the pollos' relatives of the charge. Sometimes these people double the price from what had been earlier agreed. After forking over half the fee, the pollos are loaded into vans according to their destinations. On arrival, another key figure appears, some blood kin of the coyote, who pockets the rest of the money. The top coyote remains in the shadows, Garcia says, an intelligent, cunning, and mysterious figure.

This year he thinks 800,000 Mexicans will pass through Altar on their way to El Norte. The sign behind his desk advises that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were migrants looking for a better life.

Down at the plaza, people line up at the public restroom (three pesos a visit). Outside, buses keep arriving and unloading people from the south. Two pollos stop at a stall to buy foot powder before climbing into a van. Vans depart more and more frequently. They will haul Mexicans until at least 8 p.m., people who, if everything goes per schedule, will move through the wire on Good Friday. Where the road leaves Altar and heads north into the desert stand three crosses. One says "Children," the next "Family," the third states that "2,800 have already died on this journey and how many more must die?" The town priest put them up. Then he was shipped to the Vatican where he couldn't make such a fuss.

In America

The minutemen's Line Bravo runs five miles. Just beyond the end is an old stock tank. Bob Kuhn parks here. He's past 70, did his stint in Korea, and last year was Chris Simcox's bodyguard. Kuhn is a land surveyor out of Phoenix, a family man who has worked hard all his life and now devotes time to the Minutemen and also to a machine he's designed that will make electricity for free. He tells me he'd love to go to Altar and see all those coyotes and pollos, but alas, MS–13, a Central American gang, has put a $50,000 reward out for his head. He heard this through "the underground."

We walk up a slight rise and then it slaps us in the face. The mess flowers like an ink stain over the desert, the ground literally blackened by tossed daypacks and clothes and underclothes. I've spent days cleaning up dump sites and never seen one remotely of this scale. I'm sure U.S. intelligence satellites can watch Mexicans molt into Americans at this place.

Kuhn and I fall silent. The ground feels haunted. There are hundreds, thousands of daypacks. I pick up a dark blue brassiere with lace, the straps torn by wear. The woman must have been very small and very young. There are panties everywhere, along with spent bottles of water, electrolyte mix, fruit juice, chilies, razors, toothbrushes, canned fish, all manner of soaps and foot powders, rolls of toilet paper, a canister of Instant Quaker Oats, shoe polish, Brut underarm deodorant, a toenail clipper, a spool of thread, a bottle of Vicks Formula 44, hair gel, a thick Spanish–to–English dictionary. I pick up an eye–shadow case, the cells of color barely touched. The woman had a choice of white, opalescent pearl, Prussian, taupe, Naples yellow, rose, lavender, slate, raw sienna, viridian, broken viridian, and chocolate taupe. And possibly work and America. Mexican airline and bus tickets are scattered about. Aurelio Pérez, a child, got aboard a bus at night, for example.

A deck of tarot cards is strewn about the ground. Antonio Hernández Salinas has forgotten his high school records — he was studying math, English, and ethics in the state of Hidalgo. Tucked into one daypack is a letter in Spanish with the block printing of a seven–year–old, probably a girl. She wrote, "for my father, dad I love you too much for giving me so Much from Yourself and I wish you a Good trip in the Airplane When you Travel to the united states and god take Care of You in the airplane."

I sit on the ground for an hour or two. Ravens and hawks come by, the wind rustles the trees. Tied to one daypack is a small stuffed dinosaur named Sugarloaf and made in Indonesia. There's a dirt road a short ways to the north. The pollos have walked two days to reach this spot to meet smugglers who've brought American clothing so they will look normal. They rapidly strip naked — bras, panties, blouses, shirts — everything is cast aside. Hurry, hurry, they are told. And so a good father who lies to his little girl can sometimes forget the letter he has been carrying to help him find the will to cross the desert.

Then, decked in clean clothes, the pollos crowd into vans and are taken to stash houses in Tucson and Phoenix. I've stumbled onto their Ellis Island where their past slips from their grasp and their new life is hastily pulled onto their naked bodies.
.
I can't tell you his name. I can't tell you where he works. I can't tell you much but this: He came up in the gangs of his American barrio, and then at 19 he caught a break and became a drug dealer. His operation is smooth, reaching down to his suppliers in northern Mexico and far into the U.S. interior. But now, like so many with his background, he's shifting into people smuggling.

For the moment, he helps out at stash houses. He'll go to Costco and buy cases of Campbell's soup and, say, a half–dozen can openers. Then he'll go to a stash house. A pistolero will be there to guard the pollos so they cannot be stolen.

The man with the cases of soup will carry them in and hand out the can openers. The house will be rented and in a middle–class neighborhood. There will be no furniture, and such houses are changed often. Of his work he says two things: how bad the houses smell with 30 or even 100 people crowded into them. And how nice some of the young pollo girls look.

But he insists he resists all temptation. He sticks to "Dos Cientos," the maquiladora girls who are brought up from the Mexican factories just across the line to decorate parties. They are each given $200, and for that, he tells me, the girls will "give you that massage that sends you to heaven."

He is a very intelligent man. His favorite magazine is GQ. He dreams of owning a Cadillac Escalade.

But that smell in those houses, he repeats, it is terrible.

He is in a hard business. Recently, a man sat in a local café and offered $50,000 for anyone who would murder his boss, who happened to be his uncle. His uncle heard of this offer and came down to the café and pistol–whipped his nephew half to death, all the while shouting, "How could you insult me so? I am worth more than $50,000."

I ask him how many guys he came up with in these businesses are still operating or even alive. He falls silent for a minute or two. He cannot think of many, he replies.

We talk for hours. He laughs easily, but not for a single second does he ever express sympathy for the pollos. After they get off that bus and start north into the United States, they fall between two worlds, and people such as him wait in this space.

He is not a bad man. The Border Patrol agents are not bad people. The Minutemen, the polleros, the human rights folks putting water bottles out in the desert, well, I've met them all and they are not bad people.

As for you and me, the jury is still out.

The woman left a village in Oaxaca, traveled through Arizona, and arrived in Eureka, California. She is 30, has five children. She knows the name of her village in Oaxaca but cannot name any place near it. She knows Eureka and its Oaxacan community but nothing else of the United States. Two of her children are U.S. citizens, but she has no identity beyond her family. She is overwhelmed by a new world and so she concentrates on cooking. She answers to no pathway to citizenship, nor is she up on the global economy. She is what all the politicians are talking about and yet she understands not a word they say. She came to America because the tightened border increasingly means the men hardly ever return home to Mexico. And so she huddles in Northern California where the men toil in the lumber mills or tend plants in nurseries.

Martín now has papers. He began crossing 20 years ago to jobs in south Texas. The first time, a coyote took $200 and then vanished. The second time, he walked for days through scrub, reached the promised van but was seized by the Border Patrol. Once he toiled 30 days in the melon fields and then found that the farmer had called the Border Patrol so he could avoid paying his illegal laborers.

Martín's son–in–law came through the line about 70 days ago. He called a number in America from his village in Mexico. The man sent a guide to bring him across the river. He spent two days in the coyote's house waiting. Then the man came and said, Put on this soccer uniform. The man said, If the Border Patrol agent asks you where you are going, you say, "San Antonio." If they ask you if you have papers, you say, "Yes," in English. They practiced these simple answers. Then they rode up to the U.S. checkpoint. The Border Patrol agent asked the two questions, got his answers and waved them through. In San Antonio, the coyote took back the soccer uniform.

The coyote has pulled this same stunt at least 50 times in the past year at the same checkpoint. Sometimes he moves two people, usually one. They must be young and look fit. For this he charges $2,000. He never fails. You can believe the coyote is unusually lucky or you can believe U.S. agents are on the take. Martín's son–in–law never asked nor does he care. He can make a good living doing construction in Dallas and that is all he cares about.

Víctor tends a stable of horses in south Texas. His wife is American, and he is raising the boy of another Mexican who is going to be in a U.S. prison for a long time. Víctor works across the street from a county jail, but none of the cops ever bother him. He is a lean and dark man and he is about work. For six years he worked in Juárez right across from El Paso, first at an rca plant and then doing construction. He never thought of crossing. And then he began hearing from friends in his native village about the good jobs they'd found in the United States. And so he came here and put down roots. He says he had a dream recently, and in that dream he was in Mexico. He awoke terrified and thinking, "How will I get together enough money to pay a coyote and escape Mexico?"

That is the line. Fragments all saying the same thing: Get out.

In Mexico

She waits by the fork in the road. El Puente del Comercio Mundial, the World Trade Bridge, is on the new truck highway that each day feeds 5,800 semis in and out of the twin cities of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas. This is all part of the SuperCorridor, a huge construction project designed to speed the flow of NAFTA trade. Big new ports on Mexico's Pacific coast will drain the freight from Long Beach and other California docks. The products of Asia will be unloaded in these harbors safe from the maritime unions and then sped north by Mexican truckers safe from the Teamsters union. The drivers will deliver these loads anywhere in the United States. At the moment, such Mexican truckers put in about 50 hours a week and earn around $1,100 a month. They all have wrecks, they all use drugs, and they all work like beasts–one run from Ensenada to Cancún takes five days and six nights and no one stops for sleep or anything else.

That is why she is here. The first little capilla appeared five years ago at the interchange of I–35 and the World Trade Bridge. Now there are three more chapels, each large enough for a man to enter. Trucks idle on the shoulder of the highway as men approach La Santísima Muerte, Most Holy Death. She is the saint for drug dealers and for truckers and for anyone else who understands that the game is not on the level and help is necessary for survival.

La Santísima Muerte has no flesh — her bony feet and hands reach out from her cloak. One hand holds a huge scythe, the other the world. She looks like death but promises a chance at life to those whirling in a world of death. In Nuevo Laredo, 230 people have been slaughtered in the last 16 months as a byproduct of the drug industry. In February 2006, two men entered the daily newspaper, sprayed the office with assault rifles (the lobby still has more than 20 bullet holes), cut down some staff, threw a grenade into the editor's office, and then left after 180 seconds of commentary. The paper decided to cease publishing stories on the cartels. When four cops were executed on a downtown street this past spring, the news was broken by Mexico City papers 700 miles to the south. Yesterday, a cop guarding the assistant police chief's house was mowed down. The paper buries this story in the back facing a feature on a local honey cooperative.

A trucker in his early 20s stands before La Santísima Muerte, his voice very soft as he speaks to her. He says, "She is just like us, except she has no flesh. She can speak to God. She has helped me many times."

Once he saw her standing by the road. She saves him when the highways are wet and saves him from wrecks and saves him from police and saves him from the many faces of death. He enters the main capilla, lights a cigarette, and leaves it burning for her. The altar is rich with candy bars and fruits and money.

He explains, "I have believed in Santa Muerte since I was 13 years old. If I tell you of her favors to me, I will never cease talking. I have a shrine to her in my house and offerings of rice, tomatoes, wine, apples, corn, and bullets."

A man of about 40 climbs down from his truck. He wears black, dark sunglasses, and a gold chain. He stands before La Santísima Muerte and softly speaks to her as he sprays her body with perfume. An expensive two–seater sports car rolls up. The occupants do not get out but sit in their machine a few feet from La Santísima Muerte, praying as the air conditioner roars. No one looks at them because everyone knows how expensive sports cars are earned here.

She first appeared during the late '90s in Tepito, the thieves' market of Mexico City, a zone of 37 blocks stuffed with contraband, whores, addicts, live sex shows, and violence. The priests were alarmed but could do nothing because La Santísima Muerte exuded tolerance. Women went to her to be safe from AIDS and to ensure their clients remained docile. Men sought protection from bullets. She spread north to the line and then spilled over into the ragged neighborhoods where migrants hid from view in the cities of America. The anthropologists pounced and concluded she had erupted from the long–dormant virus of Aztec death worship.

I think she is the saint of NAFTA. In 1994, the trade agreement first kicked in and within a year the numbers crawling through the wire began to spike. Within three years, La Santísima Muerte had entered the minds and hearts of those broken on this new notion called free trade. NAFTA crushed peasant farmers who could not compete with the torrent of cheap agricultural products flowing from American agribusinesses. Trade with China, Mexico's introduction to the global economy, swiftly wiped out traditional industries: toys, serapes, shoes, and so forth. Then the border plants, the maquiladoras where Mexicans assembled goods for American corporations, closed up shop and hightailed it to China where men and women work for one–fourth the wages of Mexicans. Juárez, the poster child of free trade, lost 72,620 jobs to China in less than three years, for example.

In Nuevo Laredo near the Rio Grande, a market stall sells statues of Christ, the Virgin of Guadalupe, Emiliano Zapata, and La Santísima Muerte–who outsells all the others combined. She touches more human behavior than the Border Patrol or Homeland Security or the DEA. She holds the whole world in her bony hand. For years, she succored the souls being displaced and hurled north, listened to their fears and hungers while politicians talked about slight adjustments in the global economy, while others spoke of guest worker programs, as some babbled about pathways to citizenship, as growing numbers rumbled about building big walls on the line, and still others explained the need for workers to perform tasks beneath the notice of native–born Americans. All this while, like the illegals themselves, she remained largely invisible to those who believed themselves to be in control. Most Holy Death is the real face of the migration, one kept safely off–camera, one never invited to be on the cable talk shows, one worshipped by men and women who scorn presidents.

Across the river in Laredo, a 4,625–bed, $100 million superjail is being built for illegal immigrants. It is part of a jail boom. Twenty years ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly INS and now ICE) did not have a single cell in Texas. By 2025, ICE will have 9,250 in Laredo alone. The more Border Patrol agents, the more apprehensions, the more detentions, and the more cells.

Most Holy Death and ICE now face off down by the river.

In America

Esperanza waits tables in Los Angeles. At night she sits and watches a video of her house in Oaxaca. The home has a tile floor, a huge sala. She has never visited this fine residence. Through family she arranged for the design and construction and then they sent her videos for her pleasure. The building is five years old. No one lives in it, and no one may ever live in it. There are similar fine homes popping up in obscure Indian villages across the Mexican south. Their owners cannot afford to visit them because the border crossing has become more difficult and more expensive. But still they pump money into their dreams and sit in various American cities staring at screens displaying their distant shelters.

The case can be made that it is absurd to build a dream house you cannot even visit, much less live in. But that is the nature of dreams — there is always a case to be made against them. This is an éxodo. The people coming north are leaving their villages forever, whether they can admit this fact to themselves or not. As long as resources decline and capital flows dislocate traditional economies, as long as over–population remains a taboo expression, as long as corrupt governments loot the poor, global trade will produce shock waves of migrants. It does not matter if the people in the villages or the officials in the various capitals recognize these facts. The forces on the ground will continue to operate as relentlessly as the hurricanes gestating in the warming oceans. Hardened borders simply deepen this fact until you wind up with a waitress in Los Angeles looking at her dream home in Oaxaca that she cannot afford to visit. Coyotes in Mexico now earn at least $10 billion a year. Expect this to double when Congress adds yet more teeth to the jaws of the border.

The tired and frightened men and women crawling through the line soon become founts of money and wire $340 a month back home on average. This is the largest transfer of wealth to the poor in the history of the Western Hemisphere and it dwarfs all the American gestures of aid and all the revolutions that have filled the plazas of Latin America with tired statues. Remittances to Mexico alone are now estimated to be $20 billion a year, a figure much greater than tourism and rivaled only by the drug trade. (After the U.S. offered migrants amnesty in 1986, families reunited and the motive for remittances ended. Were remittances to dry up today — due to amnesty or a seriously toughened border — the Mexican economy could implode.)

This is also the largest teach–in of American values in history. Some 12 million illegals are studying law enforcement without massive corruption, contract law, the joys of homeownership, the existence of real public schools with real textbooks, the pleasures of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and recently, in the marches and protests, the strong drug of dissent. Beneath the Mexican and other flags in the demonstrations, a deep shift is taking place as strangers in a new land become part of that new land. American employers have inadvertently created the most affluent and politically active generation of poor people in the history of Latin America. Sending them home would detonate the nations they have come from. The politicians all know that.
.

I met Miguel in a fashionable bar on South Congress in Austin, a strip for hip tourists who ooze money. I was looking at some photos in a book on Juárez, shots of murders and rapes, when a middle–aged guy sitting next to me said, "That's my town." He'd just sold his fine home there, he went on to explain. He'd kept some ranches and things — I felt it wise not to pry — but he was getting out. He thought he'd buy a condo in El Paso for openers. He had two sons in Austin going to college. He was deeply involved in Mexican politics and the names of the elite who run Juárez tripped easily from his lips. One of his family had once sold a ranch to Amado Carrillo–Fuentes, the then–head of the Juárez cartel.

Miguel was part of an invisible flight of middle– and upper–middle–class people who have visas, come across, and then simply do not go home. He said the violence was too much, the economy was too bad, and that there was little hope of change. Like the pollos, he'd made a decision and marched north. But then Miguel was hardly a surprise — the publisher of the Juárez newspaper lives in an El Paso penthouse for safety reasons and also has his children in U.S. universities.

A few days earlier, I was staying at a ranch an hour south of Austin. A local white guy came out to spray the buildings for termites. He'd spent his life in nearby Gonzales, a town of 7,000 where the Texas revolt from Mexico began. He asked me what I was doing there.

I said, "I'm a friend of the owners. I'm down here writing about migrants."

He looked puzzled for a moment and then asked, "When you say migrants, do you mean wetbacks?"

"Yes."

"Well, what do you think we should do?"

"You might as well ask me what I think we should do about hurricanes."

He chewed on that a moment, and then offered, "That's what I think. Nothing can stop them. I've seen guys deported on a Friday and they're back here at work on Monday."

In Mexico

The catholic casa del Migrante Nazareth sits on the Nuevo Laredo bank of the Rio Grande. Men can seek refuge here for three days, women sometimes for six. But these days, the Casa is seldom open for the migrants. The woman who answers the door says come back in five hours when a priest will stop by. For blocks near the Casa, men are sprawled on the sidewalks. She looks out at them and explains they are not migrants and so not her concern. Across the Mexican north a silent battle has been taking place between priests influenced by liberation theology and bishops picked by the increasingly conservative Vatican. Here liberation theology seems to be losing.

Or maybe it is because the men who litter the nearby streets are Central Americans. The minute they step into Mexico they become illegal, and so they have been hunted for days and weeks as they have moved toward the line at Laredo, Texas. As in the United States, governments and charities put the needs of their own people — the Mexicans — over those who've joined them in the flood north.

The migrants slowly come out of the shadows of the street like ghosts. They are from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. They refuse to give their names and insist on giving their stories. One Honduran wears a T–shirt that says "Tommy Boy." He thinks half the population of Honduras has already left. He is New York bound. He believes America is the land of opportunity. "But," he continues, "it is very hard to reach. I work hard in Honduras, but it is difficult to earn anything. If I go to the U.S., then I can build a home in Honduras. I have spent 30 days getting this far, and this cost me $1,500. I have seen others robbed. I have no money left for a coyote. I will try to cross by myself, but it will not be easy because of la migra. I will do anything. But I know nothing but the fields."

As the men speak, more gather. They beg for money for food and I fork over $25. A boy in a Yankees cap says, "I usually work construction. I left home a month ago. I am heading for Los Angeles."

First, he illegally entered Guatemala from Honduras. Then he entered Mexico illegally and boarded the fabled "train of death" where migrants hop freight cars. This part of the trip is very cold, and as a result many cannot hold on to the cars. The boy saw six dead bodies by the tracks. In Empalme Escobedo, Guanajuato, the police appeared on horseback with lariats and roped men around their necks. Some die from this experience. Also, he continues in his soft voice, the taxi drivers are treacherous. They take your money and then dump you by the road in the countryside.

"The U.S.," he believes, "must be better. I'll make enough money to build a little house back home. We are all single. There is no money for marriage. If we are sent back to Honduras — no jobs, no money — how can we survive? When I find enough money for water and food, I'll cross."

On the wall behind the men, someone has spray–painted BAR HONDURAS.

The Rio Grande is maybe half a block away and lush with trees. On the opposite bank are homes in Texas. From the Bar Honduras, they look like mansions. The men sit and stare out. They face a few problems. The local Mexican police control all the routes down to the river and if you do not pay them, they beat or kill you. There is no work in Nuevo Laredo, so their chances of earning money are close to zero. Coyotes charge $1,600 to $2,000 for passage to San Antonio, 150 miles to the north. Houston costs $300 more. The walk to San Antonio is five to six days.

This information comes from Antonio Canales, a man in his late 30s from Juárez — one of two Mexicans hanging around and eyeing the Central Americans. And he speaks with some authority, as he himself guides groups across, up to 15 people at a time. Thousands cross each day, he says, and there are moments when he'll see 200 people in the river. More cross at night. Of course, he says, there is a charge for real service, one that delivers you like a suitcase to some distant point in the United States. A Mexican who pays $2,500 to $3,000 will be put up in a cheap hotel and then led across the Rio Grande to the United States and dropped off at any point. A Central American must pay $4,000 to $5,000 for the same service. Those from South America (mainly Peruvians, Bolivians, and Brazilians) must fork over $10,000 to his organization. The business, he rolls on, is controlled by Mexican Americans, and they seem never to be arrested.

As Canales speaks, the Central Americans sit in silence. Some braid cords so that they can secure one–liter water bottles to their wrists. One fishes out a photograph of himself and says, "I am a tailor." He has an address in Houston and wonders if he can find work there. The air hangs with humidity, the heat is rising, and at times the only sound comes from the buzzing of flies.

The three major Mexican border towns on this stretch of the Rio Grande–Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and Matamoros–are each pumping 100,000 people a year north, people who have fashioned answers out of things as simple as braided cord.

Luis Angel Ramírez Nevárez, 24, could be a poster child for this can–do attitude. Last year, he left El Salvador and headed north. Somewhere in the Mexican state of Veracruz, he fell off the freight he had hopped, shattered a leg and mangled one arm. His forearm now looks as if the bone had decided to make a sharp turn, reconsidered, and finished up with a U–turn. In January, he arrived in New Orleans because he had heard they needed workers. He did painting and stucco, 10 hours a day, five or six days a week, for 10 bucks an hour. Things were looking up for him even with his mangled limb.

Then, as he walked to his job, he was scooped up by the Border Patrol and pitched back into Mexico. Now he waits for dark. He and a new friend are heading back to New Orleans to occupy the space left by the evacuees.

Everything else is details. The cops who may kill you when you cross, the Border Patrol that will hunt you when you climb out of the river, the five or six days of walking through scrub forest to San Antonio, the passage to New Orleans in a nation where you have no legal standing, all this seems like the flies swirling around the men. Irritants but not real obstacles. In New Orleans, they will earn at least $500 a week. They can be stopped. But not by much shy of death itself.

In America

Five days after katrina made landfall, I walked into an Italian bistro in Houston on Interstate 10. The cluster of surrounding motels had counters piled high with fliers from churches offering aid. The bistro sat 200, and every chair was taken by an evacuee. They were easy to spot with their dazed eyes, disheveled clothing, and sudden fellowship that crossed race and class lines. One black man said he'd spent 18 years as a janitor in a complex near the Superdome. Now he planned to stash the wife in some Houston rental and head back to grab what he saw as fine jobs that would sprout from the soggy ground as reconstruction got under way. But what struck me about the entire scene was the staff toiling in an open kitchen. Except for the hostess and the guy manning the cash register, the entire service crew — cooks, dishwashers, busboys, waiters — were short, dark, Indian–looking people from the Mexican south. I doubt many had papers that were in order. And so I dined amid the constant ringing of cell phones and the constant chatter of evacuees as they were fed by other evacuees from the collapse of a Latin world. One group was helpless; the other group was, probably for the first time, in control of their lives and fortunes.

The migrants started showing up a few weeks later at the Shell station at Lee Circle near the Superdome — one of the many informal hiring halls of a new city. For a few months, there were 300 or 400 a morning, a land–office business in soft drinks and snacks for the gas station. Now it's down to a hundred or so a day. No one knows how many Latin Americans have swarmed in since Katrina. One estimate guesses at least 100,000 in the Gulf region. Last October, Mayor Ray Nagin complained that his city was being overrun by Mexicans. In the 2000 census New Orleans was 3 percent Hispanic. Now one sees more brown faces than black. But then no one really knows what the current population consists of. It is a work in process, a new kind of place for a new world. And yet some things are the same: When black contractors pull into the Shell station, they seem to hire only the few blacks milling around; white contractors seem to hire only Latinos.

At the Monte de los Olivos Lutheran Church, Pastor Jesus Gonzales ministers to a flock of these newest New Orleanians. He feeds them, helps them find housing, clothes them, offers a clinic (for, among other things, the prevalent Katrina cough resulting from the mold, asbestos, and general filth of demolition work), and teaches them English. Gonzales toiled in the oil fields of west Texas and then felt the need for more meaningful work. His congregation was largely Honduran — refugees from the hurricanes of the '90s — but is now 60 percent Mexican. When Gonzales walks New Orleans he mainly sees some upscale whites walking big dogs, and Latin Americans. At Mardi Gras this year, he was stunned that half the conversations around him were in Spanish.

His congregants are making $12 to $15 an hour. Their employers keep an eye peeled for the Border Patrol — some have reconfigured their small businesses so that no one can enter without warning. One of his Mexican congregants was assigned an Arabic name by his employer and wears his new identity on a tag. Local Spanish radio issues alerts in code on Border Patrol movements. The coyotes in his church tell him that they'll take a few months off until the newly assigned National Guard units finish puttering about the border. Gonzales sees no end to the deluge of new migrants so long as there is a need for labor. And right now all the fast–food places are having trouble getting help at $10 an hour.

Out in St. Bernard Parish, destruction was close to total. In the parking lot of the parish's only open grocery store, Jesse Melendez, a 43–year–old roofing contractor, cuts a deal with a plumber. He'll get the plumber Mexicans for a finder's fee of $100 each. Melendez is a wiry man and well decorated with tattoos. He goes to Fort Worth for his illegals, because "there's a shortage, big time." Melendez is native born, Puerto Rican in ancestry, feeble in Spanish, and keen on Mexicans. "They bust ass — work hard and consistent." He pays them twice what he pays blacks. He is convinced the reason St. Bernard Parish is rising from ruin faster than New Orleans is that locals understand the care and feeding of Mexicans. In fact, that's why the grocery reopened — otherwise contractors had to drive their Mexicans out of the parish to buy food, and while off shopping they might get better offers of work.

The tens of thousands of illegals who've poured into the Gulf Coast are but a trickle compared to the numbers who will come if reconstruction is ever seriously undertaken. By early summer, only about 25 schools had reopened in New Orleans. Housing starts are running around zero. And no one of any color or political persuasion thinks the rebuilt levees are worth a damn.

We want an answer, a solution. But there is only this fact: We either find a way to make their world better or they will come to our better world. At the moment, we insist on the wrong answer to the wrong question. And so, the Border Patrol will grow.There will be a wall. Tougher laws will be passed by Congress. And the people will keep coming.

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/news/feature/2006/09/exodus.html

[Saundra Hummer]

*******What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA
by
DAVID CORN
[posted online on September 5, 2006]
*
In the spring of 2002 Dick Cheney made one of his periodic trips to CIA headquarters. Officers and analysts were summoned to brief him on Iraq. Paramilitary specialists updated the Vice President on an extensive covert action program in motion that was designed to pave the way to a US invasion. Cheney questioned analysts about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. How could they be used against US troops? Which Iraqi units had chemical and biological weapons? He was not seeking information on whether Saddam posed a threat because he possessed such weapons. His queries, according to a CIA officer at the briefing, were pegged to the assumptions that Iraq had these weapons and would be invaded--as if a decision had been made.

Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career undercover officer named Valerie Wilson.

Her specific position at the CIA is revealed for the first time in a new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by the author of this article and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff. The book chronicles the inside battles within the CIA, the White House, the State Department and Congress during the run-up to the war. Its account of Wilson's CIA career is mainly based on interviews with confidential CIA sources.

In July 2003--four months after the invasion of Iraq--Wilson would be outed as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction" in a column by conservative journalist Robert Novak, who would cite two "senior administration officials" as his sources. (As Hubris discloses, one was Richard Armitage, the number-two at the State Department; Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, was the other. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to two reporters about her.) Novak revealed her CIA identity--using her maiden name, Valerie Plame--in the midst of the controversy ignited by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, her husband, who had written a New York Times op-ed accusing the Bush Administration of having "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The Novak column triggered a scandal and a criminal investigation. At issue was whether Novak's sources had violated a little-known law that makes it a federal crime for a government official to disclose identifying information about a covert US officer (if that official knew the officer was undercover). A key question was, what did Valerie Wilson do at the CIA? Was she truly undercover? In a subsequent column, Novak reported that she was "an analyst, not in covert operations." White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that her employment at the CIA was no secret. Jonah Goldberg of National Review claimed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."

Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled.

Another issue was whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there. Hubris contains new information undermining the charge that she arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip, acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her involvement was more significant than it had been.

Valerie Plame was recruited into the CIA in 1985, straight out of Pennsylvania State University. After two years of training to be a covert case officer, she served a stint on the Greece desk, according to Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who supervised her then. Next she was posted to Athens and posed as a State Department employee. Her job was to spot and recruit agents for the agency. In the early 1990s, she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. They might claim to be a businessperson. She told people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same: to gather agents for the CIA.

In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before 9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists--in America and abroad--looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet every lead had to be checked.

"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)

The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were duds--fabricators and embellishers. (JTFI officials came to suspect that some had been sent their way by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that desired a US invasion of Iraq.) The results were frustrating for the officers. Were they not doing their job well enough--or did Saddam not have an arsenal of unconventional weapons? Valerie Wilson and other JTFI officers were almost too overwhelmed to consider the possibility that their small number of operations was, in a way, coming up with the correct answer: There was no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not exist. Still, she and her colleagues kept looking. (She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.)

When the war started in March 2003, JTFI officers were disappointed. "I felt like we ran out of time," one CIA officer recalled. "The war came so suddenly. We didn't have enough information to challenge the assumption that there were WMDs.... How do you know it's a dry well? That Saddam was constrained. Given more time, we could have worked through the issue.... From 9/11 to the war--eighteen months--that was not enough time to get a good answer to this important question."

When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator--to rise up a notch or two--and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown, she could never be undercover again. Moreover, she would now be pulled into the partisan warfare of Washington. As a CIA employee still sworn to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's justification for war and had come up empty.

Valerie Wilson left the CIA at the end of 2005. In July she and her husband filed a civil lawsuit against Cheney, Rove and Libby, alleging they had conspired to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" the Wilsons. She is also writing her memoirs. Her next battle may be with the agency--over how much of her story the CIA will allow the outed spy to tell.
Go onsite to access the numerous links to this article and to access related articles, and blogs. An interesting site.

For more information about Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, go to Amazon.com and Corn's blog at www.davidcorn.com.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060918&s=corn
*****

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
by JEREMY BRECHER
&
BRENDAN SMITH

[posted online on September 5, 2006]

The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority--perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all "anti-terrorism" package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?

American prohibitions on abuse of prisoners go back to the Lieber Code promulgated by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The first international Geneva Convention dates from the following year.

After World War II, international law protecting prisoners of war and all noncombatants was codified in the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified by the US Senate and, under Article II of the Constitution, they thereby became the law of the land.

Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law.

The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 "torture memo." Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, "substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

Noting that the statute "prohibits the commission of a 'war crime' by or against a US person, including US officials," he warned that "it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges." The President's determination that the Geneva Conventions did not apply "would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

Unfortunately for top Bush officials, that "solid defense" was demolished this summer when the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva Conventions were indeed the law of the land.

The Court singled out Geneva's Common Article 3, which provides a minimum standard for the treatment of all noncombatants under all circumstances. They must be "treated humanely" and must not be subjected to "cruel treatment," "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," or "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.

Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."

The Coming Debate

Bush officials have not acknowledged that one of their real motives for gutting the War Crimes Act is to protect themselves from being prosecuted for their own crimes. But so far they have apparently offered only one other reason for tampering with the law: The existing law, especially the Geneva language prohibiting "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," is too vague to enforce. (Perhaps the Bush Administration should declare the US Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" as too vague to enforce as well.)

Fidell noted in an August 9 Washington Post article that military law includes many terms like "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer" that may appear vague but that are nonetheless enforceable. The Army Field Manual bars cruel and degrading treatment. When Attorney General Gonzales recently testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that "outrages upon personal dignity" was too ambiguous, Senator John McCain stated that top military lawyers see no problem in complying with Common Article 3.

The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act and rejecting the Bush amendments, in contrast, are multiple and overwhelming:

1. Commitment to the Geneva Conventions protects US service people from future retaliation.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has argued, abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put US soldiers at greater risk, would "reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions" and would "undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict [Afghanistan] and in general."

2. The War Crimes Act will prohibit "torture-lite" in the future.

According to Scott Horton, the proposed legislation is "designed to provide an OK to certain techniques which fall just short of torture that are being used by the CIA," including "waterboarding, longtime standing and hypothermia," techniques that have been "linked to severe injuries and fatalities."

3. The War Crimes Act will prohibit future Abu Ghraib-type outrages. The Bush Administration's legislation would remove the prohibition on "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Repealing the War Crimes Act, the Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith reported, is decriminalizing the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear that shocked the world at Abu Ghraib prison.
Derek P. Jinks an assistant law professor at the University of Texas, author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions, said in an August 9 Washington Post article that the "entire family of techniques" used to degrade, humiliate and coerce prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo "is not addressed in any way, shape or form" in the Bush Administration's proposal. Retired Army Lieut. Col. Geoffrey Corn, until recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General, said in the same article, "This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting'" the Geneva Conventions.

This "rewriting" could have very concrete ramifications in practice. The international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia deemed acts like placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and threatening them with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" to be humiliations, degrading treatment and outrages. The proposed changes to the War Crimes Act would indicate that it is not a crime for Americans to conduct such acts.

4. Gutting the War Crimes Act will promote the perception of the United States as an outlaw country.

As a letter signed by sixteen members of Congress recently said, such legislation "would harm the reputation of the United States as a leader promoting and protecting human rights." What would be more deserving of scorn than a country that lets potential war-crime defendants repeal the very law under which they might be prosecuted?

5. The Bush legislation unfairly exempts high government officials from the very war crimes charges they are leveling against lowly "grunts." Since the start of the Iraq War there have been more than thirty prosecutions under the military law that prohibits war crimes, with many more pending. But they have all prosecuted low-level military personnel. Gutting the War Crimes Act would leave the military "bad apples" at the bottom subject to prosecution but would let the civilian "bad apples" at the top evade all responsibility.

As Horton points out, the Uniform Code of Military Justice already incorporates the Geneva Convention rules, but it does not apply "to Donald Rumsfeld or Stephen Cambone or to people in the White House." The point of the War Crimes Act is that it "spreads the application of the Geneva Conventions the next level up to civilians, and particularly to civilian policymakers." From the beginning, the "prosecutorial focus" of the War Crimes Act "was intended to provide deterrence at that level." Repealing it undermines the fundamental principle of equal justice under law.

6. Preserving the War Crimes Act is part of reasserting the rule of law in America.
The War Crimes Act has been a central focus of the Bush Administration's scorn for all Constitutional limits on the power of the President and the executive branch. It was the idea that the President could by fiat declare US and international law null and void that animated the Gonzales torture memo. It was this denial of constitutional limits that the Supreme Court resoundingly rebuked in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A rebuff to the Bush Administration's attack on the War Crimes Act is a reassertion of those constitutional limits.

The War Crimes Act can be a bridge to a more just and peaceful world. The incorporation of the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on war crimes into national law affirms America's commitment to international law. It embodies an implementation of the global heritage of the Nuremberg trials, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. It embeds that tradition within our own national law.

In the wake of World War II, Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, observed that "the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Making statesmen responsible to law is what the War Crimes Act is all about.


Defending the Law

The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act are conclusive (except perhaps to those who might face criminal prosecution under them). Indeed, the Administration's decision to gut the War Crimes Act is a gift to those who want to see American statesmen held accountable to national and international law. It suggests that the Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of many of its actions. And it shows in the sharpest relief why the War Crimes Act is needed.

But, at least for the moment, Bush's Republican allies still control both houses of Congress; they are in a position to slip a repeal of the War Crimes Act into any piece of legislation they choose. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, senior member of the House Committee for Homeland Security, told The Nation, "The Bush Administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to quietly excuse and even codify cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody, at secret CIA prisons abroad and even the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition [the outsourcing of torture and other cruel treatment to other countries]."

While the Administration has been lining up its ducks, the campaign to save the War Crimes Act has just begun. The advocacy group Just Foreign Policy has started an online campaign to save the War Crimes Act. "This is not an obscure point in the law. What's at stake here is whether, for example, the abuses of prisoners by sexual humiliation that shocked us at Abu Ghraib are clearly illegal under US law," national coordinator Robert Naiman observes. "If we found these actions outrageous, we are obligated to tell our members of Congress to protect the law that bans them."

Markey adds, "Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher

[Saundra Hummer]

*********

EXCLUSIVE:
Yoko Ono on John Lennon and the FBI
John Lennon's Widow Talks With Jonathan Karl About Their 'Threat' to U.S. Government
By
JONATHAN KARL

Sept. 5, 2006 — - John Lennon's perceived "threat" to the U.S. government is the highlight of a new film that documents his transformation from pop idol to political activist and offers a fresh look at this former Beatle's career.

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" will be released later this month. Yoko Ono cooperated with the filmmakers, opening her archives of rarely seen footage of the couple's fight for peace.

"One thing that brought us together was the fact that both of us were rebels in so many ways," she said.

And that's something he didn't always share with his bandmates, who were reluctant to join Lennon as he spoke out against the Vietnam War, said Ono.

"He is the only one who really wanted to do something about it when he was a Beatle," Ono explained.

Star Watched by the FBI
Lennon's rebelliousness may have come at a price. In the 1970s, Lennon was convinced that government agents were watching him. As it turns out, he was right.

Almost 20 years after his death, the government released the FBI file on Lennon, which included nearly 300 pages of text. One document that went from the FBI to the CIA reports that Lennon planned to take part in a protest at the 1972 Republican National Convention.

South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond seized on that, suggesting to President Nixon's attorney general that Lennon's visa be terminated.

A few weeks later, Lennon was given 30 days to leave the country and was notified that his visa had been terminated because of an old drug arrest in England.

"I think that the world really loved the Beatles for being charming and sweet," Ono said. "But some people did resent the fact that they were no more the sweet, nice, charming boys."

Ono and Lennon did not want to leave the United States, and a legal battle ensued.

In 1976, after the end of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, Lennon won.

The judge in the case wrote that the British singer's battle to stay in the United States was a "testimony to his faith in the American dream."
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2396859 * * * * *

[Saundra Hummer]

. ! . ! . ! . ! . ! .
The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers

By
Charlie Cray
AlterNet

Tuesday 05 September 2006

The history of American war profiteering is rife with egregious examples of incompetence, fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement, bribery and misconduct. As war historian Stuart Brandes has suggested, each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering. Iraq is no exception. From criminal mismanagement of Iraq's oil revenues to armed private security contractors operating with virtual impunity, this war has created opportunities for an appalling amount of corruption. What follows is a list of some of the worst Iraq war profiteers who have bilked American taxpayers and undermined the military's mission.

No. 1 and No. 2: CACI and Titan

In early 2005 CIA officials told the Washington Post that at least 50 percent of its estimated $40 billion budget for that year would go to private contractors, an astonishing figure that suggests that concerns raised about outsourcing intelligence have barely registered at the policymaking levels.

In 2004 the Orlando Sentinel reported on a case that illustrates what can go wrong: Titan employee Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, an Egyptian translator, was arrested for possessing classified information from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Critics say that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are another example of how the lines can get blurred when contractors are involved in intelligence work. CACI provided a total of 36 interrogators in Iraq, including up to 10 at Abu Ghraib at any one time, according to the company. Although neither CACI, Titan or their employees have yet been charged with a crime, a leaked Army investigation implicated CACI employee Stephen Stefanowicz in the abuse of prisoners.

CACI and Titan's role at Abu Ghraib led the Center for Constitutional Rights to pursue companies and their employees in U.S. courts.

"We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money," says Susan Burke, an attorney hired by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), whose lawsuit against the companies is proceeding into discovery before the Federal Court for the District of Columbia.

The private suits seem to have already had some effect: In September 2005 CACI announced that it would no longer do interrogation work in Iraq.

Titan, on the other hand, has so far escaped any serious consequences for its problems (in early 2005, it pleaded guilty to three felony international bribery charges and agreed to pay a record $28.5 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act penalty). The company's contract with the Army has been extended numerous times and is currently worth over $1 billion. Last year L-3 Communications bought Titan as part of its emergence as the largest corporate intelligence conglomerate in the world.

No. 3: Bechtel: Precast Profits

The San Francisco-based construction and engineering giant received one of the largest no-bid contracts - worth $2.4 billion - to help coordinate and rebuild a large part of Iraq's infrastructure. But the company's reconstruction failures range from shoddy school repairs to failing to finish a large hospital in Basra on time and within budget.

Recall that USAID chief Andrew Natsios originally touted the reconstruction as a Middle Eastern "Marshall Plan." Natsios should have known that all would not go smoothly with Bechtel in the lead: Prior to joining the Bush administration, he was chief executive of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, where he oversaw the Big Dig - whose costs exploded from $2.6 billion to $14.6 billion under Bechtel's lead.

In July, the company's reputation for getting things done unexpectedly plummeted like a 12-ton slab of concrete when Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), released an audit of the Basra Children's Hospital Project, which was $70 million to $90 million over budget, and a year and half behind schedule. Bechtel's contract to coordinate the project was immediately cancelled.

Now that the money is running out, American officials are beginning to blame Iraqis for mismanaging their own infrastructure. But as Bowen warns, contractors like Bechtel, the CPA and other contracting agencies will only have themselves to blame for failing to train Iraqi engineers to operate these facilities (esp. water, sewage and electricity) when they leave.

No. 4: Aegis Defense Services

The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates 48,000 private security and military contractors (PMCs) are stationed in Iraq. The Pentagon's insistence on keeping a lid on military force requirements (thereby avoiding the need for a draft) is one reason for that astronomical growth, which has boosted the fortunes of the "corporate warriors" so much that observers project the industry will be a $200 billion per year business by 2010.

Yet the introduction of PMCs has put "both the military and security providers at a greater risk for injury," the General Accounting Office says, because PMCs fall outside the chain of command and do not operate under the Code of Military Justice.

George Washington University professor Deborah Avant, author of Market for Force and an expert on the industry, says that while established PMCs may act professionally, the government's willingness to contract with a few cowboy companies like Aegis - a U.K.-based firm whose infamous founder and CEO Tim Spicer was implicated for breaking an arms embargo in Sierra Leone - only reinforces the fear that U.S. foreign policy is being outsourced to corporate "mercenaries."

An industry insider told Avant that the $293 million contract was given despite the fact that American competitors had submitted lower bids, suggesting the government wanted to hire the foreign company to shield both sides of the transaction from accountability for any "dirty tricks."

Industry critics, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., say that, at a minimum, Spicer's contract suggests that government agencies have failed to conduct adequate background checks. While it's hard to say how often PMCs have committed human rights violations in Iraq, the Charlotte News-Observer reported in March that security contractors regularly shoot into civilian cars. The problem was largely ignored until a "trophy video" of security guards firing with automatic rifles at civilian cars was posted on a web site traced back to Aegis.

Although the Army's Criminal Investigation Division says no charges will be filed against Aegis or its employees, critics say that only proves how unaccountable contractors are under current laws. Since the war on terror began, just one civilian, CIA contract interrogator David A. Passaro, has been convicted for felony assault associated with interrogation tactics.

Even The International Peace Operations Association, a fledgling industry trade association that insists the industry abides by stringent codes of conduct has rejected Aegis' bid to join its ranks.

No. 5: Custer Battles

In March, Custer Battles became the first Iraq occupation contractor to be found guilty of fraud. A jury ordered the company to pay more than $10 million in damages for 37 counts of fraud, including false billing. In August, however, the judge in the case dismissed most of the charges on a technicality, ruling that since the Coalition Provisional Authority was not strictly part of the U.S. government, there is no basis for the claim under U.S. law. Custer Battles' attorney Robert Rhoad says the company's owners were "ecstatic" about the decision, adding that "there simply was no evidence of fraud or an intent to defraud."

In fact the judge's ruling stated that the company had submitted "false and fraudulently inflated invoices." He also allowed the jury's verdict to stand against the company for retaliating against the whistleblowers that originally brought the case under the False Claims Act, the law that allows citizens to initiate a private right of action to recover money on taxpayers' behalf. During the trial, retired Brig. Gen. Hugh Tant III testified that the fraud "was probably the worst I've ever seen in my 30 years in the Army."

When Tant confronted Mike Battles, one of the company's owners, with the fact that 34 of 36 trucks supplied by the firm didn't work, he responded: "You asked for trucks and we complied with our contract and it is immaterial whether the trucks were operational."

The Custer Battles case is being watched closely by the contracting community, since many other fraud cases could hinge on the outcome. A backlog of 70 fraud cases is pending against various contractors. Who they are is anyone's guess (one case was recently settled against Halliburton subcontractor EGL for $4 million), since cases filed under the False Claims Act are sealed and prevented from moving forward until the government decides whether or not it will join the case. The means some companies accused of fraud have yet to be publicly identified, which makes it difficult for federal contracting officers to suspend or debar them from any new contracts. The U.S. Air Force moved to suspend Custer Battles from new contracts in September 2004, after the alleged fraud was revealed.

In May, however, the Wall Street Journal reported that attempts were made to bypass the suspension order by two former top Navy officials who had formed a company that purchased the remnants of Custer Battles. Meanwhile, Alan Grayson, the attorney who filed the Custer Battles case, says that because of orders passed by the CPA, Iraqis have no chance of recovering any of the $20 billion in Iraqi money used to pay U.S. contractors. The CPA effectively created a "free fraud zone," Grayson says.

No. 6: General Dynamics

Most of the big defense contractors have done well as a result of the war on terror. The five-year chart for Lockheed Martin, for instance, reveals that the company's stock has doubled in value since 2001.

Yet The Washington Post reported in July that industry analysts agree that of the large defense contractors, the one that has received the most direct benefit from the war in Iraq is General Dynamics. Much of that has to do with the fact that the company has focused its large combat systems business on supplying the Army with everything from bullets to tank shells to Stryker vehicles, which made their debut during the 2003 invasion.

In July, the Post reported that the company's profits have tripled since 9/11. That should make some people happy, including David K Heebner, a former top aide to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was hired by General Dynamics in 1999, a year before the Stryker contract was sealed. According to Defense watchdogs at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), General Dynamics formally announced it was hiring Heebner on November 20, 1999, just one month after Shinseki announced a new "vision" to transform the Army by moving away from tracked armored vehicles toward wheeled light-armored vehicles, and more than a month prior to Heebner's official retirement date of Dec. 31, 1999.

Less than a year and a half later, Heebner was present for the rollout of the first Stryker in Alabama, where he was recognized by Shinseki for his work in the Army on the Stryker project.

Although the Pentagon's inspector general concluded from a preliminary investigation that Heebner had properly recused himself from any involvement in projects involving his prospective employer once he had been offered the job, critics say the current ethics rules are too weak.

"It's clear that the Army was leaning toward handing a multibillion-dollar contract to General Dynamics at the very time Heebner may have been in negotiations with the company for a high-paying executive position," says Jeffrey St. Clair, author of Grand Theft Pentagon, a sweeping review of war-profiteering during the "war on terror."

Heebner's case is similar to Boeing's infamous courtship of Darlene Druyan, the Air Force acquisition officer who was eventually sentenced to nine months in prison and seven months in a halfway house for arranging a $250,000 a year job for herself on the other side of the revolving door while negotiating contracts for the Air Force that were favorable to Boeing.

This March, Heebner reported owning 33,500 shares in the company, worth over $ 4 million, along with 21,050 options.

Not everyone has been happy with the outcome of the Stryker contract. Tom Christie, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, sent a classified letter to Donald Rumsfeld before it was deployed in Iraq, warning that the $3 million vehicle was not ready for heavy fire. Meanwhile, the GAO warned of serious deficiencies in vehicle training provided, a concern that turned serious when soldiers accidentally drove the Stryker into the Tigris rivers. Despite public praise from top Army officials, an internal Army report leaked to the Post in March 2005 revealed that the vehicles deployed in Iraq have been plagued with inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better."

Perhaps as insurance against any flap, General Dynamics has added former Attorney General John Ashcroft to its stable of high-powered lobbyists. Working the account are Juleanna Glover Weiss, Vice President Dick Cheney's former press secretary, Lori Day Sharp, Ashcroft's former assistant, and Willie Gaynor, a former Commerce Department official who also worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.

No. 7: Nour USA Ltd.

Incorporated shortly after the war began, Nour has received $400 million in Iraq contracts, including an $80 million contract to provide oil pipeline security that critics say came through the assistance of Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq's No. 1 opportunist, who was influential in dragging the United States into the current quagmire with misleading assertions about WMDs. Chalabi has denied reports that he received a $2 million finder's fee, but other bidders on the contract point out that Nour had no prior related experience and that its bid on the oil security contract was too low to be credible. Another company consultant who hasn't denied getting paid to help out is Richard Cohen, the former defense secretary under President Clinton. Many Iraqis now believe that Chalabi is America's hand-picked choice to rule Iraq, despite being a wanted fugitive from justice in Jordan and despite being accused of passing classified information along to Iran. Iyad Allawi, a potential rival for power in Iraq, has publicly criticized Chalabi for creating contracts for work that he says should be the responsibility of the state.

No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10: Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-Imperialists Three years into the occupation, after an evolving series of deft legal maneuvers and manipulative political appointments, the oil giants' takeover of Iraq's oil is nearly complete.

A key milestone in the process occurred in September 2004, when U.S.-appointed Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi preempted Iraq's January 2005 elections (and the subsequent drafting of the Constitution) by writing guidelines intended to form the basis of a new petroleum law. Allawi's policy would effectively exclude the government from any future involvement in oil production, while promising to privatize the Iraqi National Oil Co. Although Allawi is no longer in power, his plans heavily influenced future thinking on oil policy.

Helping the process move along are the economic hit men at BearingPoint, the consultants whose latest contract calls for "private-sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases and management contracts, especially those in the oil and supporting industries."

For their part, the oil industry giants have kept a relatively low profile throughout the process, lending just a few senior statesmen to the CPA, including Philip Carroll (Shell U.S., Fluor), Rob McKee (ConocoPhillips and Halliburton) and Norm Szydlowski (ChevronTexaco), the CPA's liaison to the fledgling Iraqi Oil Ministry. Greg Muttitt of U.K. nonprofit Platform says Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips are among the most ambitious of all the major oil companies in Iraq. Shell and Chevron have already signed agreements with the Iraqi government and begun to train Iraqi staff and conduct studies - arrangements that give the companies vital access to Oil Ministry officials and geological data.

Although Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said in August that the final competition for developing Iraq's oil fields will be wide open, the preliminary arrangements will give the oil giants a distinct advantage when it comes time to bid. The relative level of interest by the big oil companies depends on their appetite for risk, and their need for reserves. Shell, for example, has performed worse than most of its peers in finding new reserves in recent years - a fact underscored by a 2004 scandal in which the company was caught lying to its investors. At this point the key challenge to multinationals is whether they can convince the Iraqi parliament to pass a new petroleum law by the end of this year.

A key provision in the new law is a commitment to using production sharing agreements (PSAs), which will lock the government into a long-term commitment (up to 50 years) to sharing oil revenues, and restrict its right to introduce any new laws that might affect the companies' profitability. Greg Muttitt of Platform says the PSAs are designed to favor private companies at the expense of exporting governments, which is why none of the top oil producing countries in the Middle East use them. Under the new petroleum law, all new fields and some existing fields would be opened up to private companies through the use of PSAs. Since less than 20 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have already been developed, if Iraq's government commits to signing the PSAs, it could cost the country up to nearly $200 billion in lost revenues according to Muttitt, lead researcher for "Crude Designs: the Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth."

Meanwhile, in a kind of pincer movement, the parliament has begun to feel pressured from the IMF to adopt the new oil law by the end of the year as part of "conditionalities" imposed under a new debt relief agreement. Of course pressuring a country as volatile as Iraq to agree to any kind of arrangement without first allowing for legitimate parliamentary debate is fraught with peril. It is a risky way to nurture democracy in a country that already appears to be entering into a civil war.

"If misjudged - either by denying a fair share to the regions in which oil is located, or by giving regions too much autonomy at the expense of national cohesion - these oil decisions could fracture, and ultimately break apart, the country," Muttitt suggests.

--------

Charlie Cray is director of the Center for Corporate Policy in Washington, D.C.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090506I.shtml

-------

[Saundra Hummer]

***********
Donald Rumsfeld's Dance With the Nazis
By
Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 03 September 2006

President Bush came to Washington vowing to be a uniter, not a divider. Well, you win some and you lose some. But there is one member of his administration who has not broken that promise: Donald Rumsfeld. With indefatigable brio, he has long since united Democrats, Republicans, generals and civilians alike in calling for his scalp.

Last week the man who gave us "stuff happens" and "you go to war with the Army you have" outdid himself. In an instantly infamous address to the American Legion, he likened critics of the Iraq debacle to those who "ridiculed or ignored" the rise of the Nazis in the 1930's and tried to appease Hitler. Such Americans, he said, suffer from a "moral or intellectual confusion" and fail to recognize the "new type of fascism" represented by terrorists. Presumably he was not only describing the usual array of "Defeatocrats" but also the first President Bush, who had already been implicitly tarred as an appeaser by Tony Snow last month for failing to knock out Saddam in 1991.
What made Mr. Rumsfeld's speech noteworthy wasn't its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That's old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld's performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America's fight against the actual Nazis in World War II.

Here's how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler's appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain's hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

Mr. Rumsfeld didn't go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld's trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator's use of torture - "beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks" - on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had "disappeared." American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld's Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University's National Security Archive.) Within a year of his visit, the American mission was accomplished: Iraq and the United States resumed diplomatic relations for the first time since Iraq had severed them in 1967 in protest of American backing of Israel in the Six-Day War.

In his speech last week, Mr. Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill: Appeasing tyrants is "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last." He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone. To borrow the defense secretary's own formulation, he suffers from moral confusion about Saddam.

Mr. Rumsfeld also suffers from intellectual confusion about terrorism. He might not have appeased Al Qaeda but he certainly enabled it. Like Chamberlain, he didn't recognize the severity of the looming threat until it was too late. Had he done so, maybe his boss would not have blown off intelligence about imminent Qaeda attacks while on siesta in Crawford.

For further proof, read the address Mr. Rumsfeld gave to Pentagon workers on Sept. 10, 2001 - a policy manifesto he regarded as sufficiently important, James Bamford reminds us in his book "A Pretext to War," that it was disseminated to the press. "The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America" is how the defense secretary began. He then went on to explain that this adversary "crushes new ideas" with "brutal consistency" and "disrupts the defense of the United States." It is a foe "more subtle and implacable" than the former Soviet Union, he continued, stronger and larger and "closer to home" than "the last decrepit dictators of the world."

And who might this ominous enemy be? Of that, Mr. Rumsfeld was as certain as he would later be about troop strength in Iraq: "the Pentagon bureaucracy." In love with the sound of his own voice, he blathered on for almost 4,000 words while Mohamed Atta and the 18 other hijackers fanned out to American airports.

Three months later, Mr. Rumsfeld would still be asleep at the switch, as his war command refused to heed the urgent request by American officers on the ground for the additional troops needed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in Tora Bora. What would follow in Iraq was also more Chamberlain than Churchill. By failing to secure and rebuild the country after the invasion, he created a terrorist haven where none had been before.

That last story is seeping out in ever more incriminating detail, thanks to well-sourced chronicles like "Fiasco," "Cobra II" and "Blood Money," T. Christian Miller's new account of the billions of dollars squandered and stolen in Iraq reconstruction. Still, Americans have notoriously short memories. The White House hopes that by Election Day it can induce amnesia about its failures in the Middle East as deftly as Mr. Rumsfeld (with an assist from John Mark Karr) helped upstage first-anniversary remembrances of Katrina.

One obstacle is that White House allies, not just Democrats, are sounding the alarm about Iraq. In recent weeks, prominent conservatives, some still war supporters and some not, have steadily broached the dread word Vietnam: Chuck Hagel, William F. Buckley Jr. and the columnists Rich Lowry and Max Boot. A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence.

If even some conservatives are making accurate analogies between Vietnam and Iraq, one way for the administration to drown them out is to step up false historical analogies of its own, like Mr. Rumsfeld's. In the past the administration has been big on comparisons between Iraq and the American Revolution - the defense secretary once likened "the snows of Valley Forge" to "the sandstorms of central Iraq" - but lately the White House vogue has been for "Islamo-fascism," which it sees as another rhetorical means to retrofit Iraq to the more salable template of World War II.

"Islamo-fascism" certainly sounds more impressive than such tired buzzwords as "Plan for Victory" or "Stay the Course." And it serves as a handy substitute for "As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." That slogan had to be retired abruptly last month after The New York Times reported that violence in Baghdad has statistically increased rather than decreased as American troops handed over responsibilities to Iraqis. Yet the term "Islamo-fascists," like the bygone "evildoers," is less telling as a description of the enemy than as a window into the administration's continued confusion about exactly who the enemy is. As the writer Katha Pollitt asks in The Nation, "Who are the 'Islamo-fascists' in Saudi Arabia - the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents?"

Next up is the parade of presidential speeches culminating in what The Washington Post describes as "a whirlwind tour of the Sept. 11 attack sites": All Fascism All the Time. In his opening salvo, delivered on Thursday to the same American Legion convention that cheered Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush worked in the Nazis and Communists and compared battles in Iraq to Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal. He once more interchanged the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center with car bombers in Baghdad, calling them all part of the same epic "ideological struggle of the 21st century." One more drop in the polls, and he may yet rebrand this mess War of the Worlds.

"Iraq is not overwhelmed by foreign terrorists," said the congressman John Murtha in succinct rebuttal to the president's speech. "It is overwhelmed by Iraqis fighting Iraqis." And with Americans caught in the middle. If we owe anything to those who died on 9/11, it is that we not forget how the administration diverted our blood and treasure from the battle against bin Laden and other stateless Islamic terrorists, fascist or whatever, to this quagmire in a country that did not attack us on 9/11. The number of American dead in Iraq - now more than 2,600 - is inexorably approaching the death toll of that Tuesday morning five years ago.
"Go to Original" links. Access site by clicking on the following one:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090306Z.shtml *****

[Saundra Hummer]

.............Terrorism & Security
posted
September 5, 2006
at
12:00 p.m.
Report: Israel 'preparing for possible war' with Syria, Iran
Sources say that the conflict with Hizbullah has changed the thinking of Israel's military.
By
Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Concluding that "too much attention" has been paid to the Palestinians, Israel is reportedly shifting its focus to war planning against Syria and Iran.

The Times of London reported Sunday that the conflict with Hizbullah, which was far more difficult than the Israeli military thought it would be, has lead to a strategic rethink.

"The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one," said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the "Iranian front", a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

Iran's continued pursuit of a nuclear program means that war "is likely to become unavoidable," according to the Israeli military sources.

"In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities," said one insider, "but Iran's growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player."

A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. "It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hizbullah's," a military source said.

But Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, writes in his World View column that those who say that Iran is like Nazi Germany and who make comparisons to the year 1938 in Europe are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, he writes, "Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone from being an obscure and not-so-powerful politician to a central player in the Mideast, simply by goading the United States."

To review a bit of history: in 1938, Adolf Hitler launched what became a world war not merely because he was evil but because he was in complete control of the strongest country on the planet. At the time, Germany had the world's second largest industrial base and its mightiest army. (The American economy was bigger, but in 1938 its army was smaller than that of Finland.) This is not remotely comparable with the situation today.

Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon's budget this year is more than double Iran's total gross domestic product ($181 billion, in official exchange-rate terms). America's annual defense outlay is more than 100 times Iran's. Tehran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.

Mr. Zakaria writes that while Iran frustrates US and Western interests and causes problems for Israel, it is time to "get some perspective."

The United States is far more powerful than Iran. And, on the issue of Tehran's nuclear program, Washington is supported by most of the world's other major powers. As long as the alliance is patient, united and smart – and keeps the focus on Tehran's actions not Washington's bellicosity – the odds favor America. Ahmadinejad presides over a country where more than 40 percent of the population lives under the poverty line; his authority is contested, and Iran's neighbors are increasingly worried and have begun acting to counter its influence. If we could contain the Soviet Union, we can contain Iran. Look at your calendar: it's 2006, not 1938.

In Israel, Ha'aretz reports that Shin Bet, the Israeli security service, has launched a drive to recruit high-tech "geeks" to help fight the "war on terror."

Shin Bet sources admit the ad campaign is also intended to change the organization's image. For many, the first thing that springs to mind at the mention of Shin Bet is torture. The people in the service are tired of that. They want the Shin Bet to be associated with advanced technology and software development.

"We want the public to know other sides [of the service], not only the investigations and dark rooms," a Shin Bet source said on Monday. "The public doesn't know the service's technological side, which is an essential tool of preventive security. Part of the campaign's aim is to bring that to mind. We've located web sites used by high-tech people, and will put Shin Bet banners in them," he added.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas confirmed Tuesday that a prisoner swap has been reached to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. The kidnapping of Corporal Shalit had sparked the Israeli government's heavy response against militants in the Gaza Strip and against elected Hamas officials.

Abbas told Bahrain-based newspaper El-Halij that Shalit would be transferred to Egypt and held there until Israel fulfilled its part of the bargain. Earlier, Channel 2 News reported that the kidnappers had promised to release news of the soldier's welfare by Wednesday.

The announcement came after the Egyptian newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Shalit had already been transferred to Egypt as part of a deal to secure his release.

The Post says a deal was reached when Hamas leaders agreed with Israel's stipulation that no prisoner with "blood on his hands" would be released as part of the prisoner swap. Israeli officials in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office refused to confirm the report.

Any deal, however, may be complicated by the news that Israel has called for bids to build 700 more homes in settlements in the occupied West Bank. Agence-France Press reports it is the largest settlement expansion push this year.

The anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now heavily criticized the move, saying the construction of hundreds of new settlement homes "violated the government's commitments to the 'road map,'" the latest Middle East peace plan.

Israel "has done nothing to dismantle the dozens of wildcat settlements," said Peace Now in a statement, despite government commitments to dismantle such outposts built without consent of the authorities.

Under the terms of the internationally drafted road map, Israel is meant to freeze all settlement construction in the West Bank. The plan, however, has made no progress since its launch three years ago and Israel says it will not be bound by its commitments until the Palestinians put a halt to attacks.

Go on-site to view and to access photo's and/or links. Just click on address below:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0905/dailyUpdate.html ...............

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments : Napoleon Bonaparte : French Emperor (1769-1821)

~~~

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful : Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy : Russian author, 1828-1910

~~~

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground: Thomas Jefferson: 3rd US president, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, 1743-1826.

~~~
Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens : Plato : Ancient Greek philosopher (428/427-348/347 B.C.)

~~~
As long as we hate, there will be people to hate: George Harrison: Musician, producer and composer, member of The Beatles, 1943-2001
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Going camping
Geov Parrish
-
WorkingForChange.com...
09.01.06 - Along with a staggering array of national progressive organizers, commentators, congresspeople, and agitators, I'll be speaking at Camp Democracy next week. The camp, on the Mall in Washington D.C., will run from Sep. 5-20 as an outgrowth of Cindy Sheehan's Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. A number of other national groups are helping sponsor it. As our unelected leader returns to Washington from his usual long vacation, activists will set up shop with more than two weeks of talks, workshops, concerts, and in general plotting for our badly needed grass roots revolution.

It couldn't come at a better time. Two summers ago, Sheehan's original Crawford confrontation with George W. seized the imagination of the media and much of the American public, and gave a badly needed boost to the movement against the war in Iraq. But Sheehan's appeal was broader than opposition to an ill-considered, illegal war. It also invoked a far more universal demand: for accountability. Cindy, futilely demanding to meet with George Bush for a few minutes at a time when he was spending hours each day on a bicycle, showed for all to see the adamant refusal of the Bush administration, ensconced in the bubble of their own surreal world, to be troubled by an exposure, however brief, to reality -- in the form of a mother grieving for a son killed due to a Bush decision.

Now, finally, reality -- Iraq, Katrina, economic woes, a government run by and for cronies -- is catching up with the Bush administration, and the strains are showing. In two separate (but surely coordinated) speeches before a national American Legion convention this week, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice gave different but equally alarming speeches: Rumsfeld bitterly berating the nearly two-thirds of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq, and Rice offering a preposterous vision of the so-called "global war on terror" as a resounding success.

Rice, who obviously knows better, is simply lying to the American public. As for Rumsfeld, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC fired off a blistering on-air response this week that, among many other things, suggested that the "new kind of fascism" Rumsfeld claimed America was threatened by was the Bush administration itself. Such comments on a mainstream media outlet would have been unthinkable two summers ago, although they were just as true then. That they can be aired on a major cable network now shows just how far public opinion on the Bush administration has shifted since 2004.

The electoral expression of that shift is coming on November 7, a day of electoral reckoning for the Bush cabal and for the Republican-controlled Congress that has helped enable them. The Bush administration is doing everything possible to avoid that fate, including, now, offering fantasy versions of the outcomes of their policies and actively insulting a landslide majority of voters. By November, expect other buttons to be pushed: vote suppression and theft, declining gas prices, and/or a new national security crisis via a terror plot foiled (or not foiled) or a manufactured crisis with Iran.

It won't work. With two years still left on Bush's execrable second term, the gig is up. Credibility, once surrendered, is nearly impossible to regain, and this administration has lost credibility as comprehensively as any political force in American history since at least the Great Depression, and perhaps since the collapse of the Confederacy. Were the consequences of their past, present, and (for two more years) future decisions not so disastrously destructive, the Bush presidency would be a cruel joke. As is, nobody's laughing. (Except the rich, who will continue to benefit for years from Bush's publicly funded largesse.)

That's why Camp Democracy is so well-timed. It's not just a matter of accountability, although having reality's representatives camped outside the south windows of this White House for two weeks can be nothing but beneficial. Sheehan's original point -- that this administration acts contemptuously toward and in a different world from the people it was elected to serve, namely the American public -- is now accepted wisdom. The question is now, what to do about it?

That's why Camp Democracy is primarily about organizing for the future, and why the emphasis is on not just speakers and entertainment (as at the usual large D.C. march or rally), but on analysis, skill sharing, networking, and planning. As I outlined on Wednesday, winning back Democratic control of the House and/or Senate in November will help, a lot, but it by no means guarantees that the Democratic leadership, come 2007, will be much better on a host of issues: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, deficit spending, free trade, energy policy, another possible Supreme Court appointment, and so on.

On all these issues and more, congressional Democratic leadership either has had positions not much different from Bush or has generally been unwilling to confront Bush's radical policies and appointments. On these and a host of other issues –- health care, the environment, election reform, and privatization of government programs and personnel (including large segments of the military), to name four –- the concerns and views of a majority of the American public are not well-represented by either party in Washington.

The challenge, then, is literally to bring democracy to Washington: to make the backlash –- electorally, now and in 2008, and in terms of grass roots political pressure, from today forward –- so unmistakable and so sizable that elected officials of both parties are forced to be accountable to it. That is our task. Democracy is, after all, all about accountability. We have a lot of work to do.

I'll be helping lead a workshop at Camp Democracy on the morning of Sep. 6, next Wednesday, but I'll be around most of the opening week. See ya there.
(c) 2006, WorkingForChange.com

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21306
.......

[Saundra Hummer]

>>>>O<<<<
Beware China's role in US Chinese classes
By Jonathan Zimmerman
NEW YORK
Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?
Actually, we already have. Starting this fall, American high school students will be able to take an Advanced Placement (AP) course in "Chinese Language and Culture." Developing the course and its exam cost the College Board, which runs the AP Program, about $1.4 million. And half of that sum was picked up by - you guessed it - the People's Republic of China.

That's right. The same regime that has brought us public executions, forced labor camps, and Internet censors will soon be funding a language and culture class in a school near you.

Given what we know about China's rulers, it's fair to ask what's in it for them. And to answer, we might examine the last time a dictatorial foreign government tried to influence our language instruction.

The Mussolini model
The era was the 1930s, and the nation was Italy. Fascist Italy.

About a decade after he seized power, fascist dictator Benito Mussolini began a broad campaign to promote Italian-language instruction in American schools.

In a special enticement, Mussolini's government awarded medals to US high school students for "excellence in the study of Italian." The top five scholars won free trips to Italy, where they attended state-run summer camps. They wore fascist uniforms, received military training, and learned how to hail the Italian flag. Several students even received audiences with Il Duce ("the leader") himself.

Textbooks sang the praises of Mussolini's government. "Fascism has remade Italy," boasted Andiamo in Italia ("Let's Go Italy"), a text used in New York public schools. "Italy was a disorderly and disorganized country in which all wanted to talk more loudly without listening to the voice of the ruler. Now this voice which commands is well heard by all and order has been restored as if by a miracle." After 1941, when the United States declared war on Italy, such propaganda came to a halt.

Today, thankfully, Italian is enjoying a small renaissance in American schools. Shortly before the Chinese agreed to fund the Advanced Placement course here, the Italian government pledged $300,000 to establish an AP program in its own language. This spring, the first handful of AP students took exams in Italian. But there's a big difference. The current Italian government is a democracy, not a dictatorship. That means Italians are free to criticize its actions.

Not so with the Chinese. The regime, I suspect, will probably follow Mussolini's model and try to use the new AP course to play up China's economic achievements and play down its crimes. But if any Chinese citizens protest, they'll risk prison, or worse.

So it's up to the rest of us to monitor the program. Any school district offering this course should also make its textbooks and lesson plans available in English, so parents and other concerned citizens can read them. What, if anything, will the texts - officially, written by the College Board - say about the Tiananmen Square massacre? About the jailing of Chinese journalists? The abuse of psychiatric patients? We have the right to know.

Study Chinese - on our terms
Of course, American students desperately need to study non-English languages. Everyone who cares about our national future should consider this appalling fact: Less than half of American high school students even take a foreign language. Compare that with almost every other developed nation, where foreign-language study is compulsory. Our problem is especially embarrassing when it comes to Chinese, which is spoken by 1.5 billion people around the globe - and studied by fewer than 50,000 Americans. More than 1 million American students study French, by contrast, while only 70 million people in the world speak it.

So yes, absolutely, more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it.

But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy. Now, more than ever before, it's a tongue that we all need to speak.

• Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century," which will be published this fall.

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

from the September 06, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0906/p09s02-coop.html

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
...........

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Researchers Confirm Bush's Government by Fear is Effective and Works Like a Charm -- If You Are Into Demagoguery. We Can Disdain this Tactic, Used for the Third National Election, But Emotinally Manipulating People Works. It's Despicable and a Betrayal of the Nation, But It Works.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/06/MNG52L01KC1.DTL

9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER
Alerts aid terror goals, study finds
Intense media scrutiny and politicians' rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say
-
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006

With me it's just the opposite. Fear being used angers me, and it always has in any situation, when it is nothing more than a manipulative tool. SRH

- - - - - - -
With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, President Bush took to the podium Tuesday to speak to Americans about his administration's global war on terror.

Three things can be expected from Bush's speech, according to a new study by three Columbia University researchers: The media will repeat the president's remarks. Public fear of terrorism will increase. And the president's poll numbers will rise.

Those have been the effects of presidential pronouncements on terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to political scientists Brigitte Nacos, Yaeli Bloch-Elkon and Robert Shapiro, in a report prepared for this month's annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

"These are interesting findings, and confirm what many of us had suspected," said Mark Juergensmeyer, director of Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara, who reviewed the research at the request of The Chronicle.

"This public panic benefits the terrorists whose work is made easier by an overactive government response that magnifies their efforts. In an odd way this puts the government and the terrorists in league with one another," he said. "The main loser, alas, is the terrified public."

The Columbia researchers looked at past scholarship on the subject and a new review of terror threats, official warnings and the coverage of both by the mass media since 2001, seeking to close what Nacos called a gap in research of how terrorists try to achieve their goals of fomenting fear, not only through attack but by threatening attack.

"The real new thing here is the mere threat, heavily mass mediated, achieves at least part of what actual terrorism achieves," Nacos said. "(Terrorists) want to intimidate, they want to spread fear and anxiety, and they want to take influence through the public on government officials."

Much of the Columbia team's research focused on the press -- especially the television media -- and how it reacted to threats of terrorism.

"Any actual threat message -- a tape by bin Laden or al-Zawahiri or an alert -- results in a great deal of messages in the media," Nacos said. "People comment on it, they analyze it ... the administration, experts in the field, including myself."

That approach magnifies the sense of threat by repetition, Nacos said. And while increases in terror alerts always made the top of the news on the three major networks, decreases tended to be buried and far less time was devoted to them -- 1 minute, 34 seconds on average for a national alert being lowered, compared with 5 minutes, 20 seconds when the alert was raised.

"The threat alone brings them a great deal of media coverage, and the public takes notice -- we've shown that the threat perception by the public increases," Nacos said.

Officials in government and law enforcement also can have an effect on the public's perception of terror risk when their statements are magnified by the media.

In February 2003, for example, the percentage of people saying they were very worried about a terror attack "soon" stood at 18 percent. One month later, after the alert had been raised and lowered, it stood at 34 percent.

The official with the greatest ability to shift opinion on terrorism, the researchers found, is Bush, whose statements in the media about terrorism correlated highly with increases in the public's perception of terrorism as a major national problem -- and with increases in his approval ratings.

At the beginning of July 2002, for example, approval of the president's handling of terrorism was around 79 percent. After television coverage of one statement by Bush and seven public statements by administration officials about the terrorist threat, the president's rating rose to 83 percent.

In June 2004, approval for the president's handling of terrorism had fallen to 50 percent. One month later, after an increase in television coverage of Bush's comments on terrorism, that number had risen to 57 percent.

It's not clear that Bush, whose ratings have slipped to about 40 percent in national polls, will receive a bounce from his most recent remarks on terrorism, Nacos said -- past research suggests that such a bounce is more likely to come to presidents flying high in the polls than presidents with numbers in the doldrums. But the past pattern is clear.

"To me this is the most novel and interesting of the findings," said Larry Beutler, director of the National Center on the Psychology of Terrorism in Palo Alto, who reviewed the Columbia team's research. "There are findings suggesting that the administration's use of the alert system increased inordinately before the election and each time it did, Bush's numbers went up about 5 percent."

The research is also a "damning indictment of the media's bloodlust," said Matthew T. Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., who also reviewed the Columbia research.

"When you have media organs viewing fear-mongering as a payday, senior politicians seeing fear-mongering as sound political strategy, and terrorists considering fear-mongering as a victory unto itself, where are citizens expected to find a voice of reason?"

The Columbia study does not conclude the White House intentionally used terror alerts to influence the president's popularity.

But it is unlikely the White House is ignorant of the effect, said Nacos, who added that former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has complained publicly that he was sometimes pushed to raise the threat level on the basis of flimsy intelligence.

"Our data only shows these connections exist, these correlations exist," she said. "If anything, it should alert political players to be very careful with this."

For starters, Nacos said, politicians could reconsider when and how they warn the public of terror threats, especially when that warning is vague, and stop responding to bin Laden tapes, as many have in the past. "They magnify the role of this guy," she said. "They help him to be a world figure."

The press, too, could be more reflective in its coverage of terror threats, Nacos said, avoiding the kind of continuous coverage without new details that typified, for example, the recent arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

"I really think that all of these actors have to think of what they're doing," she said. "Nobody means to do this, but one has to think about what they're doing."

E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 3
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/06/MNG52L01KC1.DTL

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle .......

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Now Bushies Equate Iraq Critics With Confederate/Slavery Sympathizers. How About Vietnam Protesters?
By
Created 09/06/2006 - 12:25pm

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

First the Bush Administration compares Iraq War critics to Nazi appeasers and sympathizers of communism and fascism. Now Condoleezza Rice is comparing [1] their opponents to those who were against not only the Civil War, but even emancipation.

"I'm sure that there were people who said, 'why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves,'" Rice told Essence Magazine, which has a large African-American audience.

Deciding she had not gone far enough, she also likened critics to "people who thought the Declaration of Independence was a mistake."

While the Civil War analogy obviously merits little response, let's consider a few: The South presented a clear, immediate threat to America and fired the first shot. Preserving the Union, not emancipation, was initially the primary objective. Despite a few lackluster generals, America was led by one of our best Commanders in Chief, not the worst. And, of course, the White House did not make up a case to fight out of thin air to trick the people into supporting its political objectives.

As for the Declaration of Independence, well, it's hard to even get started on that one. Maybe Bush thinks he is related to George Washington since they share the same first name.

Either the Administration is accusing more than half the nation - and most of the world - of being racist Nazis, or they want us to see those who question their actions as roughly equivalent to anyone who has ever questioned virtually anything, regardless of how different the issues may be.

We are just waiting for Republicans to compare those against the Iraq War to what they are really most like: Vietnam War protesters.

As much as the Administration has fought Vietnam comparisons, its anti-war movement also focused on ending a foreign conflict that was both unnecessary and poorly executed as well. Though it was much more comprehensive after a few years than we are seeing today - along with many other differences - the Vietnam criticism analogy holds far more water than any that Republicans have made thus far.

If the day ever comes that the Bush Administration is capable of exercising that much logic, they might actually be able to agree that it would be a good idea to finally develop an exit strategy.

The White House must be getting pretty desperate for their new PR campaign to be this ridiculous and simpleminded, not to mention historically inaccurate.

The fundamental flaw in their reasoning is that, unlike in their examples, everyone is united over a common goal: reducing terrorism. The real debate is over how to achieve this goal, and it is obvious that Bush's way doesn't work. Instead of coming up with better ideas, he is simply using fear to make his followers continue to go along with the same failed policies.

We shudder to think what their next strategy will be once this doesn't work.A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/analysis/105
Links:
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14684938

Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
ABC Refuses to Provide Copies of Path to 9/11 to Clinton, Albright, Berger

ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.

But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.”

Here is an excerpt from Albright’s letter:

While I have requested a copy of the broadcast, I have yet to receive one. I have been informed by some who had been given the right to view the broadcast that the drama depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred; it asserts as fact things that are not fact.

For example, one scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true. In fact, the 9/11 commission reports states (page 117), “Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.”

You can read the full text of Berger’s letter here and Albright’s letter here.

Go on-site by clicking on the following link to access both letters, and the numerous viewer comments. And then as suggested on-site:

Write ABC and tell them to tell the truth about 9/11.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/
Digg It!

Filed under: Path to 911
Posted by Judd at 11:29 amPermalink | Comment (151)

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Top Bush counterterrorism official
bashes ABC's 9/11 mockumentary
by
kos
Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 08:22:10 AM PDT
Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002, told Scarborough:
SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden.

CRESSY:Joe, it's amazing, based on what I've seen so far is how much they've gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it's sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that's fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful.

SCARBOROUGH:But at the same time, doesn't history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?

CRESSY:Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn't made.
::

Tags: ABC, 9/11, media (all tags)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/6/112210/5934

http://www.buzzflash.com


.....

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~
Welcome to the
TO Multimedia Page!
Go on-site for the following stories and many more, by clicking on the following address:
http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
t r u t h o u t Video Podcasting
What is video podcasting? By using iTunes you will be able to subscribe to our podcasts, and when we post a new video your iTunes will automatically download it and have it ready to play the next time you launch your iTunes studio. For those with the latest iPods that support video you can load our video content onto your iPod as well and view it anytime. Video podcasting is the latest advancement from Apple Computers, but you can enjoy it from a Windows PC as well. Just go to http://www.apple.com/iTunes/download/ and download iTunes 6. You don't need an iPod to view our podcasts - your iTunes will play the video right on your computer.

Once you have iTunes set up and ready to go, subscribe to our podcasts and we will provide you with our latest video content.

Veterans, Military Families Launch Camp Democracy
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
Veterans and military family members, many of whom came directly from Camp Casey, set up camp on the mall in Washington, DC. "Camp Democracy," a 17-day event, will focus not only on ending the war but also on righting injustices here at home and on holding the Bush administration and Congress accountable.

Keith Olbermann:
"Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?"
Keith Olbermann: "Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek-a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety."

A Family's Pain and Healing at Camp Casey
A Film by Scott Galindez
When Cloy Richards went to Iraq, his mother and little sister were also affected. All three took the stage at Camp Casey and shared their pain. Camp Casey wasn't irrelevant to the Richards family - for them it was a place of healing.

Grant Collins: "It's My Duty to Speak Out"
A Film by Scott Galindez
Marine Corporal Grant Collins describes what it was like to participate in the war in Iraq. He also describes what it is like to live with giving orders that resulted in the deaths of civilians.

Camp Casey Supports Brave War Resister
A Report by Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard
Cindy Sheehan: "All of our hard work and every penny that I have spent was made abundantly worthwhile today when Mark Wilkerson, a 22-year-old Army Specialist out of Ft. Hood who has been AWOL for 19 months heard our call of sanctuary and came to Camp Casey to spend his last few days of freedom before turning himself in to military authorities at Ft. Hood."

The Courage to Say No to War
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
22-year-old Army Specialist Mark Wilkerson sat down with Geoffrey Millard last night to discuss his decision to turn himself in to the Army after more than 18 months of being AWOL. As Millard points out in the interview, there is now a growing, visible GI resistance to the war in Iraq.

Keith Olbermann | There Is Fascism, Indeed
Keith Olbermann says: "The confusion is about whether this secretary of defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: the destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City so valiantly fought. And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a 'new type of fascism.' As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that, though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed."

Katrina Survivors Visit Camp Casey
A Film by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
The "Social Change Caravan" rolled through Camp Casey with 21 Katrina evacuees on their way back to New Orleans for the hurricane's one year anniversary. Some plan to reclaim their homes, while others will be checking on the progress of the reconstruction efforts. Many of the Katrina survivors remember and are grateful to Camp Casey and Veterans for Peace for their quick response after the hurricane hit.

Camp Casey Reaches Out to GIs at Fort Hood
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
Over the last week, Camp Casey activists have been reaching out to GIs at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Truthout's Geoffrey Millard went along with a group from the camp to one of the gates at Fort Hood and filed this report.

Camp Casey Protests Border State Governor's Conference
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
Governors from Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and California met in Austin, Texas, to discuss immigration issues. Camp Casey joined immigrant rights groups to protest the militarization of the border and the scapegoating of immigrants. Eight percent of all US casualties in Iraq are non-citizen, while only two percent of the military do not have citizenship. Truthout's Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez will continue to bring you reports from Camp Casey.

GI War-Resistance Grows:
Sgt. Ricky Clousing Turns Himself In
A Film by Sari Gelzer and Geoffrey Millard
On Friday, August 11, Army Sgt. Ricky Clousing, who had been AWOL from his unit for a year, held a press conference the morning before he was to turn himself in to military authorities at Fort Lewis. Surrounded by press and veterans attending the Veterans for Peace Convention, Clousing spoke of the fervor of 9/11 that influenced him to join the Army, and the regret he felt once he was deployed and witnessed what he termed "the larger picture of the daily devastation of occupation." Among those who spoke in support of Ricky was Joshua Casteel, a conscientious objector and former interrogator at Abu Ghraib prison.

Dahr Jamail on Iraq and Lebanon
A Film by Geoffrey Millard and Sari Gelzer
Independent reporter Dahr Jamail speaks with Truthout's Geoffrey Millard in Seattle at the Veterans for Peace Convention, where he was invited to speak about his time in Iraq and, because of recent events, in Lebanon. Jamail went to Iraq because he said the coverage by corporate news was insufficient. Jamail presents his take on Iraq's civil war and politics, Lebanon's humanitarian crisis, Hezbollah's increased popularity, US/Iran relations, and the peace movement in America.
Part I

Keith Olbermann | Terror and Politics in America
Keith Olbermann does a stunning job of laying out a five year history of Bush administration Terror Alerts that came at moments when the administration may have wanted to change the subject.

Lt. Ehren Watada's Speech:
"Soldiers Can Choose to Stop Fighting"
Veterans for Peace Convention - August 12, 2006
A Film by Sari Gelzer
In Seattle at the Veterans for Peace Convention, Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq, spoke about what he calls a "change of strategy" for the peace movement. Watada said: "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea.... The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it." He received overwhelming support from the crowd, and members of Iraq Veterans Against the War lined the stage in solidarity. His speech came five days before his August 17 pre-trial hearing for refusing deployment to Iraq.
Part I
Part II

Tomas Young Goes to Washington
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
On the same day that Iraqi prime minister Jawad al-Maliki came to Washington, so did Iraq war veteran Tomas Young. Tomas, in a wheelchair that was being held together with duct tape, came with Phil Donahue. Donahue is filming a documentary about Tomas and the questions he has for Congress and the president. Truthout was there as members of Congress, including Senator Robert Byrd, came out to meet Tomas.

Operation House Call Update
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
As "Operation House Call" winds down, Geoffrey Millard speaks with participants about why they joined the effort and what the reaction has been from Congress. "Operation House Call," a project of Military Families Speak Out that began June 22, ended on Thursday, August 3, as Congress went into its August recess.

Murtha on Patriotism and the Cost of the War
An Interview by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
In Part 2 of our interview with Congressman John Murtha, we ask him about the attacks on his patriotism, the cost of the war, and his opposition to permanent bases in Iraq.

Five Fasters Arrested During Blair Visit to White House
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
On the 25th day of the "Troops Home Fast," four fasters and one supporter, ranging in age from 58 to 74, were arrested attempting to block British prime minister Tony Blair from exiting the White House. Diane Wilson, one of the arrestees, said their goal was to "keep Tony Blair and George Bush in their room until they came up with a plan to end the war."

Congressman Murtha Speaks to Truthout
An Interview by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
United States congressman John Murtha recently sat down with Geoffrey Millard to discuss his plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq. The congressman explained what he meant by "redeployment" and addressed concerns that many people have about his plan. In the coming days, we will bring you more of the interview.

"Unreasonable Woman" Fasts to Bring the Troops Home
An Interview by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
On Thursday, July 13, the 10th day of the "Troops Home Fast," Geoffrey Millard sat down with Diane Wilson. Wilson, who has set no end date for her fast - now over 20 days - discusses why she is fasting and shares her experiences from past hunger strikes that she has engaged in.

Col. Ann Wright on Fasting and Middle East Diplomacy
An Interview by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
On Thursday, July 13, Geoffrey Millard sat down with Col. Ann Wright. Now retired, Wright spent 29 years in the military and 16 years in the diplomatic corps. She spoke about her participation in the "Troops Home Fast" and the current situation in the Middle East.

Operation House Call
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Scott Galindez
On June 15th, Congress voted to stay the course in Iraq. Members of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of family members of those serving in Iraq, were outraged and decided to make a "house call." They will be in Washington, DC, until Congress goes into recess. Truthout's Geoffrey Millard reports from Washington.

Members of Congress Join "Troops Home Fast"
A Film by Scott Galindez
On Thursday, July 13th, members of the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus held a press conference on Capitol Hill to show their support for the "Troops Home Fast," which began on July 4th. Caucus Chair Maxine Waters, Lynn Woosley, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich spoke at the event.

Independence Day in New Orleans
A Film by Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse
On July 4, residents of the St. Bernard Public Housing Project planned to storm the barbed-wire fences and reoccupy their condemned homes. But the powers that be are finally willing to negotiate. Truthout correspondents Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse were at St. Bernard's for the first Independence Day since Hurricane Katrina.

Fasters Declare Independence From War
A Film by Scott Galindez
On July 4th, in Washington, participants in the "Troops Home Fast" took their message to the National July 4th Parade. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg, who both lost sons in the war, called on the fasters and their supporters to declare independence from war. Following a brief program in Lafayette Park, the group marched to join the national parade.

425
A Film by Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse
From the haunts of the abandoned Six Flags in New Orleans, Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse find out why the number 425 is important.

Troops Home Fast
A Film by Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard
On July 3, a press conference was held in Washington, DC, to announce a fast to end the war in Iraq. Fasters now include Cindy Sheehan; actress Susan Sarandon; environmentalist Diane Wilson; comedian Dick Gregory; singer Willie Nelson; Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches; Dr. E. Faye Williams, National Chair of the National Congress of Black Women; Colonel Ann Wright; Iraq veteran Geoffrey Millard; Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women; and CODEPINK co-founders Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans and Gael Murphy. Truthout's Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard are in Washington providing video updates throughout the fast.

AWOL: GI War Resistance in Canada
A Report by Geoffrey Millard and Sari Gelzer
The Department of Defense has recently reported that 8,000 members of the US military are listed as AWOL. Currently 24 war resisters are known to be in Canada trying to establish citizenship, with an estimated several hundred more living there underground. Truthout's Sari Gelzer and Geoffrey Millard report from Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, Ontario, to bring you coverage of Peace Has No Borders, an event that brought US attention to political refugees in Canada. Geoffrey Millard interviews war resisters about their decision to refuse deployment to Iraq and seek asylum in Canada.

Bruce Springsteen: "Bring 'Em Home, Bring 'Em Home"
Bruce Springsteen sings "Bring 'Em Home, Bring 'Em Home" on NBC's Late Night with Conan O'Brien. The song is part of Springsteen's new album "We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions". The song is based on Seeger's Vietnam-era ballad "Bring 'Em Home".

Katrina Plus Ten Months - Professor Bill Quigley Speaks
A Film by Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse
Over 7,200 family dwellings sit empty throughout New Orleans. No, not FEMA trailers. These are solid brick public housing projects that survived Katrina. They only require interior repairs, and thousands of displaced low income families want to move back in. But instead, they are being fenced off and condemned. Why? Chris Hume and L. Wild Horse speak with Professor Bill Quigley and several former tenants.

South Central Farmers Evicted:
The Struggle Is Just Beginning
A Film by Chris Hume
On June 13, bulldozers started clearing the 14-year-old South Central Farm in Los Angeles. Dozens of people were arrested, and the farmers were evicted from the land. Truthout correspondent Chris Hume was there to cover the incident, and to get the story about the ongoing legal fight to keep the farm from being turned into a complex of warehouses.

Caught in the Crossfire
The Untold Story of Fallujah
A Film by Mark Manning
Independent filmmaker Mark Manning was the only Westerner to travel to Fallujah un-embedded, and he lived with the refugees of Fallujah and experienced life from their point of view, returning with them to their destroyed city after the siege by the United States. Unknown to any authorities, he recorded what he saw. He went through the checkpoints, witnessed the devastation of thousands of homes, shops and mosques, and documented the horrors of the siege as recounted by those who survived inside the city during the battles. The people of Fallujah asked him to tell their story to the world, and he is now fulfilling that request with the release of Caught in the Crossfire.

Shot from November 2004 to April 2005 inside the city of Fallujah, Caught in the Crossfire details the conditions experienced by civilians as they endured the violent clashes and consequences of Operation Phantom Fury and became refugees outside the eyes and care of the international community.
Part I
Part II

Go Tell It on the Mountain
A Film by Rebecca MacNeice
Larry Gibson's family roots on West Virginia's Kayford Mountain go back to the 1700s. In 1906, after being swindled by a land company representing coal mine owners (as happened to countless other mountaineers), his family found itself with only 50 acres of its original 500. Now, Gibson hangs onto his mountain and observes family traditions, despite the disappearance of landscape all around him - the result of total environmental destruction caused by mountaintop removal mining. Keeping to family and Appalachian traditions of annually visiting the family graveyard, Gibson this year took other locals, environmental activists and journalists along with him.

http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

[Saundra Hummer]

* * * * * * *The Next Phase of the Middle East WarBy
Michel Chossudovsky
09/05/06 "GlobalResearch" -- -- Israel's war on Lebanon is an integral part of a US sponsored "military roadmap".
The war on Lebanon, which has resulted in countless atrocities including the destruction of the nation's economy and civilian infrastructure, is "a stage" in a sequence of carefully planned military operations.

Lebanon constitutes a strategic corridor between Israel and North-western Syria. The underlying objective of this war was the militarization of Lebanon, including the stationing of foreign troops, as a precondition for carrying out the next phase of a broader military agenda.

Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.

Moreover, the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops, following the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has contributed to opening up a "new space". The withdrawal of Syrian troops served Israeli interests. The timely pullout was of strategic significance: it was a major factor in the timing and planning of the July 2006 IDF attacks on Lebanon.

In the aftermath of the Israeli bombings and the "ceasefire", UN Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by France and the US in close consultation with the Israeli government, has paved the way for the militarization of Lebanon, under a bogus UN mandate.

The Next Phase of the Middle East War

Confirmed by official statements and military documents, the US in close coordination with Britain (and in consultation with its NATO partners), is planning to launch a war directed against Iran and Syria. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has already initiated the draft of a UN Security Council resolution with a view to imposing sanctions on Tehran for its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. Whether this resolution is adopted is not the main issue. The US may decide to proceed in defiance of the Security Council, following a veto by Russia and/or China. The vote of France and Britain, among the permanent members has already been secured.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack, pursuant to a sanctions regime on Iran, with or without UN approval, would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

The aerial bombing plans have been fully operational ("in an advanced state of readiness") since June 2005. The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" . Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared "an advanced state of readiness".

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'

The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately The Pentagon will decide on the sequence; " if and when" to launch military operations against Iran and Syria. Israeli military actions and those of other coalition partners including Turkey, would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon.

Ground War

While the threat of punitive aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities have been announced repeatedly by the Bush administration, recent developments suggest that an all out ground war is also under preparation.

CONPLAN constitutes only one component of the Middle East military agenda. CONPLAN 8022 does not contemplate a ground war. It posits "no boots on the ground", which was the initial assumption envisaged in relation to the proposed aerial attacks on Iran.

US and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial "punitive bombings" will almost inevitably lead coalition forces into a ground war scenario in which they will have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the battlefield.

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.

The foreign troops stationed in Lebanon under UN mandate would respond to the diktats of the US led coalition and the prior commitments reached with Washington and Tel Aviv in the context of the various military alliances (NATO-Israel, Turkey-Israel, GUUAM, etc).

War Games

These military preparations have also been marked, quite recently, by the conduct of war games.

In late August, Iran was involved in the conduct of war games in major regions of the country, including border areas with Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran's Defense Minister General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has confirmed the deployment of enhanced military capabilities including weapons systems and troops on the Iranian border: " forces are supervising all movements by trans-regional troops and their agents around the Iranian borders" (FARS news, 2 September 2006)

[I]Iran War Games August 2006.

Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO) were also launched in late August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, were conducted in response to US-Israeli military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. (See Michel Chossudovsky, August 2006). In turn, China an Kazakhstan held concurrent war games under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Azerbaijan and neighboring Georgia have close military ties to Washington. Both countries are part of GUUAM, a military alliance with the US and NATO.

Turkey is a close ally of Israel. Since 2005, Israel has deployed Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government: Pakistan is also a close ally of the US and Britain. Georgia also has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.

Meanwhile, the USS Enterprise, America's largest aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf.

[I]US Troop Build-up

US troops in Iraq have been increased to 140,000 as confirmed by recent Pentagon statements (Reuters, 2 September 2006) These plans have been coupled with a the compulsory recall of "inactive servicemen" as well as the expansion of mercenary forces. (Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)

The Pentagon justifies the troop build-up as part of a "routine" process of replacement and rotation, required in its ongoing war against "terrorists" in Iraq. The speeding up of military recruitment is also occurring in the core countries of the Anglo-American coalition including Great Britain. Australia and Canada (see also Recruiting Canada). Canada and Australia are aligned with the US. Australian Prime Minister John Howard as well as Canada's Steven Harper have confirmed their commitment to the US-Israeli war and have promised an expansion of the armed forces in their respective countries.

Meanwhile British troops stationed in Iraq have been redeployed to the Iranian border in southern Iraq. This redeployment has been casually presented by Britain's Ambassador to Iraq as part of a "crack down on smuggling and the entrance of weapons into Iraq from Iran".

While British officials are maintaining no desire or preparations for a conflict with Iran, more British troops are being mobilized and deployed to Iraq at the same time. The Light Infantry of the 2nd Battalion, another unit with rapid deployment capabilities, is deploying to the southern Iraqi border with Iran. The 2nd Battalion is being sent to Iraq under the pretext of working in the Rear Operations Battle Group which will provide escorts for military convoys and security for British forces and bases in Basra. (See Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)

The Role of Israel

In the wake of the war on Lebanon. Israel's military plans and pronouncements are increasingly explicit. Tel Aviv has announced plans to wage a pre-emptive "full-scale war" against Iran and Syria, implying the deployment of both air and ground force. These war plans are now said to at the top of the defense agenda:

"Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources."

(...)

“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defense source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defense Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria."

(...)

In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.”

(...)

As a result of the change in the defense priorities, the budget for the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced." (Sunday Times, 3 September 2006)

Media Disinformation

The Western media is beating the drums of war.

The Sunday Times views Israel's war plans as legitimate acts of self defense, to prevent Tehran from launching an all out nuclear attack on Israel: "Iran and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel Aviv. An emergency budget has now been assigned to building modern shelters."

The fact that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities as confirmed by the IAEA report does not seem to be an issue for debate.

Media disinformation has contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.

Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911.

The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.

The antiwar movement has also been weakened.

While China and Russia will oppose the US led war at the diplomatic level as well as at the UN Security Council, Washington has secured the support of France and Germany. While Russia and China have military cooperation agreements with Iran, they would most probably not would intervene militarily in favor of Iran.

NATO is broadly supportive of the US led military agenda. In February 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel.

Nuclear Weapons against Iran

The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US and Israel against Iran, is contemplated, ironically in retaliation for Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).

CONPLAN 8022, referred to above, is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferation and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.

The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.

The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be coordinated with Israel, which possesses a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.

The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground").

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The World is at a Critical Crossroads


The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.

Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation.

NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey.

Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with

China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above)

In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters.

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Pentagon's Second 911

The economic and political dislocations resulting from this military agenda are far-reaching.

If the attacks directed against Iran and Syria were to proceed, martial law and/or a state of emergency could be declared in the US and possibly Britain on the pretext that the homeland is under attack by Iran sponsored terrorists. The purpose of these measures would essentially be to curb the antiwar movement and provide legitimacy to an illegal war.

The Pentagon has intimated in this regard, in an official statement, that "another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets ". In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).

[I]Reversing the Tide of War

The issues raised in this article do not necessarily imply that the war will take place. What the analysis of official statments and military documents onfirms is that:

a) the war is part of a political agenda;

b) military plans to launch an attack on Iran and Syria are "in an advanced stage of readiness".

The issue is not whether the war will inevitably take place but what are the instruments at our disposal which will enable us to shunt and ultimately disarm this global military agenda.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

The legitimacy of the war must be addressed. Antiwar sentiment alone does not disarm a military agenda. High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

There is a sense of urgency. In the weeks and months ahead, the antiwar movement must act, consistently, and address a number of key issues:

1. The role of media disinformation in sustaining the military agenda is crucial.

We will not succeed in our endeavours unless the propaganda apparatus is weakened and eventually dismantled. It is essential to inform our fellow citizens on the causes and consequences of the US-led war, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities which are routinely obfuscated by the media. This is no easy task. It requires an effective counter-propaganda program which refutes mainstream media assertions.

It is essential that the relevant information and analysis reaches the broader public. The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates. The media conglomerates which control network TV and the printed press must be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.

2. There is opposition within the political establishment in the US as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces.

While this opposition does not necessarily question to overall direction of US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the "war on terrorism" consensus. The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is, therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.

3. The structure of military alliances must be addressed. A timely shift in military alliances could potentially reverse the course of history.

Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well within the political system itself.

It is essential that the commitments made by European heads of government and heads of State to Washington be cancelled or nullified, through pressure exerted at the appropriate political levels. This applies, in particular, to the unbending support of the Bush adminstration, expressed by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing the tide. Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France and Germany.

4. The holding of large antiwar rallies is important and essential. But in will not in itself reverse the tide of war unless it is accompanied by the development of a cohesive antiwar network.

What is required is a grass roots antiwar network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, as well as their corporate sponsors, and which would ultimately be instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name. The construction of this type of network will take time to develop. Initially, it should focus on developing an antiwar stance within existing citizens' organizations (e.g. trade unions, community organizations, professional regroupings, student federations, municipal councils, etc.).

5. 9/11 plays a crucial and central role in the propaganda campaign.
The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards. Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. Several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the recent foiled "liquid bomb attack". There is evidence that the several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. (e.g Bali 2002).

The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. His most recent book is America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.

© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca

Access this story and several others plus online video articles by clicking on the link below:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info.......

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

Barkley Says He's Serious About Political Run
He Will Be Inducted Into Hall of Fame on Saturday

By BOB BAUM
AP Sports
Updated:2006-09-06 17:24:24

PHOENIX (Sept. 6) - Charles Barkley insists he's serious about running for governor of Alabama, but he's


Barkley Speaks His Mind

Gregory Shamus, NBAE/Getty Images
NBA legend Charles Barkley has never been one to shy away from giving an opinion. Go on-site to view: http://sports.aol.com/

"I can't run until 2014," he said. "I have to live there for seven years, so I'm looking for a house there as we speak."

And he said he is an independent, not a Democrat as previously reported.

"The Republicans are full of it," Barkley said. "The Democrats are a little less full of it."

Asked if he had ever been in the governor's office in Birmingham, Barkley said no.

"They don't let many black people in the governor's mansion in Alabama," he said, "unless they're cleaning."

The quip came in a wide-ranging interview with reporters at US Airways Center on Tuesday, leading up to his induction into the basketball Hall of Fame this weekend in Springfield, Mass. Barkley, 43, retired in 2000 after 16 seasons in the NBA. He made the All-Star team 11 times and is one of only four players with 20,000 points, 10,000 rebounds and 4,000 assists.

"I want to speak for people who can't speak for themselves," he said. "America discriminates against poor people. America's divided by economics. If you're born poor, whether you're white, black or Spanish, you're going to be in a bad neighborhood and you're going to a bad school. That's not right."

Barkley said he felt he needs to give something back.

"I've been really blessed in my life," he said, "and if I was just to be rich and famous and have a big house and a big car and live happily ever after, I think I would let the big fella down who gave me the gift to get to the Hall of Fame."

Barkley said he's donating $1 million to build houses in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"That was a really big deal for me," he said, "because I cannot believe in the United States I see people on television for two or three days begging for food and water. That shouldn't happen here."

He said that he drives through any city and hears people talk about the bad part of town.

"It's only bad because poor people live there," he said. "That's what they mean. People try to make it about race. It's really about economics."

Barkley has decided to have ex-Philadelphia teammate Moses Malone and Phoenix Suns chairman and former owner Jerry Colangelo introduce him at the Hall of Fame ceremony. The decision to select Colangelo shows how far the two have come in their reconciliation after hard feelings surrounded Barkley's' trade from Phoenix to Houston at the end of his career.

"Jerry gave me the opportunity," Barkley said.


They don't let many black people in the governor's mansion in Alabama unless they're cleaning.

- Charles Barkley
He said that while he was a "much better player" in his early days with Philadelphia, his greatest team success came in Phoenix.

Barkley said he's friends with a couple of people who made the leap from celebrity to politics - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura.

"They're like 'Hey man, this ain't like you think it is,"' Barkley said. "These people, all of them, sold their souls to special interest groups. They're not trying to do good things here.'

"Then I say, 'You know what, if I don't try to do something, it's never going to change."'

He said all political parties should be eliminated.

"You shouldn't belong to a political affiliation. Everybody should be an independent," he said. "The way it is now you're hamstrung to a particular party. That's not right."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~
Brought to you by FREE PRESS, on the web at www.freepress.net

CDT Testifies Against Dangerous "Update" of Surveillance Law
From Center for Democracy and Technology, September 7, 2006
Statement of James X. Dempsey, Policy Director, Center for Democracy and Technology1 before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security “Updating FISA”

H.R. 4976, the “NSA Oversight Act”
H.R. 5113, the “Fairness and Accountability in Reorganizations Act of 2006”
H.R. 5371, the “Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists
in an Emergency by NSA Act”
H.R. 5825, the “Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act”
S. 2453, the “National Security Surveillance Act of 2006”
S. 2455, the “Terrorist Surveillance Act”

September 6, 2006

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Is “Modernization” Another Way of Saying Warrantless Searches and a Blank Check for the President?

Undoubtedly, it is appropriate to consider from time to time whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act should be amended to respond to the changing threats facing our nation or advances in technology. However, FISA has been updated already
several times since 9/11, most notably in the recently reauthorized PATRIOT Act.

Something fundamentally different than mere updating is being proposed today. The Administration, caught in its secret violation of FISA, is now seeking radical changes in the law, changes that go farther even than ratifying the President’s program.

The most radical proposal is that of Chairman Specter, which would effectively gut FISA by repealing its exclusivity provision, making it merely optional for the Administration to seek a court order for electronic surveillance inside the United States against American citizens.

The bill co-sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner, while it would preserve the nominal exclusivity of FISA, not only would ratify the President’s program of warrantless surveillance for foreign-to-US communications, but also would permit much more warrantless surveillance of purely domestic calls. The result would be to cast a
cloud of constitutional uncertainty over what the Administration claims is a valuable tool in preventing terrorism.

To read the rest of the statement, click here. (Go on-site to access link with Adobe 6.0: http://www.freepress.net

This article is from Center for Democracy and Technology. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality journalism.
For more information (research, educational purposes, etc., go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~
ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama Mangles Facts,
Smears Washington Post

From Think Progress, September 7, 2006
ABC’s planned docudrama The Path to 9/11 contains numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Here’s another one.

Brought to you by FREE PRESS, on the web at:
http://www.freepress.net

Go on-site to access the links within this article.

On the second night of Path to 9/11, a CIA analyst makes the following complaint:

Besides, ever since the Washington Post disclosed that we intercepted his calls, UBL [Usama bin Laden] stopped using phones altogether. He’s using couriers now, like they did a thousand years ago.

This isn’t true on a number of levels. First, as Daniel Benjamin makes clear, the publication at issue is the Washington Times:

Here’s what happened: On Aug. 21, 1998, the Washington Times, the capital’s unabashedly conservative newspaper, which regularly breaks more intelligence-related stories than any other daily, ran an article saying that Bin Laden “keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones.” This occurred less than two weeks after the destruction of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam by al-Qaida and the day after the United States had bombed al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. After that report, Bin Laden stopped using his phone and let his aides do the calling. This story is recounted in both The Age of Sacred Terror (2002), which I co-wrote with my National Security Council colleague Steven Simon, and the 9/11 Commission Report.

Not only is the scene inconsistent with the 9/11 commission report, it’s perpetuating an urban myth. Actually, “Bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone had already been widely reported by August 1998, and he stopped using it within days of a cruise missile attack on his training camps in Afghanistan.”

Why was it included anyway? One explanation: it is frequently cited by right-wing politicians “seeking to impose greater restrictions on the news media.” This is a film that doesn’t let the facts get in the way of its agenda.
This article is from Think Progress. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality journalism.
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Saundra Hummer]

*********
Clinton Blasts ABC’s ‘Path to 9/11’ Movie
From New York Post, September 7, 2006
By Ian Bishop

A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11” grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden — and he is demanding the network “pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

“The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,” the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission’s report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid — although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office, accuses the ABC drama of “bias” and a “fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans.”

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was “surprised” and “incredulous” when told about the film’s slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a “dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews.”

“Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form,” he said. “We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion.”

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked “very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they’re wrongly portrayed, that’s obviously of concern. We’ve portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view.”

The miniseries’ creator and the 9/11 panel’s former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show’s beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O’Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

“How do you win a law-and-orderly war?” Kirk asks.

“You don’t,” O’Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did “not have sex with that woman” — Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission’s report found Clinton was “deeply concerned about bin Laden” and that he received daily reports “on bin Laden’s reported location,” Clinton’s letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden’s residence at Tarnak Farms — the terror thug easily in their grasp.

“It’s perfect for us,” says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can’t authorize a strike.

“I don’t have that authority,” the Berger character says.

“Are there any men in Washington,” Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, “or are they all cowards?”

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that “no such episode ever occurred — nor did anything like it.”

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton’s Cabinet gave “its blessing” for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan — over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff — not Albright — who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to “assure him the missiles were not coming from India.”

This article is from New York Post. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality journalism.

http://www.freepress.net/news/17547

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Al-Jazeera airs pre-9/11 bin Laden tape
7 minutes ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Jazeera broadcast Thursday what it called a previously unshown video in which al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers. The station did not say how it obtained the video, which was produced by As-Sahab, al-Qaida's media branch.


The video showed bin Laden sitting with his former lieutenant Mohammed Atef and Ramzi Binalshibh, another suspected planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in 2001. Binalshibh was captured four years ago in Pakistan and is in U.S. custody, and this week President Bush announced plans to put him on military trial.

In the video, bin Laden was wearing a dark robe and white headgear walking in a mountainous area. He smiled as he greeted several men, which the tape said were Sept. 11 hijackers.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~
The Opportunity of a Lifetime
An excerpt. Go on-site to view the complete article and to access links and corresponding articles, by clicking on the following link. From: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=118775

What if the attacks on September 11, 2001, had not been seen as a new Pearl Harbor? Only three months earlier, after all, Disney's Pearl Harbor (the "sanitized" version, as Times columnist Frank Rich labeled it), a blockbuster made with extensive Pentagon help, had performed disappointingly at the multiplexes. As an event, it seemed irrelevant to American audiences until 9/11, when that ancient history -- and the ancient retribution that went with it -- wiped from the American brain the actual history of recent decades, including our massive covert anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, out of which Osama bin Laden emerged.

Here's the greatest irony: From that time of triumph in 1945, Americans had always secretly suspected that they were not "invincible" but exceedingly vulnerable, something both pop culture and the deepest fears of the cold war era only reinforced. Confirmation of that fact arrived with such immediacy on September 11 largely because it was already a gut truth. The ambulance chasers of the Bush administration, who spotted such opportunity in the attacks, were perhaps the last Americans who hadn't absorbed this reality. As that New Day of Infamy scenario played out, the horrific but actual scale of the damage inflicted in New York and Washington (and to the U.S. economy) would essentially recede. The attack had been relatively small, limited in its means and massive only in its daring and luck -- abetted by the fact that the Bush administration was looking for nothing like such an attack, despite that CIA briefing given to Bush on a lazy August day in Crawford ("Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US") and so many other clues.

Only the week before 9/11 the Bush administration had been in the doldrums with a "detached," floundering President criticized by worried members of his own party for vacationing far too long at his Texas ranch while the nation drifted. Moreover, there was only one group before September 11 with a "new Pearl Harbor" scenario on the brain. Major administration figures, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, had wanted for years to radically increase the power of the President and the Pentagon, to roll back the power of Congress (especially any Congressional restraints on the presidency left over from the Vietnam/Watergate era) and to complete the overthrow of Saddam Hussein ("regime change"), aborted by the first Bush administration in 1991.

We know as well that some of those plans were on the table in the 1990s and that those who held them and promoted them, at the Project for the New American Century in particular, actually wrote in a proposal titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that "the process of transformation [of the Pentagon], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

We also know that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, many of the same people were at work on the war of their dreams. Within five hours of the attack on the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was urging his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq. (Notes by an aide transcribe his wishes this way: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.")

We know that by the 12th, the President himself had collared his top counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, and some of his staff in a conference room next to the White House Situation Room and demanded linkages. ("‘Look under every rock and do due diligence.' It was a very intimidating message which said, ‘Iraq. Give me a memo about Iraq and 9/11.'") We know that by November, the top officials of the Administration were already deep into operational planning for an invasion of Iraq.

And they weren't alone. Within the Pearl Harbor/nuclear attack/war nexus that emerged almost instantly from the ruins of the World Trade Center, others were working feverishly. Only eight days after the attacks, for instance, the complex 342-page Patriot Act would be rushed over to Congress by Attorney General John Ashcroft, passed through a cowed Senate in the dead of night on October 11, unread by at least some of our Representatives, and signed into law on October 26. As its instant appearance indicated, it was made up of a set of already existing right-wing hobbyhorses, quickly drafted provisions and expansions of law enforcement powers taken off an FBI "wish list" (previously rejected by Congress). All these were swept together by people who, like the President's men on Iraq, saw their main chance when those buildings went down. As such, it stands in for much of what happened "in response" to 9/11.

But what if we hadn't been waiting so long for our own thirty-six-hour war in the most victorious nation on the planet, its sole "hyperpower," its new Rome? What if those pre-existing frameworks hadn't been quite so well primed to emerge in no time at all? What if we (and our enemies as well) hadn't been at the movies all those years?

Movie-Made Planet

Among other things, we've been left with a misbegotten "billion dollar" memorial to the attacks of 9/11 (recently recalibrated to $500 million) planned for New York's Ground Zero and sporting the kinds of cost overruns otherwise associated with the occupation of Iraq. In its ambitions, what it will really memorialize is the Bush administration's oversized, crusading moment that followed the attacks. Too late now -- and no one asked me anyway -- but I know what my memorial would have been.

A few days after 9/11, my daughter and I took a trip downtown, as close to "Ground Zero" as you could get. With the air still rubbing our throats raw, we wandered block after block, peering down side streets to catch glimpses of the sheer enormity of the destruction. And indeed, in a way that no small screen could communicate, it did have the look of the apocalyptic, especially those giant shards of fallen building sticking up like -- remember, I'm a typical movie-made American on an increasingly movie-made planet and had movies on the brain that week -- the image of the wrecked Statue of Liberty that chillingly ends the first Planet of the Apes film, that cinematic memorial to humanity's nuclear folly. Left there as it was, that would have been a sobering monument for the ages, not just to the slaughter that was 9/11 but to what we had awaited for so long -- and what, sadly, we still wait for; what, in the world that George Bush has produced, has become ever more, rather than less, likely. And imagine our reaction then.

Safer? Don't be ridiculous.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The Last Days of Publishing, a novel, and in the fall, Mission Unaccomplished (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

Copyright Tom Engelhardt 2006

This article will appear in the September 25 issue of The Nation Magazine.

[Saundra Hummer]

...........Demand ABC Correct Their 9/11 Film
Send ABC a Message
Learn More About The Path to 9/11 at:
http://www.ThinkProgress.com
MediaMatters.com

...
ABC is planning to air a two-part mini-series entitled The Path to 9/11 this Sunday and Monday.

In spite of its claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, the film reportedly includes numerous inaccuracies and lays the blame for the September 11 tragedy on the Clinton Administration. One scene reportedly depicts a senior Clinton Administration official calling off the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. This depiction of events has been refuted by former Bush Administration anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke.

It also has been reported that the film blames the intelligence breakdowns on bureaucratic obstacles allegedly created by the Clinton Administration, even though Republican 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon has previously refuted that claim.

Because of my concerns that false and inflammatory information would be widely disseminated to the American public, I, along with Representatives John Dingell, Jane Harman and Louise Slaughter, asked ABC to correct the film before airing it. To view a copy of our letter, click here.

The more people the network hears from, the more likely they are to correct the errors in the film. But we do not have much time. Contact them now to let them know they should not politicize this tragic event in our nation's history.

Thank you again for your commitment to a stronger democracy.


Sincerely,



John Conyers, Jr.


Contact Information
website: http://www.johnconyers.com/
Conyers for Congress
P.O. Box 17204
Alexandria, Virginia 17204
Phone: 313-438-2004


Paid For And Authorized By Conyers for Congress
Michael J. Remington, Treasurer
P.O. Box 17204
Alexandria, Virginia 22302
Photographs Copyright Kim M. Simpson All Rights Reserved

Please Tell Your Friends to Take Action
Go on-site to access petition form and to read about why this is being called for. SRH

Thank you for sending a message to ABC. Our effort will depend on thousands of people taking action. Please take a moment to use our tool to ask five of your friends to join you.

Please Tell Your Friends to Take Action
Enter your name and e-mail address, and the addresses of up to five of your friends (your friends’ addresses are used only to deliver this message, and won’t be stored).

Your name

Your e-mail address

Subject

Your message

On September 10 and 11, ABC Television is planning to air a program called "The Path to 9/11." Though ABC claims that the program is based on the facts, the truth is that it distorts the facts and the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. The ABC program, written by avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh, goes out of its way to place blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11 and whitewash the failures of the Bush administration. That simply isn't true.

Help me do something about it.

Visit this website and send a message to ABC:

http://www.ThinkProgress.org/TellABC


Friend’s e-mail

Link to us
Please consider adding one of these banners to your site: Go on-site to view and use:

http://thinkprogress.org/abcsent/?status=refer

Subscribe to the Progress Report
It’s the daily newsletter from the writers of Think Progress. Featuring hard-hitting research and analysis you can’t find anywhere else.


Think Progress Highlights*** One Year Later: The Katrina Timeline ***
Abramoff Scandal Sheet: The House That Jack Built
Architects of The Iraq War: Where Are They Now?
DeLay's Dirty (Baker's) Dozen
No Good Military Options in Iran: The Experts Agree
Pat Roberts: Chairman of the Senate Cover-up Committee
Senate Millionaires Against Raising The Minimum Wage
Timeline: Three Years In Iraq

What We’re AboutWhat We’re Fighting For:
Social and Economic Justice
Healthy Communities
Global Leadership
A Secure America
What We’re Fighting Against:
Corrupt Establishment
Incompetent Establishment
Braindead Media
Radical Right-Wing Agenda
ArchivesSeptember 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
TopicsAdministration
Afghanistan
Africa
Agriculture
AIDS
Ballot Watch
Bankruptcy
Budget
China
Civil Liberties
Civil Rights
Congress
Contract Corruption
Corporate Power
Corruption
Crime
Culture
Darfur
Defense
Democracy
Economy
Education
Electoral Justice
Employee Rights
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Flag Burning
Foreign Affairs
Gay Rights
Global Warming
Government
Graduation Madness
Guantanamo Bay
Halliburton
Health Care
Homeland Security
Housing
Human Rights
Immigration
India
Intelligence
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Judiciary
Katrina
Labor
Legal
Media
Medicare
Middle East
Military
Minimum Wage
National Security
North Korea
Nuclear
Path to 911
Patients' Rights
Payola
Politics
Poverty
Privacy
Public Opinion
Race
Radical Right
Rapid Response
Religion
Right-Wing
Russia
Science
Social Security
State of the Union
State Watch
Stem Cells
Sudan
Supreme Court
Syria
Taxes
Technology
Terrorism
Think Fast
Think Progress
ThinkFast
ThinkProgress News
Torture
Trade
Values
Veterans
Vietnam
Wal-Mart
War on Terrorism
Women
Women's Rights
Womens Rights
LinksBlogroll
ACS Blog
Al Franken Show
Altercation
AMERICAblog
Atrios
Budget Blog
Campus Progress Blog
Carpetbagger Report
Crooks and Liars
Daily DeLay
Daily Kos
Daou Report
Democracy Arsenal
Firedoglake
First Draft
Glenn Greenwald
Gristmill
Hotline On Call
Huffington Post
Juan Cole
POGO Blog
Political Wire
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
The Next Hurrah
Wal-Mart Watch
War and Piece
Washington Monthly
Washington Note
Other Sites We Like
Air America Radio
American Progress Action Fund
Campus Progress
Center for American Progress
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Economic Policy Institute
Human Rights First
Media Matters
About Think ProgressContact us RSS 2.0

Support Think Progress
Got a hot tip? E-mail us

© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

[Saundra Hummer]

********
Published on BuzzFlash Rep. Jim Cooper: Bush is Hiding the True National Debt.
It's Worse than You've Heard.
Much Worse. By
Created 09/07/2006 - 5:15am
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/node/483/print
Though the Bush Administration's official budget lists the national debt and deficit as being incredibly high, they are actually far worse than reported, according to Rep. Jim Cooper [1] (D-TN). But don’t just take his word for it, even if Cooper is a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law graduate. The following figures appear in the official U.S. Financial Report [2], released by the Treasury Department:

The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American
The true national debt is $49 trillion, not the $8.3 trillion Bush reported
This figure has more than doubled in the past five years
We paid $327 billion last year on interest alone
It's all getting worse
What accounts for the huge discrepancy? Unlike businesses, the government uses "cash" instead of "accrual" accounting. This means that the government does not report future spending promises like Medicare and Social Security, or even future spending guarantees like veterans' benefits and federal employee pensions.

"Cash accounting tells you what's in your bank account. Accrual accounting tells you what's in your bank account and what's on your credit card statement," Cooper told BuzzFlash in an interview. "Whether you're promising to buy a road or something at Target, you need to know what you promised to buy. That should be a binding obligation of the government. We've made a world of promises to folks that we need to keep."

But wait, there's more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is "probably closer to $65 trillion."

Worried that a new Democratic majority in the House would be blamed for the higher numbers in the future, Cooper has taken it upon himself to make it clear that the problem has already been created by Bush's failed economic policies. "This has to be announced on their watch, using their voice," he said. "There's a great urgency about this: we only have two months left to educate all Americans about how the Bush deficits are literally destroying America's credit."

"I think [the report] is the most powerful critique of the Bush Administration" because they produced it, Cooper added. "No Republican can deny this attack."

In order to get the word out, Cooper reprinted the entire U.S. Financial Report in a book with his own explanatory introduction and a warning on the cover reading, "The Official Report the White House Does Not Want You To Read." He said the measure was necessary because the Administration tried to hide the report by distributing it to fewer than 20 members of Congress in the midst of the Christmas holiday season with no accompanying press release or media announcement.

According to Cooper, conservatives won’t touch the issue because it would make Bush look bad, liberal newspapers think it's too confusing, and liberal politicians are worried the ensuing chaos from the higher numbers would limit social program spending. "The way we're going, we're going to have to eliminate programs," Cooper retorted. "Isn't it better to embarrass Bush while we can with his own words and to get Democrats in control?"

Cooper said he is determined to do everything he can to add honesty to the federal budget. He gave the first copy of his book to House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi and has introduced legislation directing the president to use accrual accounting in his reports. A similar measure was recently lost in the Senate after passing in the House.

The only compensation Cooper is receiving for the book are three complimentary copies.

Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/alerts/105
Links:
[1] http://cooper.house.gov
[2] http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html
[3] http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1595550801-0

[Saundra Hummer]

...........

Fear Factor
By
John Judis
The New Republic Online
September 9, 2006

On August 10, British and American officials announced that they had "disrupted," in the words of Scotland Yard, "a major terrorist plot to allegedly blow up aircraft in mid-flight." In statements to the press, officials made the following assertions:

According to senior Bush administration officials, the plotters had devised an elaborate plan to blow up nine (or ten) planes from British Airways, United, Continental, and American Airlines that were headed from Heathrow to Washington, D.C., New York City, and California. It included smuggling the components of the explosive tatp onto airlines along with detonators. At a news conference, Chertoff called the plot "sophisticated." According to Time, a senior official estimated that "about 2,700 people would have perished." These kinds of detailed descriptions of the plot appeared on the major networks and in reports from the wire services and in major newspapers and newsmagazines.

The attack was imminent. According to Chertoff, the plot was "getting really quite close to the execution phase" and was "in the final stages of planning before execution." While the arrests had disrupted the plot, there was no evidence that they had completely blocked it. "We cannot assume that the threat has been completely thwarted," Chertoff said in justifying the first red alert in five years for U.S. airlines. "I think it's pretty clear that, in this case, we don't have everybody," White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend warned the Associated Press.

While those arrested were British Muslims, they were thought to be acting on behalf of or in coordination with Al Qaeda. A "senior US intelligence official" told The Boston Globe, "There are suspicions that there is a real Al Qaeda connection--not just Al Qaeda wannabees or inspire-ees." Pakistani and American officials claimed that the "operational planner" of the conspiracy was Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, whom the Pakistanis said had admitted under interrogation of having met with an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan.


There are, of course, other details that came out, but these are the main ones; and, over the last three weeks, doubts have been raised about each one of them. If the initial story offered by Chertoff and Townsend--and their British and Pakistani counterparts--represents a house, then that house is now tottering on its foundations and ready to collapse in ruins.

Accounts contradicting the original story have appeared, among other places, in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, inviting skepticism from my colleague Andrew Sullivan. These accounts appear to have been inspired by leaks from American and British officials. In addition, a source familiar with Pakistani intelligence has told The New Republic that similar doubts about the official story exist within Pakistani ranks.

Did the plotters have a detailed plan that was to be put into effect imminently? According to British officials, there was no evidence that the plotters had agreed on specific planes or set a date. They describe the estimate of ten places as, according to The New York Times, "speculative and exaggerated." The plotters were not even ready to make a dry run, let alone execute the actual bombing. Two of the suspects did not even have passports, without which they could not have boarded a plane. They were experimenting with chemical explosives--hmtd, as it turned out, not tatp--but a chemical expert has raised doubts about whether they could have pulled off an explosion, which requires considerable knowledge and skill.

Was there still a "red alert" danger after the plotters were apprehended? The British themselves had them under close surveillance for months. Authorities, the Los Angeles Times reported, "were confident that their surveillance, assisted by Pakistani security forces, was meticulous and that an attack was not imminent." On August 11--the same day that Townsend was warning of further danger from the terrorists--British Home Secretary John Reid told reporters that he was confident that the main suspects were in custody. Of course, it is conceivable that a duplicate cell of plotters existed, but the British had no evidence of one.

Was the plot an Al Qaeda operation? Rauf himself had been busted by the Pakistanis the day before the London arrests, and, according to the Pakistanis, had admitted--allegedly under torture--to having made contact with Matiur Rehman, whom the Pakistanis claim is an Al Qaeda operative. But that's hardly proof of Al Qaeda direction. Moreover, Rauf's role remains unclear. A British counterterrorism official told the Los Angeles Times that Rauf was not the plot's "mastermind." And Rauf's actual connection to Al Qaeda is also suspect. Rauf has been linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed, which operates in Kashmir. There could still be an Al Qaeda link. But, like all the initial details of this case, it remains in doubt.

As the details have become murky, what has also been cast in doubt is the explanation of why the arrests were made in the first place. According to British officials, the Brits did not want to arrest the plotters; they preferred to see who else, over the next months, the plotters recruited and made contact with. But their hand was forced when the Pakistanis arrested Rauf on August 9. Why the Pakistanis did so remains unclear, but there is a speculation that they did so at U.S. urging. "There have been reports that U.S. officials pushed for the arrest," the Los Angeles Times reported on August 20.

Once the arrest was made, the British decided to act, but exactly why they did so also remains unclear. According to The Boston Globe, the British became concerned when one of the suspects disappeared. British officials also claimed that, after Rauf's arrest, one of his associates had sent a message to the plotters that ordered to "go now" with the plan. But a British official later told The New York Times that the message was not that explicit.

Another possibility, voiced by Pakistan's dissenting press, is that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Pervez Musharraf accelerated the crisis for political reasons--Bush and Blair to buttress their flagging popularity and Musharraf to endear himself to his chief protector, the United States. Pakistan's Daily Times says the recent revelation reinforces "the sceptics who have alleged that the brouhaha was created by the US and British governments, in collusion with Pakistan, to help stabilise the falling ratings of President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair." That's mere speculation, of course.

That is clear is that, once the arrests were made, the Bush administration used the threat to stoke public fears about "Islamic fascism" while portraying itself and the Republican Party as the only ones capable of quieting these fears. Said Bush on August 10 in Green Bay: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation ... [O]bviously, we still aren't completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in. It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America." Townsend was quick to suggest that the administration had a hand in apprehending the "Islamic fascists." "This shows how we're better equipped to fight the enemy now," she told Newsweek.

Republican politicians, facing election challenges in November, were quick to exploit the official version of the Heathrow plot. Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who is eager to change the conversation in Montana from his connections to Jack Abramoff, ran an ad that began: "This is Conrad Burns. Islamic terrorists plotted to blow up ten planes. But they were stopped because the terrorists' conversations were monitored. We must remain on guard ... Even after confirmed successes, Jon Tester, liberal judges, and their allies oppose anti-terror programs."

None of this is to suggest that the United States and Great Britain don't face a threat of terrorist attack from radical Islamic militants. If the Heathrow plotters had been allowed to operate with impunity, they might have succeeded sometime this fall or early next year in blowing up ten airliners. But, by hyping the danger--as he had previously done with the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--Bush administration officials create the possibility that the public, when it sees through the administration's attempt to manufacture hysteria, will turn cynical and not take seriously the need to remain vigilant in the face of a genuine threat from abroad.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Copyright © 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All Rights Reserved.

URL: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18677&prog=zgp&proj=zusr

Created by Matrix Group International, Inc. ®

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush
It's time to make politics fun again! With uncommon insight, political fearlessness and laugh-out...
[More info]

PROFESSOR BUSH'S ECONOMIC NOSTRUM

Friday, September 1, 2006
Posted by Jim Hightower (Go On-Site To Listen To His Audio Version, It's more fun that way!)
Listen to this Commentary

On this Labor Day, when working families all across America are struggling, it's fitting for us to reflect on the profound insight of that prominent economic theorist, George W. Bush. In 2000, explaining his approach to economic policy, W declared: "We ought to make the pie higher."

What the professor was trying to express is the old theory that by baking a larger pie, everyone can get a bigger slice. But that theory ignores a special trick of economic pie-making that Bush baked right into his policy: Greed. Yes, the pie is now larger, but Bush simply fattened the slices of the corporate powers and the rich, leaving the workaday majority of folks trying to get by on the same slim pickings they had before... or less.

Today, corporate profits are surging, CEO pay is skyrocketing, purchases of luxury goods and oceanfront property is zooming – but the income of workers is not even keeping up with inflation. Well, now, wait a minute, say the Bushites, we've been creating thousands of new jobs, so, see, trickle-down-economics really does work.

Hold it, greed-breath. First, you've been losing jobs, too. In fact, Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to produce a net loss of jobs during his term. Second, and most important, the issue is not jobs. Think about it: even slaves had jobs. The issue is income... wages... middle-class opportunities. Ask a waitress at any cafe or bar if she's aware that Bush has been creating new jobs, and she'll say: "Yeah, I know, I have three of them."

In terms of buying power, average wages today are lower than what they were when Nixon was president. Under Professor Bush, America's economy is producing more low-wage, service sector jobs, while shipping out the manufacturing and high-tech jobs that offer our people middle-class wages and the opportunity for upward mobility.

This is Jim Hightower saying... Instead of trickle-down, America needs a grassroots policy of percolate-up economics.
Sources:
"For wage earners, economic pie getting harder to digest," The Boston Globe, July 24, 2005.
"How Long Can Workers Tread Water," The New York Times, July 7, 2005.

Productions, Jim Hightower, All Rights Reserved 1996-2006

http://www.jimhightower.com//node/5913

http://www.jimhightower.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

USA>Domestic Politics
from the September 08, 2006 edition

Bush moves to shore up war-on-terror credentials
His speeches on security this week signal that Republicans will use the terrorism issue for the third election in a row.

By
Linda Feldmann
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Two months before high-stakes congressional elections, President Bush has dramatically reframed the debate over the war on terror and laid down a stiff political challenge to the DemocratsThis week's series of national-security speeches, pegged to Monday's 9/11 anniversary, differ in a key way from similar rounds of speeches in the last year: Mr. Bush made major news, foremost his proposal for new rules governing trials of terror suspects. The accompanying announcement that 14 "high value" terrorism detainees - including top Al Qaeda planners of 9/11 - are being moved from secret CIA prisons to the US military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, puts a face on his plan for trials.

Bush's speeches demonstrate the power of the presidential bully pulpit, even for a chief executive struggling in the polls. And in the first week of the fall campaign, marked by the traditional Labor Day kickoff, they confirm a political strategy long telegraphed by Bush adviser Karl Rove: to make heavy use of the terrorism issue for the third election in a row.

The question now is whether the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq - long framed as a central front in the war on terror - will undo the White House's goal of portraying Republicans as more capable than Democrats of defending the nation. For the Democrats, who control neither the White House nor Congress, the task is to convince enough voters in key congressional races to make the leap for change.

In 2004, "what the White House did was to use the war on terror like a helium balloon to pull up the sagging ratings in the war in Iraq," says Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Now, Iraq is like a lead weight pulling down on the war on terror. So they believe they need a more aggressive public approach to explain what the president is doing and put his critics back on their heels."

The Democrats are saying, in effect, "no more Mr. Nice Guy."

"They feel as if they've been battered for two elections in a row on the security issue and reacted either passively or defensively, and there will be no more of that," says Mr. Ornstein.

The Democrats had planned to make headlines Wednesday with a Senate debate over their resolution recommending that Bush fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom they blame for strategic failures in the Iraq war, but Bush's speech overshadowed the action on Capitol Hill. Republican senators killed the measure in a point of order declaring it irrelevant to the Pentagon spending bill under consideration.

Democrats face a greater challenge over the substance of Bush's proposed legislation to change the rules for military trials of terror suspects. Last June, the administration suffered a major blow when the Supreme Court struck down the existing rules. Now, Bush is taking defeat and turning it on its ear, going on the offensive by promoting a plan that he promises will bring the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the self-described mastermind of 9/11 - to justice. Civil libertarians complain Bush's proposal still does not adequately protect the rights of the accused. The president, for example, would allow hearsay evidence in the trials.

Democrats who aggressively challenge Bush run the risk of being portrayed as soft on terror. But internal Republican debate on the matter could provide cover for Demo- crats. Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have drafted alternative legislation for military trials that would provide the kind of defendant rights that many military lawyers say are essential to due process, such as ensuring a defendant's right to know the evidence against him. The senators, all with military backgrounds, argue that denying such access would set a bad precedent for US military personnel if captured and tried abroad.

Republicans are also divided over how to craft legislation that would officially sanction the warrantless wiretapping program.

But Democrats aren't sitting back, assuming GOP debates won't be resolved, and they are trying to grab news attention on their own. Yesterday, Senate Democratic leaders introduced legislation called the Real Security Act of 2006, containing measures related to both Iraq and the larger war on terror. The proposal contains the so-called Reed-Levin resolution, which calls for redeployment of US troops out of Iraq this year; a provision for heightened security on transportation; rules for military trials of terror detainees; and other changes related to the war on terror.

Bush, meanwhile, delivered the latest in his series of 9/11 speeches yesterday in Atlanta.

"I learned a lot of lessons on 9/11, and one lesson is this: In order to protect the country, we will keep steady pressure, unrelenting pressure, on Al Qaeda and its associates," he said. "We will deny them safe haven. We will find them, and we will bring them to justice."

Bush called on Congress to pass legislation providing additional authority for the wiretapping program, which he calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The warrantless wiretapping program was recently ruled illegal by a federal judge in Detroit.

Earlier this year, Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Vice President Cheney agreed to a plan that codifies in law the wiretapping plan, but other proposals, some from Republicans, are under consideration in both chambers.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p02s01-uspo.html

Related Stories

Is it fair to compare terror to cold war? 09/07/06

Congress is back, its sights on war 09/06/06

Polls show opposition to Iraq war at all-time high 09/01/06

[Coolguy]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

September 8, 2006
The Overview
Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal
By KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

Democrats, meanwhile, said they were inclined to go along with Senate Republicans drafting an alternative to the White House plan, one that would allow defendants more rights. That left Republicans to argue among themselves about what the tribunals would look like and threatened to rob the issue of the political momentum the White House hoped it would provide going into the closely fought midterm elections.

A day after President Bush unveiled the plan at the White House, senior administration officials said Mr. Bush was willing to negotiate with Congress about the shape of legislation to establish tribunals, which would replace those struck down in June by the Supreme Court.

The administration officials, who agreed to discuss internal administration deliberations in exchange for anonymity, said the decision to transfer high-level terror suspects from Central Intelligence Agency prisons to military custody had been the result of months of secret debate at the highest levels of government.

The officials said the change had been most vigorously championed by the State Department, under Condoleezza Rice, against some resistance from a range of officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who had defended the status quo, in which high-level leaders of Al Qaeda, including the man identified as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, have been held in secret C.I.A custody.

The 14 terror suspects recently transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, under the administration plan would face war-crimes trials if Congress approves the proposed tribunals. On Thursday, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the American detention facility, said the 14 prisoners had been registered for the first time with the International Committee of the Red Cross, but he would not say when they had arrived, whether they had arrived together or how long he had known in advance that they were coming.

In Congress, Republican leaders said the House would vote on the president’s proposal the week after next, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, argued in favor of the administration’s approach in a hearing on Thursday morning with military lawyers.

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.

Senate Republicans said the proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence was one of the main points of contention remaining between them and the administration.

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

President Bush announced his proposal for bringing terror suspects to trial on Wednesday as part of a round of speeches on national security aimed at drawing a sharp distinction between the two parties: Democrats as weak on terror, Republicans strong. The administration created its system of tribunals shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but the Supreme Court struck down those tribunals in June, saying they violated the Constitution and international law.

Senior administration officials said the decision to acknowledge the C.I.A. program, to move the 14 “high value’’ detainees to Guantánamo and to set up a new system for putting them on trial emerged from a committee President Bush established in January, six months before a Supreme Court decision forced his hand on some of those issues.

The committee, run by J. D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, held more than 20 meetings in secret at the White House and a half-dozen higher-level sessions with Mr. Bush’s national security team, which included Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte.

While the White House described those meetings today as a largely harmonious effort to remake a detainee system that had raised objections around the world, other officials said Ms. Rice’s State Department was often pitted against Mr. Cheney’s staff.

“There were a range of opinions on a number of issues, but it’s pretty fair to say that the State Department had been arguing for 18 months that we needed to put this whole thing on a strong legislative footing, and end the dispute with the allies,’’ said one official who was part of the process. “And there were others, from the vice president’s office to some in the Justice Department and the White House, who wanted to maintain the status quo.’’

The standoff was broken by the Supreme Court’s decision in June in the tribunal case, which took many in the White House by surprise, the officials said.

Administration lawyers on Capitol Hill said Thursday that the military trials now proposed by the administration were markedly different from the previous system and would pass court scrutiny. Among other changes, the proposal sets up tribunals overseen by a judge who could not also serve as part of the jury. Defendants would be given two appeals, and could not be tried twice.

But Senate Republicans remained divided over the White House proposal.

On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it. This is important, they argue, to repair a national reputation that has been damaged internationally by revelations of abuse at Guantánamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and to set a model for how other countries might try American troops.

On the other side, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have shown more inclination to endorse the president’s proposal. Mr. Cornyn said after a round of meetings Thursday that he still supported the president’s approach on classified evidence, but that he hoped the differences could be bridged. “We’re trying,” he said.

Democrats have essentially said they would back Senators Warner, Graham and McCain, leaving the Republicans to lead the fight against the administration, and allowing the Democrats to avoid political fallout from challenging the administration while maintaining their criticism of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

“I think you’re looking for a fight that doesn’t exist,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, told reporters.

In testimony on the Hill, an administration lawyer stood firm on the importance of denying suspects the right to know the classified evidence against them.

“In the midst of the current conflict, we simply cannot consider sharing with captured terrorists the highly sensitive intelligence that may be relevant to military-commission prosecutions,” said the lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting.

[Saundra Hummer]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

September 8, 2006
The Overview
Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal
By KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

Democrats, meanwhile, said they were inclined to go along with Senate Republicans drafting an alternative to the White House plan, one that would allow defendants more rights. That left Republicans to argue among themselves about what the tribunals would look like and threatened to rob the issue of the political momentum the White House hoped it would provide going into the closely fought midterm elections.

A day after President Bush unveiled the plan at the White House, senior administration officials said Mr. Bush was willing to negotiate with Congress about the shape of legislation to establish tribunals, which would replace those struck down in June by the Supreme Court.

The administration officials, who agreed to discuss internal administration deliberations in exchange for anonymity, said the decision to transfer high-level terror suspects from Central Intelligence Agency prisons to military custody had been the result of months of secret debate at the highest levels of government.

The officials said the change had been most vigorously championed by the State Department, under Condoleezza Rice, against some resistance from a range of officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who had defended the status quo, in which high-level leaders of Al Qaeda, including the man identified as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, have been held in secret C.I.A custody.

The 14 terror suspects recently transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, under the administration plan would face war-crimes trials if Congress approves the proposed tribunals. On Thursday, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the American detention facility, said the 14 prisoners had been registered for the first time with the International Committee of the Red Cross, but he would not say when they had arrived, whether they had arrived together or how long he had known in advance that they were coming.

In Congress, Republican leaders said the House would vote on the president’s proposal the week after next, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, argued in favor of the administration’s approach in a hearing on Thursday morning with military lawyers.

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.

Senate Republicans said the proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence was one of the main points of contention remaining between them and the administration.

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

President Bush announced his proposal for bringing terror suspects to trial on Wednesday as part of a round of speeches on national security aimed at drawing a sharp distinction between the two parties: Democrats as weak on terror, Republicans strong. The administration created its system of tribunals shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but the Supreme Court struck down those tribunals in June, saying they violated the Constitution and international law.

Senior administration officials said the decision to acknowledge the C.I.A. program, to move the 14 “high value’’ detainees to Guantánamo and to set up a new system for putting them on trial emerged from a committee President Bush established in January, six months before a Supreme Court decision forced his hand on some of those issues.

The committee, run by J. D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, held more than 20 meetings in secret at the White House and a half-dozen higher-level sessions with Mr. Bush’s national security team, which included Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte.

While the White House described those meetings today as a largely harmonious effort to remake a detainee system that had raised objections around the world, other officials said Ms. Rice’s State Department was often pitted against Mr. Cheney’s staff.

“There were a range of opinions on a number of issues, but it’s pretty fair to say that the State Department had been arguing for 18 months that we needed to put this whole thing on a strong legislative footing, and end the dispute with the allies,’’ said one official who was part of the process. “And there were others, from the vice president’s office to some in the Justice Department and the White House, who wanted to maintain the status quo.’’

The standoff was broken by the Supreme Court’s decision in June in the tribunal case, which took many in the White House by surprise, the officials said.

Administration lawyers on Capitol Hill said Thursday that the military trials now proposed by the administration were markedly different from the previous system and would pass court scrutiny. Among other changes, the proposal sets up tribunals overseen by a judge who could not also serve as part of the jury. Defendants would be given two appeals, and could not be tried twice.

But Senate Republicans remained divided over the White House proposal.

On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it. This is important, they argue, to repair a national reputation that has been damaged internationally by revelations of abuse at Guantánamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and to set a model for how other countries might try American troops.

On the other side, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have shown more inclination to endorse the president’s proposal. Mr. Cornyn said after a round of meetings Thursday that he still supported the president’s approach on classified evidence, but that he hoped the differences could be bridged. “We’re trying,” he said.

Democrats have essentially said they would back Senators Warner, Graham and McCain, leaving the Republicans to lead the fight against the administration, and allowing the Democrats to avoid political fallout from challenging the administration while maintaining their criticism of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

“I think you’re looking for a fight that doesn’t exist,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, told reporters.

In testimony on the Hill, an administration lawyer stood firm on the importance of denying suspects the right to know the classified evidence against them.

“In the midst of the current conflict, we simply cannot consider sharing with captured terrorists the highly sensitive intelligence that may be relevant to military-commission prosecutions,” said the lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting.

Coolguy, did you catch Ted Koppel on Charlie Rose last night? I wasn't able to see it all, but it was so very good, the little bit I was able to watch. Need to hook up my recorders again, as I hate to have missed any of it.

We are after all, as Ted says, "A nation of laws". Without them where do we stand? How will we survive as a country? We were told by Generals and others, that this "War on Terrorism" is open ended; it will continue forever it seems, and to be jailed and/or tortured for no more than a far flung suspicion, denied council and/or legal rights, just sickens many of us. What will we become? Really, if this is allowed to continue, what will become of us as a people, as a nation? It isn't a pretty picture, it truly isn't.

I just feel that we need to decide, here and now what we will accept and allow under our laws. We need to adhere to our existing laws, however frightening that may be at times. Without our grand view of things, the view of our country most of us have had since childhood, as our founding fathers and enlightened lawmakers had envisioned, what will we become without us following what they have laid out so clearly for us? I will never want to become a part of what could turn into unrestrained cruelties, our visions reverting to barbarism and our leaders having become, or having been turned into despots.

When Bush informed us he would like to become "A dictator", everyone laughed at his quirky humor, and then Congress, the courts and several of us citizens as well, stood idly by and just allowed him to not abide by our laws, by our beloved Constitution, allowing him to invade in a pre-emptive war. We allowed him to kill and destroy at will thousands upon thousands of innocents, with no checks and balances as provided by our laws, & our Constitution. He (and this administration which took office under nefarious circumstances), has broken our faith, and he has changed forever, our place in the world. GW Bush, and Cheney (the man calling the shots it seems), have broken our trust in our own government. They, in doing this, have placed us in harms way more than Al Qaida ever dreamed possible, by thumbing their noses at all that we hold sacred, our Constitution, and our laws.

We need to take our government back from everyone involved, from everyone who allowed this to happen after the truth was realized, Democrat, & Republican. Kick them to the curb, and when laws apply, prosecute and make the needed changes to how the business of state is run. Take away their pensions and perks, let them live a life out of the rarified air they try so hard, by hook and by crook to stay in.

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~~~

Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.
9.8.06
GOP hits national security breaking point with latest ad

I saw this new ad by the shadowy 527 group that helped President Bush in 2004, and all I could think is, I've really just about had it, and I think most Americans have also just about had it. The idea that the Republican Party can run around telling people with a straight face that it is serious about national security is just too hard to swallow anymore.
This is the party that, according to the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, lied us into the Iraq War - a war that counterterrorism officials have repeatedly said took our focus off the War on Terror, a war that removed special forces from the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, a war that has served as one giant recruiting advertisement for radical Islamic jihadists.

This is the party that has refused to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations; a party that was trying to slash counterterrorism funding before 9/11at the very same time it was receiving critical warnings about an imminent terrorist attack; a party that has cut taxes while refusing to fully fund basic homeland security priorities at our airports, ports and vulnerable infrastructure.

This is a party filled with the worst forms of armchair chickenhawks - pundits, politicians, operatives and pseudo-intellectual think tank staffers who avoided their chance to serve in the military and yet who now sit comfortably in their well-guarded Washington offices, talking tough about terrorism, prancing around at Beltway symposiums telling everyone around they are really gutsy hawks, applauding national security leaks as acts of "virtue," screaming "bring it on" from behind a security detail, corralling millions of dollars to air ads against those who raise questions about Iraq, and demanding more American troops be sent off to die in more wars.

This is a party that has absolutely no reservations about using the Homeland Security Department's terror warning alert system for its political goals - ultimately relegating the warning system to late-night comedy show punchline.

This is a party whose top leaders see nothing wrong with cashing in their senior positions directing the War on Terror and moving immediately to jobs as corporate lobbyists for companies looking to profiteer off the same war.

And yet this is a party that fields candidates who behaved like yes-men on the Intelligence Committee before 9/11 and now air ads attacking their opponents for trying to fix the intelligence system. This is a party that somehow believes it is credible for them to air an ad that essentially says that if we want the country to be safer we have to vote Republican. Worse, they think they can convey this message not with any substantive proof of their accomplishments (because they have so little), but instead with a non-sequitur-ish horror-film-like montage of burning buildings, Osama bin Laden photos, and live-action footage of a plane flying into the World Trade Center - a disgusting display of fearmongering that happily defiles the memories of the victims of terrorism and turns them into cheap tools for Republican Party campaign propaganda.

I, for one, have confidence in the American people. I believe people are nauseated by this kind of crass behavior coming from Washington. We've hit a breaking point where - to the Republican Party's dismay - people are finally getting over a very understandable bout of mass post traumatic stress disorder from 9/11 which in the past led many to unquestioningly trust our leaders to be serious about securing our country. And come November 7th, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Bill Kristol, Dan Senor and the entire GOP clique laughing it up at their cocktail parties in Washington is going to run square into a brick wall of American voters who know its time for a change.
Posted by David Sirota at 4:01 PM | Link | Discuss

GO ON-SITE TO ACCESS THE NUMEROUS LINKS (UNDERLINED TEXT) IN THIS NEWSLETTER BY CLICKING ON THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

[Saundra Hummer]

Finally!!! We on the internet have some clout. Unimaginable a couple of years ago, but there's proof in the pudding. Check out this newsletter I just received:

Dear Saundra R.,

In the last 24 hours…

Yesterday afternoon, we learned that Scholastic, a major educational publishing company that had been working with ABC, is putting the brakes on its plan to distribute a study guide on the movie to 100,000 high school teachers. Scholastic "determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues."

ABC and Disney have been inundated with emails, calls and faxes over the last week, and our pressure is working. Network executives are reportedly huddling right now trying to figure out how to manage the firestorm you have created.

But time is short, and it's crucial to keep the pressure on. While ABC is a national network, they rely on affiliate television stations across the country to air their programming. Affiliates are in a unique position to influence ABC's decision, since many of them have the authority to preempt network programming.

Today, we need to send them a message that politicizing the facts about 9/11 is wrong. Tell your ABC affiliate to stand up for the truth and refuse to air this so-called "docudrama."

Find your local ABC affiliate phone number and email address here. Remember to copy us on your emails or tell us about your phone calls at tellabc@americanprogressaction.org

Today is the last business day before "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air. Contact your station manager now, before millions of Americans see this skewed, inaccurate version of history that purports to be "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."

Here are some simple talking points that you can use:

ABC still says this movie is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report." But numerous 9/11 Commission members have said the miniseries actually directly contradicts their report.

This is not a partisan issue. Numerous conservatives – including Brent Bozell, former Reagan aide Bill Bennett, author Richard Miniter, and others – have said that ABC should correct the factual errors in the series.

ABC has marketed this miniseries to thousands of high school teachers, urging them to have their students watch. American high school students shouldn't be taught the history of 9/11 using a politically slanted, factually inaccurate docudrama.

If affiliates put this program on the air, more viewers will see it than will ever read the 9/11 Commission Report. ABC is abusing their public trust and doing a disservice to their audience by presenting fiction as fact.

Thanks for everything, and please click here to find your local ABC affiliate phone number and email address. Remember to copy us on your emails or tell us about your phone calls at tellabc@americanprogressaction.org

Judd Legum and the Center for American Progress Action Fund team

Remember, you can keep up with latest on our blog: http://www.ThinkProgress.org

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is the sister advocacy organization of the Center for American Progress. The Action Fund transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. The Action Fund is also the home of the Progress Report and Think Progress, the blog that pushes back daily.

http://www.americanprogress.org

Go on-site to access all links and information regarding this issue and several others, from education to politics and all around, and, in-between

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy: James Madison: US fourth president, 1751-1836

~~~

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience: Albert Camus: French novelist, essayist, and playwright.1957 Nobel Prize for Literature. 1913-1960

~~~

A great wave of oppressive tyranny isn’t going to strike, but rather a slow seepage of oppressive laws and regulations from within will sink the American dream of liberty: George Baumler

~~~

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home: James Madison: US fourth president, 1751-1836
~~~

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector: Plato: Ancient Greek philosopher (428/427-348/347 B.C.)

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::Thinkpiece
Stupid? Or democratically ignorant?
The curse of American ignorance of the world

By Paul J. Balles*
8 September 2006

Paul J. Balles says Americans are slow learners rather than stupid, even though they are treated as stupid by their leaders. He notes the role of brainwashing by Zionist organizations in the US in promoting American ignorance about the Middle East.

Americans are not stupid. Ignorant, yes, but not stupid. Our brains have been washed, but most of us aren't brainless. The trouble with people in power? They believe we're stupid. If we were, we'd never learn; but we do, and when we do there's usually hell to pay for those who thought us stupid.

It took years before the message sunk in that we were fighting a losing war in Vietnam - a war we had no business getting into in the first place. During that war, we had enough of our young coming home in body bags that we shouldn't even have been as ignorant as we were for as long as we were; but then, as I said, we're slow learners.

Americans are just beginning to waken to the reality of the "pre-emptive war" in Iraq. (Don't you just love that idiotic justifying expression: "pre-emptive war")?
We were very slow learning that there was nothing to pre-empt. No weapons of mass destruction; no connection with Al-Qaeda; not a chance in hell of Iraq posing any danger to the USA.

Ignorant, yes. A July Harris Poll reported that 50 per cent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 per cent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.

The command in charge (translate: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) lied and lied and lied. Congress believed their lies, and they voted to pre-empt even though they didn't quite know what they were pre-empting - some unclear and un-present danger.

Now comes the strange part: the rest of the world (except for the other imperial clown in London) sat quieter than a mouse in the presence of cats. After all, the "shock and awe" cadre weren't asking anyone else to contribute to the fireworks show.

The pre-emption mongers were quite capable of managing their own bloodbaths without any noise coming from Foggy Bottom blowhards or their counterparts in the UN. There's not much excuse for that lot's duplicity. They couldn't even claim ignorance!

On the other hand, the great majority of the American public remains in the Land of Oz, having been deceived by years of propaganda. Only unbridled ignorance can explain what happened in Lebanon.

According to one commentator, "Israel has to date recklessly cultivated a reputation for being immune to international law or humanitarian norms, and its outrages continue to be condoned as 'self-defence' under an umbrella of impunity afforded by the protective embrace of the US government."

A new Harris Poll measures the attitudes of US adults toward 13 countries and eight leaders and organizations in the Middle East. Unsurprisingly, these countries and leaders are perceived very differently. Most people (75 per cent) see Israel as either a close ally or a friend. With friends like that, we're slowly learning how a democratic society acquires enemies.

Two more of the Harris poll results reveal how slowly and laboriously we Americans learn:

Fully 88 per cent of the public regard the government of Libya as unfriendly (including 39 per cent who see it as unfriendly and an enemy, and 49 per cent who recognize it as not friendly but not an enemy), although American relations with Libya are now - after many years of hostility - far more amicable.

Fully 82 per cent of the public see the Iraqi government as not friendly, including 52 per cent who see it as an enemy. Seventy-seven per cent regard the Afghan government as unfriendly. In both countries, of course, American troops are fighting to keep these governments in power.

How can a "democracy" like America's function so ineffectively? More than two-thirds of the population wallows in ignorance. How can America do any more than wear the meaningless label "democracy" when the regime in power in America believes that the public is stupid and resolves to keep us that way?

We live in the illusion of democracy. People living in a real democracy are informed. They know what their leaders and representatives are up to; and when the leaders get out of line, they get voted out of office.

Following an earlier article, I received an email from an informed reader from democratic Sweden that said: "An electronic handshake right across the world-wide web for your excellent article 'The Pot and the Kettle'. Keep up the good work"! For the article, click here.

How could the "informed" American public possibly allow the US administration and Congress to get away with the travesty of their support for the carnage that ravaged Lebanon?

The answer? They've been subjected to the brainwashing of Zionist organizations in America that tell them the most ridiculous things. Note this, from another letter I received following the same article:

"You wrote: 'Hezbollah whipped one of the strongest militaries in the world.' I doubt this because Hezbollah backed off very quickly.'" What fairy tales has this fellow been reading? Some propaganda machine has been creating illusions about what what's been happening in Lebanon.

"Besides," he adds, "the ground campaign by Israel was delayed. In a protracted campaign, Israel would crush Hezbollah if it wanted to, especially in view of Israel's increasingly effective arms blockade of shipments from Syria." Never mind the fact that it didn't work, and wouldn't.

"And in the long run," he concludes, "no Arab militant group will achieve it's (sic) maniacal obsession to defeat Israel - because they, and their nation-hosts, would be obliterated by nuclear bombs. (Do these fanatics have a death wish??)" Almost unbelievable! If nothing else works, nuke 'em! He signs it H.S. Kramer. The Kramers come from a long-standing "unbiased" tribe.

During 34 days of relentless aerial bombardment and a ground invasion, Israel's brutal assault on Lebanon's civilian population was fully supported by our democratically unelected leaders and congressional representatives. They must have figured we were stupid.

By the end of the Israeli assaults, 800 to 1000 Lebanese had been slaughtered, at least 45 per cent of whom were children. Hundreds of thousands had been forced to leave their homes. How could we let something like this happen in an informed democracy?

With the aid of US-supplied weapons, Israel rained destruction upon civilians unable to defend themselves or even flee. Israeli bombs (or were they American?) destroyed 97 roads, 75 bridges, four airports, seven seaports, 8000 residential dwellings, five hospitals, 14 factories, 27 petrol stations, nine army barracks.

How much of this did we know about in our ignorant bliss? Or were we really happy to read and hear about this carnage as if it was just another action film seen at a safe distance from the land of the free and brave?

What makes matters worse is that we're exporting American democracy! Only we don't know how to teach the importer's natives to behave and act stupid like we do. It may have something to do with the fact that they haven't yet been kept in near-total ignorance.

I can't help wondering what it would be like to have a resistance like the Iraqis or Palestinians in America. But then, we're not under occupation. Or are we?

*Paul Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for 38 years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com and http://www.writerfreelance.com.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::Pro-Bush group misstates key facts about anti-terror campaign.September 8, 2006

Summary
The pro-Bush group Progress for America is running a TV ad appealing directly to Americans' fear of terrorists, saying bluntly "These people want to kill us."

That's true enough. But the ad falsely attributes the recent thwarting of a hijack plot to the President's warrantless NSA wiretaps, when it was actually British authorities who uncovered it.

The ad also distorts the position of Iraq war critics, implying they propose to withdraw from "the Middle East" and not just Iraq.

And in a bit of bad luck, the ad cites the case of al-Qeda affiliate Zarqawi as evidence of the success of Bush's anti-terror campaign – one day before the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report saying Saddam Hussein considered him an outlaw and tried to have him arrested.

Analysis

The ad was announced Sept. 7. PFA said it is the 'first flight' and is appearing initially in Missouri and on the organization's website, with plans to keep it running for the week that will include the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Its sponsor is a group formed in 2001 for the express purpose of backing the "Bush agenda," and it spent $38 million in 2004 promoting the President's re-election.
:: :: ::
THE INSERT
Progress for America Ad:
"The War on Terror"

Announcer:These people want to kill us. Whether called Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, they're terrorists who want to kill everyone who don't submit to their extreme ideology, submit to a system where women have no rights, where innocent civilians are political pawns.

Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago.

They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again.

Many times before 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacked America, and we took little action: the first World Trade Center bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole.

But after 9/11, we struck back, destroying Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us.

Now, we have narrowly escaped "another 9/11," using proven surveillance that some would stop.

The War on Terror is a war for our country's freedom, security and survival.::

Appeal to Fear

The ad is a raw appeal to fear, saying "these people want to kill us" while showing weapons-toting fighters and a huge crowd chanting "Death to America." It adds, "Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago," while showing an orange fireball billowing from the World Trade Center south tower as United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into it Sept. 11, 2001.

Strictly speaking, the ad is clearly false on that point. We know of nobody who has "forgotten" the events of 9/11, and we doubt that Progress for America can name a single person who has. If what PFA means by this statement is that "many" people don't see 9/11 as justification for the military campaign in Iraq or the President's domestic antiterror actions, they are correct. Many do disagree.

We asked PFA about this. They cited a poll showing only about a third of Americans are worried they will be victims of terrorism. That's not the same as "forgetting."

Misleading Claim:

NSA Wiretaps

The ad seriously misleads viewers when it shows a Newsweek cover story about the foiled plot to blow up US-bound airliners, and claims that "we have narrowly escaped 'another 9/11,' using proven surveillance that some would stop." That's a reference to the National Security Agency wiretaps that President Bush ordered to be undertaken without seeking judicial warrants. In fact, there is no evidence that the NSA wiretaps played any significant role at all in the discovery or thwarting of the alleged plot. British authorities had been watching the accused plotters since December 2005, and only informed the White House about the plot a few days prior to making arrests.

We have been over this before , and what we said then bears repeating. White House adviser Fran Townsend revealed in an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the US simply played a supporting role:

Townsend: We put every tool at our disposal into use to help our British colleagues. But this really was a British investigation for the longest time. We didn`t see an American threat. It was only recently we developed the American angle working with our British colleagues , but this was really a British threat.

We know of no evidence that the the NSA wiretaps turned up any trace of the alleged British plot prior to the British discovery of it. And the British had been watching the accused plotters since December, roughly eight months before giving President Bush a "detailed briefing" about it on Aug. 4, which in turn was less than a week prior to making arrests. No less an authority than the President himself gave the British, not the NSA, credit for exposing the plan. He said on the day of the arrests, Aug 10:

Bush Aug. 10: I want to thank the government of Tony Blair and officials in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot.

According to news accounts, the British first got onto the plan after receiving a tip from a worried member of the Muslim community.

When we asked PFA about this they cited news accounts saying that the British had used wiretaps in their months-long investigation of the suspected terrorists. We consider that a particularly lame response. We know of nobody who suggests that the British end "surveillance." As for the NSA taps, critics generally aren't calling for them to end either – they propose that Bush get judicial warrants for them from the same special panel of judges that approves other secret intelligence-agency wiretaps.

Misleading Claim:

"Leaving al Qaeda free to attack"

The ad also claims that "They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again," apparently referring to the President's critics. But we know of nobody who advocates US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, much less from the entire Middle East. The ad is artfully worded to avoid mention of an unpopular subject, Iraq, which is the one place in the Middle East that some Bush critics want the US to leave.

In fact, a number of Bush critics have said for years that the administration should have put more troops into the hunt for bin Laden and the remnants of his leadership in the mountains of the Pakistani-Afghan border region. For example, on March 5, Democratic Rep. John Murtha said on CBS News's Face the Nation :

Murtha, March 5: Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda, and I talked to a top level commander the other day, who's--about two weeks ago, and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources. Our phys--our mental--not our mental--our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

Q: Well, now, Congressman, when you say al-Qaeda wants us there, why would al-Qaeda want us there?

A: Because we're depleting our resources. A very small proportion to what's going on in Iraq, and they've diverted their attention away from the war on terrorism.

Describing such criticism as proposing to leave al Quaeda unmolested is as false as it can be. And the fact is that despite all Bush's efforts bin Laden still remains at large and - in theory - "free to attack us again."

Misleading Claim:

"Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us."

The ad specifically cites the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in support of Bush policy in Iraq. It says the US destroyed al Qaeda terrorists "in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us." But just one day after the ad appeared, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited "Phase II" report on Iraq, concluding that Saddam Hussein not only offered no support for al Qaeda but repeatedly turned down requests for aid. As for Zarqawi, to whom some Bush allies once pointed as evidence of Saddam's supposed ties to al Qaeda, the Senate report said Saddam tried and failed to capture him when he slipped into Baghdad under an alias in 2002, possibly seeking medical treatment. It said Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." In fact, the Senate cited information from an al Qaida detainee that Saddam "considered al-Zaraqi to be an outlaw."

Zarqawi left and "he did not return to Baghdad until June 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime," according to the report.
-
by Brooks Jackson

Sources

Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer, "Tip Followed '05 Attacks on London Transit," Washington Post 11 Aug 2006: A1.

"President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin," White House. 10 Aug. 2006.

White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow. 11 Aug. 2006

CBS News Transcripts, "Face the Nation: Representative Jack Murtha, House Appropriations Committee, discusses war in Iraq and Iran, and Dubai ports deal," 5 March 2006.

Jim Abrams, " Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties," The Associated Press, 8 Sep 2006.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, " Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments," released 8 Sep 2006.


This message was sent from: http://www.FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from:
FactCheck.org
320 National Press Building,
Washington, DC 20045.

[Saundra Hummer]

*******
Ray McGovern:
Bush: A "Plenty Tough" Torturer's Apprentice

By BuzzFlash
Created 09/08/2006 - 12:37pm
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Ray McGovern

Addressing the use of torture yesterday President George W. Bush played to the baser instincts of Americans as he strained to turn his violation of national and international law into Exhibit A on how "tough" he is on terrorists. His tour de force brought to mind the charge the Athenians leveled at Socrates -- making the worse case appear the better. Bush's remarks made it abundantly clear, though, that he is not about to take the hemlock.

As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaches and with the mid-term elections just two months away, the president's speechwriters succeeded in making a silk purse out of the sow's ear of torture. And the artful offensive will succeed if -- but only if -- the mainstream media is as cowed, and the American people as dumb, as the president apparently thinks we are. Arguably a war criminal under international law and a capital-crime felon under U.S. criminal law, Bush is in even more serious legal jeopardy than when he deserted in time of war (Vietnam). And this time, his father's friends will not be able to fix it.

Bush's Official Authorization of Torture: Download It

Bush in jeopardy? Yes. The issue is torture, which George W. Bush authorized in a memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002 in contravention both of the Geneva Accords and 18 U.S. Code 2441, the War Crimes Act approved by a Republican-led Congress in 1996. That law incorporates the Geneva provisions into the federal criminal code. Heeding the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, David Addington, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, the president officially opened the door to torture in that Feb. 7, 2002 memorandum. His remarks yesterday reflect the determination of Cheney and Bush to keep that door open and accuse those who would close it of being soft on terrorists.

The administration released that damning memorandum in the spring of 2004 after the photos of torture at Abu Graib were published. It provided the basis for talking points showing that the president wanted "humane" treatment for captured al-Qaeda and Taliban individuals. And -- surprise, surprise -- mainstream journalists like those of the New York Times swallowed the bait, clinging safely to the talking points, and missed altogether Bush's remarkable claim that "military necessity" trumps humane treatment. That assertion over the president's signature provided the gaping loophole through which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then-CIA Director George Tenet drove the Mack truck of officially sanctioned torture.

Using the arguments adduced by the Addington/Gonzales/Bybee team, Bush's Feb. 7, 2002 memo made the point that the bedrock provision of Geneva -- common Article 3 -- does not apply to al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, but that the U.S. would "continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva." (Emphasis added)

Sounding very much like Mafia lawyers, the president's legal troika felt it necessary to warn him that playing fast and loose with the U.S. War Crimes Act (Section 2441) could conceivably come back to haunt him. The bizarre passage that follows is the best they could offer in terms of reassurance:

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

While the imaginative lawyering of Addington (now Cheney's chief of staff), Gonzales (now Attorney General), and Bybee (now a federal judge) may have qualified for a presidential "heck-of-a-job" at the time, Bush is learning the hard way that, while sycophants are fun to have around, they can do a president in. Between the lines of Bush's rhetoric yesterday lies belated acknowledgement that his decision to condone the torture of al-Qaeda and Taliban captives is now back to haunt him -- big time.

The Supreme Court decision on Hamdam v. Rumsfeld, announced on June 29, 2006, stripped the president of the magic suit of clothes procured by his courtiers, when it found illegal the "military tribunals" invented by the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal to try terrorists. The Court rejected the artifice of "unitary executive power" used by the Bush administration to "justify" practices like torture, indefinite detention without judicial process, and warrantless eavesdropping. In other words, the Supreme Court of the U.S. reaffirmed that ours should be a government of laws, not of the caprice of the vice president or president. And in condoning torture they are, demonstrably, outlaws.

The Defense Rests Not

The president's performance yesterday reflects the time-honored adage that the best defense is an aggressive offense -- and especially with a mere two months before the mid-term elections. Bush devoted fully half of his speech to cops-and-robbers examples, none of them persuasive -- indeed, several of them grossly inaccurate -- of how "tough" interrogation techniques have yielded information preventing all manner of catastrophe.

But someone in the White House apparently forgot to tell the Army, for Army Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, head of Army intelligence, spoke from a very different script at a Pentagon briefing yesterday. Kimmons explained why the new Army manual for interrogation is in sync with Geneva. Conceding past "transgressions and mistakes," the general said:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that."

Grabbing recent headlines today is the fact that Bush actually admitted that the CIA has taken high-value captives to prisons abroad for interrogation using "tough" techniques. More telling are the facts that (1) CIA interrogators are not bound by the strictures in the new army field manual; and (2) the president is determined to maintain in place detention centers where CIA interrogators can ply their trade with more permissive guidelines.

The president brags about how his government "changed its policies," giving intelligence personnel "the tools they need" to fight terrorists, and makes it clear that the CIA was given permission to use "an alternative set of procedures." He said he could not describe the specific methods used, "But I can say the procedures were tough." Bush went on to recount how several plots were stopped, allegedly "because of the information from this vital program." The alumni of this school of hard knocks are now on their way to Guantanamo, but Bush made it clear that he wanted to keep the schools open for freshmen and transfer students.

Acknowledging that other terrorists are waiting in line to take the place of captured leaders, the president made it clear that he wants the "CIA program" for interrogating advanced placement terrorists to continue. Bush conceded that, after the Hamdam decision, "some believe" that intelligence personnel "could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act -- simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way." Thus, he is asking Congress to pass legislation squaring the circle, so that even while using "alternative" procedures, CIA personnel can be said to be in compliance with common Article 3 of Geneva. (The not-so-hidden threat, of course, is the virtual certainty that any member of Congress opposing this kind of legerdemain will be branded soft on terrorism in the weeks leading up to the November election.)

In a telling twist, the retroactive nature of this legislation, which the president said "ought to be the top priority," would immunize from subsequent prosecution Bush himself, as well as intelligence practitioners of "alternative procedures." It takes no lawyer to see how the legislation Bush proposes would complicate any effort to charge him under the U.S. War Crimes Act in effect when he authorized torture and other abuse.

And so the stage is set, and Bush's advisers see still more opportunity to highlight "national security" issues on which they hope to put Democrats on the defensive. The president can now be expected to focus more on playing up the importance of being able to eavesdrop on Americans without the court warrant required by law. This practice has been ruled unconstitutional and illegal by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on the grounds that it violates the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But, speaking in Atlanta yesterday, the president reiterated that his administration "strongly disagrees with Taylor's ruling and hopes to reverse it on appeal. Still more grist for the political mill.

The White House has been putting pressure on Sen. Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter (R, Pa), who initially called the warrantless eavesdropping activity extralegal and vowed to put it under close scrutiny. Specter has now come full circle, drafting legislation that would hold harmless the president and others involved in that program -- again, retroactively. Hard to tell what changed Specter's mind. Not to be ruled out is the possibility that NSA coughed up some juicy detail on his political or even personal life -- and that the administration used the kind of "alternative procedure" employed so successfully by former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. It is worth remembering that it was precisely this kind of illegal activity that the FISA law was designed to stop.

Accountability

Is there no one to hold our leaders to account? The Bush Crimes Commission, a grass-roots citizens' initiative determined not to follow the example of the obedient, passive Germans of the thirties, has taken testimony on torture and other key issues to establish whether President Bush is guilty of war crimes. Testimony was given in October 2005 and January 2006, indictments have been brought and served on the White House, and the judges will issue their verdict on Wednesday, Sept. 13 in Washington (See http://bushcommission.org [1].) (Full disclosure: I was privileged to have been invited to take part in the proceedings of the Bush Crimes Commission.) Join us next week.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer, then a CIA analyst for 27 years, and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The original version of this article appeared on TomPaine.com

Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/contributors/397
Links:
[1] http://bushcommission.org

Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)

Go onsite for a more comprehensive italicized view of this article, and to access other articles of interest.
***

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Severe sleep apnea linked to stroke in elderly

Fri Sep 8, 12:03 PM ET

Severe sleep apnea appears to be an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke in elderly patients, according to a report in the September issue of Stroke.

Sleep apnea occurs when breathing is briefly but frequently blocked while someone is sleeping. Ischemic stroke, the most common type, occurs when oxygen to the brain is blocked, usually by a blood clot, causing "ischemia" or tissue death.

A number of reports have supported a causal relationship between sleep apnea and stroke, Dr. Roberto Munoz, from Hospital de Navarra in Spain, and colleagues note. However, these studies focused primarily on middle-aged subjects, not on elderly populations.

To investigate the association in elderly individuals, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study that included a population-based cohort of 394 patients between 70 and 100 years of age.

At the start of the 6-year study, the subjects were stroke-free and were not institutionalized.

During follow-up, 20 ischemic strokes occurred, the report shows.

After accounting for gender, age, smoking status, and other confounding variables, the presence of severe sleep apnea raised the risk of ischemic stroke by 2.52-fold.

A randomized trial to study the effect of relieving sleep apnea with CPAP therapy on stroke in this patient population is warranted to further establish a causal relationship, the researchers conclude.

SOURCE: Stroke, September 2006.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.yahoo.com/
:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Sex toys contain dangerous chemicals
says Greenpeace

Fri Sep 8, 2:59 PM ET
In otherwords, perhaps you should just hug a tree? SRH

:shrug:

Environmental group Greenpeace called on the European Union to ban the use of chemical plastic softeners in sex toys because they contained dangerous substances known as phthalates.

"Adult sex toys contain the same toxic substances that the European Union banned from use in children's toys," Greenpeace said in a press release from its international headquarters here.

The environmental group said it was shocked to find that seven of the eight sex toys it had tested contained between 24 and 51 percent of phthalates.

"It is unbelievable that such toxic substances can be used in adult toys. We have tested many products in the last few years but never have we encountered such high concentrations," Greenpeace spokesman Bart van Opzeeland said.

Greenpeace research has shown that phthalates can disrupt the human hormonal system, diminishes fertility and adversely affects the kidneys and liver.

The substance is used to soften plastics and PVC plastic. Greenpeace stressed that a ban on phthalates would not mean the disappearance of people's favourite sex toys as there are plenty of non-toxic alternatives.

~~~
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: From Hamas to DeLay, corruption riles voters here and abroad
By STANLEY GREENBERG and JEREMY ROSNER
The Providence Journal
08-SEP-06

What do the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, the defeat of Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister, and the indictment of Tom DeLay, former U.S. House majority leader, all have in common?

Corruption. Having worked on electoral campaigns around the world, we are struck by the number of countries in which corruption has become a top-tier issue that mobilizes voters, decides elections and shapes the agenda of nations. Public anger over corruption is particularly intense in countries that are less developed or undergoing transitions from communist or autocratic rule to more open systems. Across 20 transitional and developing countries in Latin America, Central Europe, Asia and Africa, where our firm has conducted surveys over the past five years, corruption is the third-strongest public concern, cited by 21 percent on average as one of their top two national problems. Higher shares are focused on unemployment (48 percent) and poor living conditions (34 percent).

But corruption leads a second tier of issues and emerges as a significantly stronger concern than many bread-and-butter issues.

This is one reason the slogan for many opposition movements in these countries revolves around the idea of "enough!" _ whether it is the "Kifaya" movement in Egypt, or the "Kmara" movement in Georgia before that country's Rose Revolution. It is a call for more political freedom, but also for economic fairness after years of voters seeing the gains from their hard work disappear into someone else's pocket.

But corruption is no longer just a developing-world issue. Democrats are riding into November's U.S. congressional elections charging that Washington is mired in a "culture of corruption," as ties between Republican leaders such as DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the convicted fraudster, become clear. This same basic charge played a major role in Romano Prodi's victory in April against Berlusconi in the Italian election, and in the troubles that President Jacques Chirac and his UMP party face in France.

The same forces of globalization that shrank the global marketplace also create a larger space for graft and political grand theft _ as well as more opportunity and impetus for voters to resist it. As James Surowiecki recently pointed out in The New Yorker, the pressures for modernization in transitional economies create huge openings for corruption. As leaders privatize utilities and establish new regulatory regimes in a globalized economy, public offices have more lucrative opportunities to steer capital flows, provide safe havens for illicit cash, or lend official imprimatur to private schemes.

Political elites are often the last to understand that the people mean business in their calls for reforms. More surprising is the critique that has emerged from some scholars of global affairs, who argue that an overwrought focus on corruption detracts attention from more pressing issues. Last year, Moises Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy, wrote in The Washington Post that "the war on corruption is undermining democracy, helping the wrong leaders get elected and distracting societies from facing urgent problems."

Naim and others are right that a focus on corruption does not always produce progressive results. Hamas won December's Palestinian elections in part by crusading against corruption in the ruling Fatah movement. But those who see a "corruption obsession" are wrong to think that voters have misplaced priorities. The scale of corruption often runs into billions of dollars, enough to make a real impact on a country's economy and living standards.

That is why voters mostly talk about corruption not as a moral failing, but as an economic problem _ and in surveys across many countries they tell us it is a bigger cause of low living standards than bad economic policies.

It therefore makes sense for the World Bank and other agencies to make governance reforms a priority in the development agenda. But the rising scale and toll of corruption also means that it will be more of a first-order political issue in more and more countries. Those politicians who take the lead on this issue _ explaining its costs, identifying its perpetrators and offering solutions _ are likely to find themselves in line with most voters in their national elections and marching in front of what is becoming a global demand for transparency and change.

(Stanley Greenberg is chairman and chief executive officer, and Jeremy Rosner is senior vice-president, of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a public-opinion research and strategy company. This column first appeared in The Financial Times.)

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CORRUPTION-09-08-06:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::A new mission for veteran of Iraq and Afganistan conflicts

By
By JOY POWELL
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
08-SEP-06


Minnesota soldier Christopher Holbrook survived gunshots in Iraq and in Afghanistan, earning two Purple Heart medals for helping fellow troops, despite his own serious wounds.

Each time the gunfire began, Holbrook recalled this week in Minneapolis, his vision collapsed into a tunnel, time slowed and his hearing deadened. In those surreal moments, it wasn't the politics of war that he thought about.

It was the soldiers to his right and to his left, and how he could get them to safety.

Holbrook, 25, ended active military duty in the Army last spring. He was the only one in his brigade of 2,000 or so soldiers to get Purple Hearts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These days, Holbrook is attending the University of Minnesota in the ROTC program, with financial help from a group that formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. That group, Minnesotans' Military Appreciation Fund, awarded him two grants, each for $2,000. But he said there are many other soldiers who deserve help, too. "My story's not unique," Holbrook said. "There are other guys just like me out there."

In the past year, more than 100 businesses and thousands of individuals donated more than $4.5 million, said one of the fund's founders, Skip Krawczyk.

The group has given nearly 3,000 grants to Minnesota soldiers, in amounts ranging from $250 for those who return home uninjured, up to $10,000 for those severely injured and up to $5,000 for the families of those killed in action.

The group has given money to the families of 25 soldiers killed since 2001 and is seeking to give money to another 10 surviving families.

The grants help in many ways, Krawczyk said, including stopping the foreclosure of one soldier's home.

"We just want to say thanks to the men and women who serve in our armed forces," he said.

The need for contributions continues, with another 2,600 troops deployed in the last couple of months alone, he said.

Today, Holbook is using the money to pay for books in his broadcast-journalism studies. Between classes, he's helping the organization that's helping him. On Sept. 30, he'll take part in a walk/run event and special recognition of Minnesota's soldiers and military families.

After his two $2,000 grants, one for each Purple Heart, the group said he would be eligible for another $16,000. But Sgt. Holbrook was thinking still of his comrades when he declined with this simple response.

"Others need it more.".
(Joy Powell can be reached at: jpowell@startribune.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service)

http:www.scrippsnews.com
:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
ABC’s "The Path to 9/11" Isn’t a Documentary.
It’s Not a Docu-Drama. It’s a Swift-Boat Hit Job.
By BuzzFlash
Created 09/09/2006 - 2:47pm
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)
Forget about any pretense of the Disney-ABC $40 million (commercial free) "The Path to 9/11" being a project that accidentally went astray. With the facts available as of Saturday afternoon, September 9, one thing is already clear. It is a pre-meditated hit job, in the Rovian-GOP Swift Boat tradition.

Forget that the head of ABC is allegedly a Democrat; so is Sumner Redstone, who runs Viacom. But Redstone said in the 2004 election that while he preferred Kerry personally, Bush was better for Viacom profits, so he would vote for Bush. That’s what we got going here at ABC, which is owned by the often Republican connected Disney.

Before we get into some of the facts of the production – which are so glaringly reminiscent of the Swift Boat operation against Kerry and the Arkansas Project against Clinton – let’s propose a hypothetical – although highly plausible – scenario.

Let’s consider the strong possibility that last year Rove or an emissary met with the head of Disney. Rove knew that reality was running 180 degrees away from the rhetoric of the Bush/Cheney script for the "War on Terrorism." He needed fantasy to help reinforce a fictional narrative that the Bush Administration was and is peddling as fact.

Rove knows that research has shown that most television viewers can’t distinguish between fictionalized docu-dramas, negative advertising, the news, and news satire. In the end, it all blends together in the minds of most viewers. Fiction becomes fact if presented about a real event. Accusation becomes reality if presented about a real person.

So, Rove was already planning the 2007 fall campaign season and he had his eye – as he does every election year – on vigorously exploiting 9/11 for political gain.

So he needed to undercut the reality that has been emerging over the last few years. This reality, as just reconfirmed in a senate report released with the greatest of reluctance by Pat "Bush Boy Toy" Roberts that Bush and Cheney lied us into the war with Iraq when they told us Saddam had clear connections to al-Qaeda. But there were so many other realities that contradicted the Scheherazade Rovian "War on Terror" narrative that reality – particularly the dire and deteriorating conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was in danger of overtaking the Bush fictional script.

So Rove or an emissary went to the head of Disney, we are theorizing with a deal.

The deal might go something like this.

The Bush Administration wanted Disney to have ABC air a 9/11 miniseries on the anniversary weekend of the event in 2007. It would provide ABC with the people that the White House wanted to produce and direct the miniseries and would provide the promotional strategy to ABC. It would also provide secret funding -- through GOP donors (the like of Richard Mellon Scaife, perhaps) -- to underwrite the $40 million project, so as not to negatively affect the shareholders of Disney.

In return, Disney would get future legislation, regulatory relief and/or federal contracts that would far surpass the airtime that it would be giving up running the 9/11 miniseries commercial free.

In short, the White House (perhaps through a cut-out) would get to decide who did the movie and its partisan content – and, in return, Disney would get a future financial windfall at the expense of the taxpayers.

Disney, figuring that the Democrats usually lie down like a carpet for Swift Boating attacks, thought it was a safe move, under this scenario. It also believed, with Tom DeLay then still in power, that the Republican juggernaut was unstoppable – and that the Dems had no chance of taking back power in any branch of government.

So Disney, such a theory goes, shook hands with Rove and said, "We’re on. Just let us know who you want to do the film, and we’ll contract them. Also, we prefer that the funding source of the $40 million remain extremely well-hidden, but we will leave that to you to work out."

And so, one such theory would hold, "The Path to 9/11" was born.

Rove would have his miniseries that would trash Clinton on Sunday – and exonerate and immortalize Bush on Monday. It would be like the old Soviet textbooks where history was selectively rewritten to vilify the good guys and glorify the bad ones.

And to top it off, Rove would have Bush give a speech exploiting 9/11 right before the second installment of the miniseries – as the intermission, so to speak, between the "betrayal" of Clinton and the "courageous" leadership of Bush. (Isn’t it starting to sound a little bit like the propaganda that that fool in North Korea doles out?)

In fact, the beginning of the last segment of the miniseries will have to be delayed 20 minutes so Bush can give his politically self-serving speech, so it is actually tugged neatly into "The Path to 9/11," as if it were Alistair Cook introducing "Masterpiece Theater."

It’s the morally bankrupt, cynical plan of a genius.

All it would take is a morally corrupt corporation with a big media outlet to hijack the national sacred event of 9/11 and make partisan political fiction a reality.
Disney/ABC meet Karl Rove.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Do you think this is what went down. Tell us your opinion below.

Part II of this editorial will appear later on Saturday, September 9.
Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/editorials/87
:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

Talk about comparisons, the "Swift Boat" hit-men! When will the movie come out about the beginnings of the Swift Boat craziness, it telling the world when they began their long and highly paid campaign of disinformation?

The twists and turns are fascinating and it would make an interesting movie, but it should be a docu-drama or a mini series as it would take a long time, with their story going back decades; them being on the payroll of GHW Bush and his crony's since the end of the Vietnam war. The implications are astounding!

I have to wonder what the S.B. men will be pulling on all of us voters in the next few years? Who's sent them their marching orders? Yep, it would make a fascinating movie, the truth in it is so very strange and compelling.

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Published on BuzzFlash:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles

Scientist Suspects Bush has Syphilis - Commentary by Will Durst
By
BuzzFlash
Created 07/29/2006 - 7:52am

President Bush is a stone crazed loon suffering from a deterioration of his brain due to a tertiary case of syphilis and liable to become incapacitated at any time and accidentally start WW III according to a noted Baltimore based psychotherapist. Or he could die. Or both.

In a shocking revelation, famed Johns Hopkins scientist Dr. Robert Musckovitz has diagnosed George W Bush as suffering from stage 3 syphilis, after examining the President's increasingly erratic behavior. Dr. Musckovitz and his team of physicians, who have not seen or treated Mr. Bush, have identified telling characteristics of the dreaded sexually transmitted disease in the President by closely studying tapes of his mannerisms, speech patterns and eating habits. Candidly, the doctor cautioned "he's really starting to creep me out."

Specifically, the doctor, a graduate of the University of Michigan -- Escanaba Medical School, detailed incidents of the President's peculiar behavior such as his frozen indecision on 9/11, his inability to escape a Chinese press conference, the weird growth on his back during the first debate with John Kerry, and his trademark smirk which could be a symptomatic rictus disguising telltale muscle contractions.

Citing the STD's devious ability to hide undetected for many years, the doctor refused to speculate on where or when Dubyah, constant companion of Condoleezza Rice, may have become syphilitic. He did rule out contracting it by performing a back rub, clearing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and avoiding a potentially nasty international incident. An intern working in Dr. Musckovitz's reception room did hazard a guess the former Yale cheerleader may have carried it for years. "I bet he picked it up at Stumpy's Bar in New Haven from a waitress. Hell, that's where I got it."

Various experts selling plasma at local free clinics in the District of Colombia maintain syphilis is a disease contracted through sexual contact, although rare instances of spontaneous contraction have been reported as ascertained in the hospital logs of numerous Catholic seminaries.

A really respected medical book with pretty gold leaf on the cover says the late stages of syphilis can damage internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones, and joints. Signs and symptoms of the late stage of syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, paralysis, numbness, blindness, dementia and pronouncing nuclear as "nukular." This damage may be serious enough to cause death and/ or trying to speak with your mouth full.

A high level White House source, requesting anonymity for fear of physical recrimination from what he considers an increasingly unstable Commander-in-Chief, also spoke of bizarre conduct, ie: the President cupping his hand under his armpit making flatulent noises during intelligence briefings and dancing on the South Lawn in triple digit heat wearing heavy winter clothing. "He was rocking out like he was listening to an Ipod, but he had ear muffs on at the time. The day glo blaze orange kind. He even tied a string around them that went into his parka pocket but wasn't connected to anything. I'm not even going to talk about the squirrel, the spatula and the candle wax."

Asked to estimate how long the country has before its President descends permanently into the depths of dementia, Dr. Musckovitz muttered "it may already be too late." Responding to a query as to whether he thinks Mr. Bush is still capable of handling the responsibility of having his finger on the nuclear button, the doctor shook his head and said: "at this point, I wouldn't trust him with a garage door opener."

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, peanut eating Will Durst is barred from possession of the cable remote.
* * *Catch Durst in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7- 10am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.* * *Will Durst is America's premier political comedian. He writes "comedy for people who read, or know someone who does." For more on Will, visit his web site [1].

(I thought, I shouldn't post this, and then thought, oh what the heck, why not, GW has a wicked sense of humor himself.
So here it is. SRH)

Source URL:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/durst/21
Links:
[1] http://www.willdurst.com/index.html ::

[Saundra Hummer]

***Saturday, September 09, 2006
Defamatory Sandy Berger scene in 9/11 show is
THE culmination of the entire first half,
it is IMPOSSIBLE to edit it out
by John in DC - 9/09/2006 04:33:00 PM
Okay, I just watched the Sandy Berger scene. It is beyond defamatory. The reports you've read do not do it justice.
We are 1 hour 54 minutes into the film, it is the culmination of the entire first two hours of the film. CIA agents on the ground with Commander Massoud have found bin Laden. They have him pin-pointed in a house. They are looking at the house with binoculars. They are on the phone with the CIA, that has patched in Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Berger, like a bumbling ass, sits there, looking every which way, refusing to give them clearance to grab bin Laden who is in their literal grasp. The woman at the CIA has to lecture Berger about how intelligence works, like he's some kind of moron. Berger literally looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He's clueless, an idiot, a moron, unfit to serve in any public office - hell, I wouldn't hire the guy to mow my lawn. After a very long pause, the agents are begging Berger to take some responsibility, stop being such a wuss, stop trying to cover his chicken-shit ass, you see Berger reach forward and the phone line goes dead. Clearly Berger has ended the call. Osama gets away. And Sandy Berger is personally responsible for killing 3,000 Americans and bringing down the World Trade Center twin towers.

Not only is this scene FAR MORE defamatory than any review I've seen to date, this is THE KEY SCENE of the entire first half of the movie. You can't cut it, or a good portion of the movie just makes no sense. But Disney/ABC can't leave the scene is because it simply did not happen. CIA agents weren't on the ground, they weren't with Massoud, nobody had bin Laden in their grasp, and Berger never refused to give the order to get the guy.

The entire culmination of the first half of the show is one big fat lie. This isn't just a small scene with a small error. It's THE scene and it NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL.

Disney/ABC took a national tragedy and turned it into their own personal soap opera. If this thing airs, Disney and ABC are going to see the kind of campaign that they have never seen before. If they thought the past week has been hell, just wait for the next seven weeks leading up to the election when we take them on legislatively, legally, and in the public sphere for abusing the memory of 3,000 dead Americans.

Comments (117) | Permanent Link |

American Airlines to blame for 9/11, Disney/ABC movie falsely claims
by John in DC - 9/09/2006 02:12:00 PM

I'm just wondering when American Airlines is going to realize that it's about to be defamed in the entire English-speaking world.

As I first noted yesterday, I have the entire "Path to 9/11" video. And one of the very first scenes makes it explicitly clear that American Airlines had Mohammad Atta in its grasp, warning lights flashing on the computer screen, yet the airline simply blew off the threat and helped Atta kill 3,000 Americans.

Unfortunately, it's a total lie.

Here's what the "Path to 9/11" claims American Airlines did on the morning of September 11. According to Disney/ABC, American Airlines at Boston Logan had Mohammad Atta at its ticket counter and a warning came up on the screen when he tried to check in. The AA employee called a supervisor who kind of shrugged and said, blithely, just let him through. The first employee, shocked, turned to her supervisor and said, shouldn't we search him? The American Airlines supervisor responds, nah, just hold his luggage until he boards the plane. The scene is clearly intended to make American Airlines look negligent.

Only problem? It never happened.

First off, Disney/ABC got the airport wrong. The warning for Mohammad Atta's ticket popped up in Portland, Maine, not at Boston Logan as the tv show claims (this is on page 1 of the September 11 Commission report).

Second, the security rules at the time said nothing about searching a passenger who has a "warning" pop up, they only required that the bags be held until the passenger boarded. The Disney/ABC tv show, on the other hand, clearly tries to imply that American Airlines violated the security rules in letting Atta go. This simply isn't true. (This is also on page 1 of the report.)

But most importantly, Disney/ABC implicated the wrong airline. And I quote the Director of the FBI:
On September 11, at 6:00 AM, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari boarded a U.S. Airways flight leaving Portland, Maine en route to Boston's Logan Airport.
The 9/11 Report, on page 1 of all things, makes clear that it was in Portland that Atta's warning came up. And FBI director Mueller makes clear that Atta flew US Airways Express from Portland to Boston. So, Disney/ABC, in the first ten minutes of its error-riddled tv show - a show about to be broadcast to the entire English-speaking world this Sunday - paints American Airlines as one of the most irresponsible air carriers on the planet. An air carrier that is directly responsible for killing 3,000 Americans because its own employees are too lazy to follow safety rules.

And Disney/ABC got it totally wrong, defaming one of the largest airlines in the world.

I really hope someone at American Airlines realizes that come 12 hours in Australia and New Zealand, when the show starts to air, no one is going to fly American ever again. (I of course tried to call American's government affairs office in DC to let them know this and the woman hung up on me. Oh well.)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

:: MoDo asks why anyone would make things up about 9/11 by Joe in DC - 9/09/2006 11:37:00 AM

Maureen Dowd weighs in on the ABC/Disney scandal. She asks the right question -- because both Bush and Disney are making things up about 9/11:
Why do presidents and filmmakers dealing with the most stunning events in recent American history feel the need to go beyond facts?
Dowd also provides some insights and answers her own question:
The ABC movie promoted itself as a serious work based on the 9/11 commission report and featuring Tom Kean, the commission’s co-chairman, as a co-executive producer. (It’s impossible to imagine Earl Warren producing a movie about the events in Dallas.) But if it’s making a claim upon people’s attention as a trustworthy and accurate description of events that bear on all our lives, you’ve got to stick with the truth. You can’t pick and choose when you want it to be history and when you want it to be art. (Quel art.)

Sandy Berger yelped about a scene that depicted him refusing to authorize a military strike to kill Osama and slamming down the phone on a C.I.A. officer at a key moment. Cyrus Nowrasteh, the Republican and Limbaugh pal who served as the writer and a producer, told KRLA-AM in Los Angeles that the scene was improvised.

They distorted history to throw in a standard cliché of melodrama? (The 9/11 Commission Report as Douglas Sirk would have filmed it.) Why compromise your movie by adding tacky things that don’t increase its aesthetic power and detract from its moral power?
This week, President Bush will continue to undermine the moral power of "September the 11th" for partisan political purposes. ABC and Disney are doing the same thing.

The American people can handle the truth about 9/11...for most of us, it's not history, it's part of our lives.

Comments (126) | Permanent Link | http://americablog.blogspot.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Will Clinton, Berger and Albright threaten the BBC with a libel suit?

by John in DC - 9/09/2006 12:48:00 AM
As you know, the BBC is planning to show Disney/ABC's defamatory "Path to 9/11" program in the UK on Sunday. I'm told by a friend that under UK libel laws there is no public person defense and damages and costs can both be in the millions. And, "British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant must prove that she or he did not commit libel."

My friend notes, and I agree, that if the BBC were to receive a letter like the one that Clinton's lawyer, Berger, and Albright sent to ABC, the BBC legal department would likely be in a state of high panic. The chances are that they would yank the program immediately.

If the BBC were to do that it would be much harder for ABC to show the program and if they did they would find it much harder to claim that it was based on fact.

Yes, it would be very interesting if someone who knows Clinton, Berger and Albright suggested this to them.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::The Path to Scaife
Posted by Jon Ponder | Sep. 9, 2006, 9:57 am
.
This just keeps sprouting another head, it is a growing story with all sorts of involvements, nation and world wide. SRH
.
Richard Mellon Scaife (right) and David Horowitz (Go-On-Site for photo's and/or any links within this article, view comments and related stories, there are several of those alone, SRH:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/09/09/the-path-to-scaife/
The VRC Lives, and All Paths in It Lead Back to Mr. Scaife

If you are among the millions whose eyes have been opened over the past six years to the true depravity of Republican malfeasance, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the skullduggery didn’t start at George W. Bush’s inauguration. Not hardly.Max Blumenthal’s expose at HuffPo on the rightwing cabal behind ABC’s controversial miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” is a must-read. According to Blumenthal, the show’s producer, director and writer are part of a conservative insurgency within Hollywood. They have connections to David Horowitz, the often-disgraced rightwing media critic who is based in Los Angeles.

The connection into the conservative power grid that may be the most interesting, however, is the production’s ties to Richard Mellon Scaife:

Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group’s headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a “think tank” bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)

Secretive people usually have something to hide, and “secretive” is among the first words that come to mind regarding Mr. Scaife, who is an heir to the Mellon fortune and lives in Pittsburgh where he publishes a daily newspaper known for its rightwing slant. (The other word most-often associatied with him is “eccentric.”)

If you are among the millions whose eyes have been opened over the past six years to the true depravity of Republican malfeasance, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the skullduggery didn’t start at George W. Bush’s inauguration. Not hardly.


In fact, the current Bush-Rove reign of political terror has its roots in the early days of the Clinton presidency, and from the start one of its major sponsors has been Mr. Scaife.

While Scaife openly funds numerous conservative organizations like Horowitz’ Center for the Study of the Popular Culture — including the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute — there is one rightwing effort he has never fully ‘fessed up to funding. Code-named the “Arkansas Project,” it was a vicious campaign of personal destruction against the Clintons that was launched in 1993 and was funded by Scaife. (It was the Arkansas Project that Hillary Clinton once referred to as a “vast rightwing conspiracy.”)

The case could be made that the Arkansas Project paved the way for the Bush presidency. Spurious accusations about the Clintons brought forth by the project’s operatives led to years of useless investigations by Congress and the special counsel, Ken Starr and ended with President Clinton’s impeachment. Issues arising from the impeachment — particularly the Monica Lewinsky matter — hobbled Al Gore’s campaign in 2000. Had the impeachment not been an issue, Gore would have beaten Bush handily, even with the drain of liberal votes by Ralph Nader.

Paula Jones’ sexual harrassment charge against the president was central to the impeachment. But Jones’ case against Clinton was weak and was only kept alive through various appeals by funding from Scaife and others.

So now we know that Scaife is still at it — and that he still has a bug up his ass about the Clintons. But here’s the thing: If Scaife, Horowitz and the producer, director and writer of “The Path to 9/11″ are right about President Clinton, why do they always lie about things he has and has not done.

They lied about him repeatedly in the 1990s — from Whitewater to Travelgate, Troopergate, the Rose law firm billing records, Vince Foster’s suicide and the rest were all faked up scandals — and they’re lying about him now in “The Path to 9/11.”

Update: As our friends at BuzzFlash pointed out, the production reportedly cost $40 million but, according to Fox News (no less), “the series … is to be aired without commercials as a public service.” So who is picking up the tab? (It sure ain’t George Soros.)

Read more:

- The best book on this subject is “The Hunting of the President,” by Joe Conanson and Gene Lyons.
- Arkansas Project
- Richard Mellon Scaife

Topics: Politics, Media - TV, GOP Corruption
| Permalink | Trackback |

COMMENTS
7 Comments on "The Path to Scaife"
I agree if you want to see what a piece of shit Scaife is read the Hunting of the President it exposes just what sleazy people the Republican’s are.They lie steal cheat nothing matter’s but staying in power even to destroying the United States which Bush/Cheney are doing.Senator Russ Finegold just stopped Arlen Specter from bringing up a bill that would retroactively exonerate Bush of his crimes against the constitution.(Feingold should be the Democratic President in 06
...Comment by clyde Paige | Sep. 9, 2006, 12:01 pm |
.

This quote from Front Page suggests that even if Scafie or someone else financed it, someone with lots of clout in the government may have been involved:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865
FP: Tell us how you came to write and produce this miniseries.

Nowrasteh: Early last year (2005) I was approached by ABC and asked if I’d be interested in writing/producing a miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I met with executive producer Marc Platt and Governor Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who agreed to serve as a consultant on the project. I was provided an incredible amount of research materials and high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diiplomatic Security, etc……more

You’re talking high level advisors and that suggests WH complicity to me.

Comment by Bob Reynolds | Sep. 9, 2006, 12:35 pm |
...

Thanks for this article, you’re right.. Scaife is a big donor to Horowitz, along with the usual gang, Olin Foundation, Bradley, Catle Rock, etc. See Media Transparency summary:
Grants to David Horowitz Freedom Center
(formerly Center for the Study of Popular Culture)
...
There's more to view, go on-site to access this article and more.

[Saundra Hummer]

Thanks for your thread/post, Whatever Happened to the America of 9/12?

Chris A, it is a good one. I won't clutter it up.

Welcome back. Been a while.

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Tomgram: Chernus, Cornered Empire, the Legacy of 9/11
...
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, American leaders declared "victory" in the Cold War no less firmly or repeatedly than our President has promised "victory" in his Global War on Terror -- no less than 12 times, in fact, in an August speech to the American Legion National Convention. However, as Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, recently wrote, victory in our times turns out to be a remarkably quicksilver concept, especially since "the East has solved the riddle of the Western Way of War… [T]he Arabs now possess -- and know that they possess -- the capacity to deny us victory, especially in any altercation that occurs on their own turf and among their own people."

Triumphantly here today (as your generals sit grinning behind a marble table in one of Saddam's palaces), victory is gone tomorrow (as the IEDs start to explode and the suicide car bombs begin to mount). In the case of the Cold War, the question remains: Was that victory actually gone yesterday? Was it gone by the time officials danced their victory jigs in the corridors of the Pentagon and the White House?

In retrospect, it may be -- as perceptive scholars of imperial decline like Immanuel Wallerstein have long argued -- that we were already definitively on the way down; or, put another way, that there was no victor but there were two losers in the Cold War; that the Soviet Union, the weaker of the two great powers, simply imploded first; while the U.S., enwreathed in a rhetoric of triumph and self-congratulation, was slowly making its way to the door without waving goodbye.

In the fifteen years since the USSR evaporated, most indices of power, especially military power, have been challenged. To offer but a single sobering example, historian Gabriel Kolko, discussing how destructive power has been "democratized," points out that:


"U.S. power has been dependent to a large extent on the country's highly mobile navy. But ships are increasingly vulnerable to missiles, and while they are a long way from finished, they are more and more circumscribed tactically and, ultimately, strategically… [Iran, for example] possesses large quantities of [cruise] missiles, and US experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft-carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

When, back in the 1960s, Senator J. William Fulbright wrote of "the arrogance of power" as a defining trait of America's leaders, few in power took him seriously. So many years later, the question is: Do our present arrogant leaders have the faintest idea how limited their powers really are? As Ira Chernus, author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, suggests below, on this fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, the leadership of an increasingly cornered empire continues to put its emphasis not just on striking back, but on striking first… and wherever. This is the most dangerous, the most blinding and fearful legacy of the 9/11 attacks. In the long run, it threatens a world in rubble. Tom



The Day That Changed Everything Wasn't 9/11


By
Ira Chernus
Yes, it changed everything -- not September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers collapsed, but November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell and left the U.S. at sea, drifting without an enemy in a strange new world.

Through four decades of the Cold War, Americans had been able to feel reasonably united in their determination to fight evil. And everyone, even children, knew the name of the evildoers: "the commies." Within two years after the Wall fell, the Soviet Union had simply disappeared. In the U.S., nobody really knew how to fight evil now, or even who the evildoers were. The world's sole remaining superpower was "running out of demons," as Colin Powell complained.

Amid the great anguish of September 11, 2001, it was hard to sense the paradoxical but very real feeling of relief that flooded across the country. After a decade adrift with no foes to oppose, Americans could sink back into a comfortingly black-and-white world, neatly divided into the good guys and the bad guys, the innocent and the guilty. In the hands of the Bush administration, "terrorists," modest as their numbers might have been, turned out to be remarkably able stand-ins for a whole empire-plus of "commies." They became our all-purpose symbol for the evil that fills our waking nightmares.

Today the very word "terrorist" conjures up anxiety-ridden images worthy of the Cold War era -- images of an unpredictable world always threatening to spin out of control. As then, so now, sinister evil is said to lurk everywhere -- even right next door -- always ready to spring upon unsuspecting victims.

Historians, considering the last decades of our history, are well aware that millions of Americans didn't need the attacks of 9/11 to fear that their world was spinning out of control. As the Cold War waned, profound differences on "values" issues (previously largely kept under wraps) came out of the closet. Societal anxiety rose. Many wondered how long a nation could endure if it had no consensus on "moral matters" and no obvious authority figures to turn to. Many feared they would lose their moral anchor in an increasingly confusing and challenging world.

This was the real terror that the Bush administration played upon when the Twin Towers fell. It took no time at all for the President to be right on Manichaean message: "We've seen that evil is real." "It is enough to know that evil, like goodness, exists." He did not have to say the rest explicitly, because (with a sigh of relief and endless rites of ceremonial mourning) Americans understood it: Goodness exists here in the good old USA. How do we know? Because evil itself attacked us and we are so firmly committed to fighting it.

Such circular logic fed public discourse from the springs of a deeply buried unconscious longing for power, clarity, and innocence. Once again we could stand tall in the world, the dazzling hyperpower of hyperpowers. As long as we were fighting evil, we had to be the good guys. If we weren't so good, why would we be so determined to fight the supposedly new evil of global terrorism?

Of course, it worked the other way around, too: The only way to prove that we were good was by hunting out and fighting evil. If we were to keep on feeling certain that we were the good guys, a steady supply of bad guys was a necessity -- and the post-Cold War decade just hadn't done its job providing them. So it could easily seem more appealing to launch a generational Global War on Terror that would keep the "terrorists" around permanently. What better way to keep on proving our virtue than by combating and containing them forever?



The New Normalcy

The neoconservatives understand all this perfectly well -- and well before September 11, 2001. For years, they had dreamed of preserving American virtue (and American global dominance) by flaunting American military might. They just needed an ongoing series of excuses to do the flaunting. The attacks of 9/11 gave them their chance.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice (all products of the Cold War era) said it clearly in the weeks following the attack. Their new war would not be a straightforward World War II-style march to victory. It would be more like… well, the war they knew, the Cold War, with its endless string of conflicts, crises, containments, and battles in the frontier lands of what used to be called the Third World. And it would be forever.

As Cheney put it, "There's not going to be an end date when we're going to say, ‘There, it's all over with.'" And he classically summed things up this way: "Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life. … I think of it as the new normalcy.'' The neocons were glad to see the war on terrorism revive memories of the days when -- they imagine -- we contained the commies, learned to stop worrying, and loved the bomb (despite all its terror).

It was a strange love that they remembered so fondly. Polls made it clear that we never really stopped worrying then -- and polls make it clear that we still haven't now. Now, as then, we just bury the terror ever deeper and console ourselves as best we can with the mercilessness of our enemies and the relative safety of our own neck of the woods.

A recent poll tells us that only 14% of Americans feel safer now than they did five years ago. Seventy-nine percent expect another attack on U.S. soil within the next year, and 60% think it's likely in the next few months. Four out of five say that "we will always have to live with the threat of terrorism," though only one in five admits to being "personally very concerned about an attack" in his or her own area. A Florida woman captured the prevailing mood when she told a reporter: "When I stop to think about it, I don't feel very safe. But then again, on a day-to-day basis, I feel fine." As Rep. Peter King, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, put it: "It's like we live in two parallel existences."

Those words should sound awfully familiar to anyone who lived through the Cold War years. The war on terrorism has revived the Cold War mindset, in which we are all citizens of a national insecurity state. The terror of impending annihilation from a vast, conspiratorial, and evil enemy has again become the vague backdrop of everyday life. To assure ourselves of our absolute goodness, we must see the enemy as absolute evil; not a collection of human beings bent on harming us, but a network of monsters bent on -- and capable of -- destroying us utterly. In other words, Cheney's "new normalcy" is but a version of an older, deeper apocalyptic terror. Every loss -- of a diplomatic conflict or an economic tussle or a pair of skyscrapers -- is once again framed as a portent of looming doom for the nation. Any successful attack upon us, we are told, could bring down the curtain of Armageddon.

Here's the irony. Unlike the nuclear-armed Soviet Union in the Cold War years, terrorists cannot actually threaten to obliterate our country or destroy the planet. But each apocalyptic warning of war to the death by the Bush administration only hastens another kind of loss -- the loss of the American imperial power they so prize.



Cornered Empire?

Even if actual extinction doesn't threaten, when it seems to, a nation, like an animal, is tempted to fight back with no holds barred. That's the attitude Bush and the neocons have tried to inculcate since 9/11. It's the only attitude, they insist, that can save America's military might and moral fiber. Indeed, for hard-core neocons, the main point of their global-war-on-terror policies is to revive this very Cold War mentality.

Yet those policies have obviously backfired terribly. The war on terrorism was supposed to build a new American century -- a unipolar world in which the U.S. would reign supreme. But every day it looks more and more like the 21st century will be the multipolar century, with any number of powerful nations and regional groupings successfully challenging U.S. economic, diplomatic, and military preeminence.

Bush and his neocon advisors certainly don't bear all the blame for an American imperial decline. But their utter misreading of the nature of U.S. military power and their lack of interest in economic and diplomatic realities has certainly hastened along a process that, in some fashion, was bound to happen anyway.

The United States reached the peak of its power in the late 1940s. The meat-grinder of World War II had chewed up all the other great powers and their colonial empires, too. In the ensuing decades, as the others recovered and once-dominated nations like China and India broke free and gained traction, the world moved inevitably toward a multipolar future.

Cold war presidents from Truman to Reagan hastened the process by building up U.S. allies like Germany and Japan in order to stave off the evil empire. And they sometimes even heeded the call of those allies to refrain from using military force (or too much of it anyway), lest a global war be triggered. Empowering our allies, while keeping them militarily subservient, actually helped them grab a bigger slice of the global economic pie, encouraging the rise of multipolarism. Big mistake, the neocons declared as, after 9/11, they set the Bush administration on an aggressive course of unilateralism, aiming at their dream of a New-Rome-style unipolarism.

Looking back, it's easy to see what a big mistake they made -- even in their own terms. Their unilateralism and militarism accelerated to near warp speed the decline of U.S. power and influence around the world. Every military blow or threatened blow only multiplied American enemies; every shock-and-awe action only created more opposition, even from increasingly standoffish allies. In the years to come, for an economically weakened "last superpower," there will be more and more occasions, on more and more fronts, when the U.S. will meet its match and have to back down. None of these will spell doom for us. But in context of the national insecurity state, they're likely to be framed as apocalyptic defeats, harbingers of the end time itself, and, above all, good reason to fight back blindly with all our might.

This is the vicious circle from Hell. The Bush administration's aggressive policies weaken U.S. power. Then its officials try to frighten the public into supporting the very same aggressive policies. We were stuck in a similar cycle, only half-recognized, throughout the Cold War years, and there's no end in sight. So far, it looks like not much has changed at all since 9/11.

But we don't have to stay stuck. There's nothing inevitable about history. Some 160 years after the French Revolution, Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai was asked how that event had changed the world. "It's too soon to tell," Zhou replied impishly. Five short years after 9/11, it's way too soon to tell if the attacks of that day actually "changed everything," or if they changed much of anything at all.

Already, there is a growing awareness that the Bush Global War on Terror is doing more harm than good. Even from the foreign policy elite we can hear (though still often faintly) voices saying it's time to call it off. For now, the talk is narrowly focused on our imperial well-being -- the weakening of U.S. power and interests around the world.

Perhaps, as losses mount, Americans will eventually see the more important truth: Simplistic moralism and a pervasive fear of apocalyptic disaster weaken our society here at home. They make every step toward positive change look like a looming danger and that plays right into the hands of conservatives who are dedicated to preventing the change we need so badly. If the failed war on terror eventually teaches us this lesson, 9/11 will turn out to be the day that did indeed change everything.
.....
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His latest book is Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. He can be contacted at chernus@colorado.edu

Copyright 2006 Ira Chernus

posted September 10, 2006 at 2:54 pm

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=119758

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of poverty: Martin Luther King, Jr: 1929-1968

~~~

“Youth is the first victim of war; the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.” : -King Baudouin I: King of Belgium

~~~

“Today's human rights violations are the causes of tomorrow's conflicts.” Mary Robinson: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Retired)

~~~

“Misunderstanding arising from ignorance breeds fear, and fear remains the greatest enemy of peace.” : Lester B. Pearson

~~~

“Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one must take it simply because it is right.” : Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968

~~~

“Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it.” : Anne O'Hare McCormick: First woman to win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism for her work as a foreign correspondent

~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
America's warrior nation
-
The legacy of 9/11

The shortcomings of the American leader were alarmingly exposed on the day the terrorists struck. He and his acolytes are now leading their empire towards permanent conflict with lslam

By
Gore Vidal

09/10/06 "The Independent" -- -- What a difference five years have made! The greatest nation in the country, as an American statesman once termed us, was attacked by a dozen or so Saudi Arabians who had, with astonishing ease, hijacked several airliners and flew two of them into a pair of New York skyscrapers as well as another into one of the five sides of the Pentagon at Washington, the heart of the greatest, most expensive military machine the world has ever known. I watched all this on CNN; in Italy where I then lived. The visual shock was great, of course. Particularly when our little president was discovered by the ubiquitous TV camera in a Florida school where he was reading to his peers from "The Pet Goat", an inspirational tale calculated to encourage small Americans to stand tall: "like", as he would put it, "they should." An aide interrupts the reading; murmurs something in the presidential ear: the presidential eyes widen. A moment akin to the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter, or the Japanese sinking the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. Two tall presidents were, happily for us, in office at those times. Lincoln acted with characteristic guile while Roosevelt, thundering anathema as Pontifex Maximus, flung open the doors of the temple of Janus and so the war that would bring us a global empire began while that of the Japanese sun goddess ended. What then did our very own Romulus Augustulus do during the rest of September 11th? He read some more of "The Pet Goat", knowing that his puppet-meister, vice president Cheney, was safely embedded in some secret spot. Then the little emperor was hustled away in Air Force One for a tour of our most luxurious bunkers where he might avoid the attentions of new attackers, should they come.

What, someone asked, was my first response. Amazement at how little protected we were despite all the megalomaniacal posturings during that cold war deliberately set in motion by Harry S (for nothing, as he liked to say) Truman a half century ago with a son et lumière celebration at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is still not known to the American public that every single important commander of World War Two from General Eisenhower in Europe to Admiral Nimitz in the Pacific pleaded with our first really small president not to atomise two cities of a defeated nation desperately trying to surrender. But Truman, and his Metternich, Dean Acheson, wanted to replace Hitler and Fascism with Stalin and Communism. It was under Truman that the ever greater lie came into its glittering own. Despite the unanimous objections of the American military, Truman insisted on dropping two nuclear bombs. I was serving in the Pacific theatre of operations at the time and we were assured, along with the rest of the world, that one million of us would die in the coming invasion of Japan. Did we love the Bomb? Yes, we did. But little did we know that, had we invaded as originally planned, there was no way that we would have encountered the survivors of the Japanese army on the mainland of Asia as they did not have sufficient transport to return to their home islands.

I think it was Vico who noted that busy republics tend to turn themselves into empires. Certainly, the French intellectual godfather to the American republic, Montesquieu, warned that republics which took the empire route would cease to be republics altogether while Vico, in his cyclic view of human societies, saw imperial republics evolving into dictatorships, chaos, barbarism. In the last five years American behaviour in the Middle East has been barbarous and will not soon be forgiven. Meanwhile, the gas-oil junta has hijacked the old American republic through the artful use of great quantities of corporate and church cash in order to falsify the electoral tallies of easily hacked electronic voting machinery; means now exist to nullify or alter any election returns as happened in Florida 2000; in Ohio 2004.

There is a good deal of grim comedy in the words if not the current deeds of the little president. Although he and his co-conspirators relish the use of the big lie (eg turning the dull but genuine war hero John Kerry into a cowardly fraud while ignoring the slackerdom of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld who proudly fought in none of our many wars). Now in an attempt to avoid blame for the Iraq war and further confuse the world about why Iran and Syria must be destroyed Old Rumsfeld and Old Cheney are trotting out dim garbled images of Hitler and appeasement as they pretend that the anti-war American majority favours Islamic fascism. They pretend terrorism is a demonic person. And if we don't stop him in Tehran we'll have to stop him here. This is ludicrous; unfortunately the junta is as ignorant of history and geography as they believe the public to be. Meanwhile, the little president worries about his "legacy" in the history books. But should he get World War Three going there might not be any more history books, a relief to a non-reader like himself, though, lately, he tells us that he is reading Camus and "three Shakespeares". No doubt tragedies. As we know, he lies with zest yet he was actually revealed reading "The Pet Goat" on television and the Greek word for goat is the same as the word for tragedy. If this is code, I am beginning to suspect him of irony, a fatal flaw in Freedom's home. After all, on his first trip to New Orleans, he promised to restore the drowned city. But, as usual, nothing was done. Then this August 29 he was back in town to reassure high school students: "I've come back to New Orleans to tell you the words that I spoke on Jackson Square are just as true today as they were then." And so, of course, they were! Meanwhile, one hopes that some noble humanitarian will finally shut the doors of the temple of Janus which have not been shut since December of 1941 when we went from one war to another and another without a pause - or thought.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Go on-site to view this story and any links if they appear, and to post comments on the article by clicking on the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14910.htm :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Five years after 9/11: a shifted view of the world
The winners and losers that are still churning the world's politics.

By
Peter Grier and Mark Rice-Oxley

WASHINGTON AND LONDON
Old allies have become wary of one another, if not openly suspicious. Sensing inattention, small rogue nations may have decided it is time to make trouble. Two wars have begun, and their ends do not yet appear in sight. Less noticed, a quiet empire continues to rise in the East.

The world today is a very different place from the way it was on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

In one sense that statement is obvious. Five years is a long time in geopolitics. The world turns, whatever terrorists do.

But half a decade on, it also seems clear that Al Qaeda's attacks and the US response have helped move the metaphorical tectonic plates of the globe.

Besides direct effects, such as the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the reverberations from 9/11 may include a new general organizing principle for international affairs.

The cold war was about the Western and communist blocs, and their values, conflicts, and internal cracks. The current period is about the US and the Islamic world - their mutual suspicions and occasional cooperation, and the wedge Al Qaeda has tried to drive between them.

"Five years in, it is now clear that the 9/11 attacks created a new dynamic for global politics, and thus American foreign policy, centering around the changed relationship between a state and a religion," argues Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington.

* * *

Some experts claim that Sept. 11 was a day in which not much changed in regards to the interrelations of the nations and cultures of the world.

Globalization today continues unabated. The world economy hasn't collapsed. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, continue to flock into the US.

On the morning of Sept. 11, the Washington Post carried a page 1 story: "Israeli Tanks Encircle a City in West Bank." That day's New York Times had an inside piece on "Iran Denial on Nuclear Weapons."

Such headlines "suggest that our pre-9/11 preoccupations are certainly not that different from those we carry today," writes William Dobson, managing editor of Foreign Policy, in the current issue.

True, anti-Americanism is on the rise. Radical Islamists have declared holy war on the US, its Western allies, and Saudi Arabia and other long-standing Arab regimes.

But these trends date from the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the rise of the US as a global hegemon, states Mr. Dobson. The shock of Sept. 11 simply made Americans aware of what the world was already like.

"The attacks ... have not altered the balance of power," he writes. "Instead, they only aggravated differences in the imbalance that already existed."

Others say that the strikes made Americans feel their vulnerability - and that such a shift in self-image is itself a profound change. Absent 9/11, the US would have been highly unlikely to invade Afghanistan. Absent Afghanistan, the Bush administration might have faced insuperable military and political problems with regard to the subsequent invasion of Iraq.

And it is the presence of large numbers of US troops which has helped spur anti-Americanism in the region. Those troops may have given disaffected Muslims, unhappy with the shortcomings of their own economic and political structures, something else on which to focus their ire.

Much of the hostility that some Islamists bear toward the US "is driven by one of the most powerful of human emotions, a sense of indignity and humiliation," says Lawrence Harrison, an adjunct lecturer in international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "That's a quite new foreign- policy problem."

Overall, Islamic jihadism is one of the biggest geopolitical winners of the past five years, according to Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

Before Sept. 11, the beliefs represented by Osama bin Laden represented a "niche ideology," Mr. Daalder writes in his Web log at TPMCafe.com. But the US invasion of Iraq, coupled with wide publicity of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and other US abuses, has fueled the rage of millions in the region and pushed them toward Islam's radical fringe.

Rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea have also benefited from the changed world of 9/11, according to Daalder. The US has focused its power and attention elsewhere, allowing them to push forward with domestic nuclear programs.

"The final clear winner is China, which during the past five years has emerged as a dominant global player without anyone, at least in America or Europe, paying it much attention," writes Daalder.

Losers over the past five years include bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Radical Islamism may be on the rise, but it has become dispersed as US forces have hunted and smashed Al Qaeda's direct organization.

Trust in the US has also eroded substantially since 9/11, according to Daalder, among friends as well as adversaries. International cooperation on a wide range of problems, from counter-proliferation to global warming, is thus "increasingly absent," he claims.

But international cooperation played a large role in last month's arrests in England of suspects charged with planning to destroy transatlantic aircraft. And other experts say Europe is increasingly aware that it may be the terrorists' new focus.

* * *

If 9/11 was an alarm bell, it took Europe a long time to stir.

Months went by, years even, before it began to wake up to the dangers posed by terrorists. After all, until that point, all the major Al Qaeda attacks had targeted American interests. Although Europeans understood that the world had changed, they didn't sense they were vulnerable.

"When the attack took place in America, it should have served as a major wake-up call for Europeans, but it didn't," says M.J. Gohel, a terrorism expert and director of the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation think tank. "Security services were growing concerned about the threat, but at the political level there was failure, no strategy devised."

That only changed when the terror threat erupted on European soil, first in Madrid in 2004, and then a year later in London. After Madrid, the European Union appointed an antiterror chief, Gijs de Vries. But Mr. de Vries's role is restricted; he has little executive authority.

Part of Europe's problem, as ever, is its patchwork nature. Some countries, particularly those with troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, feel more exposed than others, and hence feel greater urgency to act. Britain, the Netherlands, and Denmark, which arrested a suspected terror cell last week, feel they are among the most vulnerable. Finland and Slovenia may feel relatively immune by contrast.

Another problem is the differing legal and judicial systems in the different countries. Some have muscular laws for detaining suspects; others do not. Some have brought in robust, even authoritarian antiterror laws; others have not. Some have tolerated firebrand clerics spouting hate in mosques; others have taken a dim view of such antics, and have deported the culprits.

"There are now 25 countries in the EU, whereas the US is just one country," says Mr. Dohel. "The US can seal its borders and coordinate action with its centralized intelligence agencies. In Europe, we're expanding our borders without any centralized intelligence agencies brought into place."

In this context, the sharing of important information can be a problem. For example, the alleged plot to blow up trans atlantic airlines was uncovered by close collaboration between British, US, and Pakistani intelligence services. Other European agencies were frozen out, not out of pique or negligence, but to prevent a leak, which might have compromised the operation.

The hundreds of arrests across Europe in recent years suggest that police and intelligence agencies have upped their game. Yet there have been few successful prosecutions. In Britain, for example, there have been some 1,000 arrests since 9/11 under terrorism legislation, but barely 20 convictions.

* * *

While Europe may have become a target and center of operations for terrorist cells, the US and Islam are the two poles around which 21st-century geopolitics may increasingly revolve.

This does not necessarily mean that the world is enduring a "clash of civilizations," as defined by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington's 1996 book of that name. Dr. Huntington himself has said that hasn't happened; and that Islam and the West now simply have many issues between them, with some handled more successfully than others.

Many Muslims see Al Qaeda killing other Muslims in the name of religion, and are repulsed. As Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq shows, Islam isn't homogeneous.

"You have a lot of complexity within Islam itself," says Mr. Harrison.

Yet on one thing Muslims appear to agree: nearly 90 percent of the public in Islamic countries view the US as the primary security threat to their country, according to Mr. Singer.

The events of 9/11 have opened the world's eyes to a new conflict, driven by mutual hurt, fear, and suspicion.

"The conflict is not a battle between, but rather a battle within. It is not two blocs locked in battle ... but about a new global construct of mutual insecurity that has emerged," writes Singer in his analysis of the events of 9/11 five years on.

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.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0911/p01s02-usgn.html ***

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Palast Charged with Journalism in the First Degree
(A Newsletter Excerpt)

September 11, 2006
by Greg Palast

It's true. It's weird. It's nuts. The Department of Homeland Security, after a five-year hunt for Osama, has finally brought charges against … Greg Palast. I kid you not. Send your cakes with files to the Air America wing at Guantanamo.

Though not just yet. Fatherland Security has informed me that television producer Matt Pascarella and I have been charged with unauthorized filming of a "critical national security structure" in Louisiana.

On August 22, for LinkTV and Democracy Now! we videotaped the thousands of Katrina evacuees still held behind a barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It's been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of W) are still in this aluminum ghetto in the middle of nowhere. One resident, Pamela Lewis said, “It is a prison set-up" -- except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.

To give a sense of the full flavor and smell of the place, we wanted to show that this human parking lot, with kids and elderly, is nearly adjacent to the Exxon Oil refinery, the nation's second largest, a chemical-belching behemoth.

So we filmed it. Without Big Brother's authorization. Uh, oh. Apparently, the broadcast of these stinking smokestacks tipped off Osama that, if his assassins pose as poor Black folk, they can get a cramped Airstream right next to a "critical infrastructure" asset.

So now Matt and I have a "criminal complaint" lodged against us with the feds.

The positive side for me as a journalist is that I get to see our terror-busters in action. I should note that it took the Maxwell Smarts at Homeland Security a full two weeks to hunt us down.

Frankly, we were a bit scared that, given the charges, we wouldn't be allowed on a plane into New York last night. But what scared us more is that we were allowed on the plane.

Once I was traced, I had a bit of an other-worldly conversation with my would-be captors. Detective Frank Pananepinto of Homeland Security told us, "This is a 'Critical Infrastructure' … and they get nervous about unauthorized filming of their property.

Well, me too, Detective. In fact, I'm very nervous that this potential chemical blast-site can be mapped in extreme detail at this Google Map location

What also makes me nervous is that the Bush Terror Terriers have kindly indicated on the Internet that this unprotected critical infrastructure can be targeted -- I mean located -- at 30º 29' 11" N Latitude and 91º 11' 39" W Longitude.

After I assured Detective Pananepinto, "I can swear to you that I'm not part of Al Qaeda," he confirmed that, "Louisiana is still part of the United States," subject to the first amendment and he was therefore required to divulge my accuser.

Not surprisingly, it was Exxon Corporation, one of a handful of companies not in love with my investigations. [See "A Well-Designed Disaster: the Untold Story of the Exxon Valdez."]

So I rang America's top petroleum pusher-men and asked their media relations honcho in Houston, Marc Boudreaux, a simple question. "Do you want us to go to jail or not? Is it Exxon's position that reporters should go to jail?" Because, all my dumb-ass jokes aside, that is what's at stake. And Exxon knew we were journalists because we showed our press credential to the Exxon guards at the refinery entrance.

The Exxon man was coy: "Well, we'll see what we can find out…. Obviously it's important to national security that we have supplies from that refinery in the event of an emergency."

Really? According to the documents our team uncovered from the offices of Exxon's lawyer, Mr. James Baker, the oil industry is more than happy to see a limit on worldwide crude production. Indeed, the current squeeze has jacked the price of oil from $24 a barrel to $64 and refined products have jumped yet higher -- resulting in a record-busting profit for Exxon of nearly $1 billion per week.

So this silly "criminal complaint" has nothing to do with stopping Al Qaeda or keeping the oil flowing. It has everything to do with obstructing news reports in a way that no one would have dared attempt before the September 11 attack.

Dectective Pananepinto, in justifying our impending bust, said, "If you remember, a lot of people were killed on 9/11."

Yes, Detective, I remember that very well: my office was in the World Trade Center. Lucky for me, I was out of town that day. It was not a lucky day for 3,000 others.

Yes, I remember "a lot" of people were killed. So I have this suggestion, Detective -- and you can pass it on to Mr. Bush: Go and find the people who killed them.

It's been five years and the Bush regime has not done that. Instead, the War on Terror is reduced to taking off our shoes in airports, hoping we can bomb Muslims into loving America and chasing journalists around the bayou. Meanwhile, King Abdullah, the Gambino of oil, whose princelings funded the murderers, gets a free ride in the President's golf cart at the Crawford ranch.

I guess I shouldn't complain. After all, Matt and I look pretty good in orange.


*******

A personal request to readers. Many have written to ask what can be done to protect Matt and me from becoming unwilling guests of the State.

First, this ain't no foolin' around: Matt and I are facing these nutty charges. So spread the info. We believe that getting the word out is the best defense.

Second, call Homeland Security and turn us in. They seem to have trouble finding us. If you get a reward, you may choose to donate it to the Palast Investigative Fund, a 501(c)(3) educational foundation which supports our work and pays our legal fees.

Third, ask your local library to order our book, Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf? Homeland Security now reserves the right to read over your shoulder at the library; therefore, the more our agents are forced to read this subversive material, the more likely we can convince them to come in out of the cold. All kidding aside, we do ask you to request your library order the book: not everyone can afford to purchase this hardbound edition.

Our thanks to Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! and the folks at LinkTV for broadcasting our report from New Orleans and the Exxon refinery. And to Gil Noble, host of the ABC Television's Like It Is, our Courage in Journalism award for broadcasting our report on his network's New York affiliate. Catch Gil on WABC every Sunday at noon.

In response to a deluge of requests for a copy of the New Orleans documentary, we are preparing a DVD.

To contact us click on the following address: http://www.gregpalast.com/ .......

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Social Security to be Phased Out in 2007
By
Josh Marshall
Still don't believe Social Security is on the ballot this November?

In an interview published today in The Wall Street Journal (sub.req.), President Bush told editorial page editor Paul Gigot that next year he plans on partially phasing out Social Security and replacing it with private accounts, and that he thinks he can do it as long as the Republicans retain control of Congress, which he thinks they will.

Details after the jump.

Here's the beginning of Gigot's piece on his interview aboard Air Force One ...

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE
--
Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

"That's not going to happen," snaps the president of the United States, leaning across his desk in his airborne office. He had been saying that he hoped to revisit Social Security reform next year, when he "will be able to drain the politics out of the issue," and I rudely interrupted by noting the polls predicting Ms. Pelosi's ascension.

"I just don't believe it," the president insists. "I believe the Republicans will end up being -- running the House and the Senate. And the reason why I believe it is because when our candidates go out and talk about the strength of this economy, people will say their tax cuts worked, their plan worked. . . . And secondly, that this is a group of people that understand the stakes of the world in which we live and are willing to help this unity government in Iraq succeed for the sake of our children and grandchildren, and that we are steadfast in our belief in the capacity of liberty to bring peace."

Love or loathe President George W. Bush, you can't say he lacks the courage of his convictions. Down in the polls, with the American people in a sour mood over Iraq, Mr. Bush isn't changing his policy or hunkering down in the Oval Office. Instead he's doubling down, investing whatever scarce political capital he has to frame the November contest as a choice over the economy and taxes and especially over his prosecution of the war on terror.

He won't stop talking about it. Privatizing Social Security has always been Bush's central domestic policy goal. And he knows 2007 is his last and best chance so long as Republicans hold control of Congress.

It's also no accident he raises the issue in an interview with conservative columnist Gigot. The White House doesn't want to broadcast his interest in phasing out Social Security. But they very much do want to create what amounts to a paper trail so that after a potential Republican victory they can argue that they contested the election on the basis of privatization and their win gives them a mandate.

That is exactly what's happening here.

Every Democratic candidate for congressional office this year who doesn't do everything they can to force his or her opponent to give a clear answer on whether or not they support Social Security phase out doesn't deserve to be in Congress.

It's as simple as that.

If you care about saving Social Security, your work and energy is needed right now.

login or register to post comments
Sep 9, 2006 -- 03:43:54 PM EST | Tags: Social Security
On September 10, 2006 - 6:45pm Cubsfan said:
Whichever party is in control after the election is going to have to deal with Social Security sooner or later. delay is a very costly proposition for our children and grandchildren. Those who downplay the problem, and who suggest that reform isn’t necessary, are badly disconnected from the factual evidence and are doign a disservice to those who are relying on the program.

Just a few tidbits, which people are free to look up in the Trustees' reports for themselves:
-- Under current estimates, Social Security’s expenditures will surpass tax revenues by 2017.
--By 2035, the program’s projected annual cost of $1.3 trillion (adjusted for inflation) will equal 6.4 percent of GDP and 17.4 percent of taxable payroll, an increase of roughly 50 percent above current levels.
-- The projected 75-year deficit is already now much bigger than the one that confronted the Greenspan Commission in a "crisis atmosphere" in 1981-83, yet some say there's no problem now.
-- In the 1991 Trustees’ report, the date of first deficits was projected as 2017 – exactly the same as predicted today. The lack of net movement in the date since 1991 means that we’ve now frittered away 15 of the 26 years of lead time we had then, though nothing has happened to suggest that the situation will be any better.
--the Intermediate estimates in use since 1983 have been, on balance, somewhat too optimistic.

Higher economic growth alone will not significantly change the Social Security financing burden. Social Security costs increase with economic growth because benefit levels grow as fast as the economy. Faster economic growth may modestly improve long-term actuarial balance of the trust fund, but it does so by swelling the trust fund with increased short-term revenues without addressing the long-term financing shortfalls. Whether or not you support individual accounts, policymakers need to step up and make some tough choices to put the system on sound financial footing. Opposing accounts will not solve the fundamental problems facing Social Security. It's fine to oppose the specific solutions that the President has put forward, but to suggest that we shouldn't even be discussing the issue is irresponsible.

login or register to post comments | link | Rated 4 by one user.
On September 10, 2006 - 7:26pm Tom Wright said:
Many of us are suspicious of the concern over Social Security not because there aren't challenges, but because there are more immediate financial challenges, starting with Medicare, and including current deficits and balance-of-trade worries. Then there's that too-flat tax rate structure.

So an apparently undue emphasis on SS looks ideological.

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 10, 2006 - 10:19am Tennessean said:

More on Bush's "Income Redistribution Plan" -- aside from astronomical corporate profits, zero corporate taxation levels, we also have the "GWOT" and it is costing you plenty:

62,006 - the number killed in the 'war on terror'

By David Randall and Emily Gosden Published: 10 September 2006

"The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth...."

"...The extraordinary scale of the conflict's impact, claiming lives from New York to Bali and London to Lahore, and the extent of the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged from an Independent on Sunday survey to mark the fifth anniversary of 11 September.

"It used new, unpublished data supplied by academics and organisations such as Iraq Body Count and Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire, plus estimates given by other official studies. The result is the first attempt to gauge the full cost in blood and money of the worldwide atrocities and military conflicts that began in September 2001...."

"...Beyond the blood price, there is a dollar and sterling cost. In July it was reported that the US Congress had approved $437bn (£254bn) for costs related to the "war on terror".

"This, a sum greater than those spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars, compares to the $375bn that Make Poverty History says is needed to clear the debts of the world's poorest nations. The British Government has spent £4.5bn on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Full story: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/ article1433404.ece

login or register to post comments | link | Rated 4 by 2 users.
On September 9, 2006 - 11:16pm Justin Case said:
Am I a moron (wouldn't be the first time)? It seems like people on here are replying to posts that I can't seem to find, like this quotation (which I can see in the reply, but there doesn't appear to be an original post...):

"Social Security - a convenient way to dump the care of YOUR elderly parents in others' laps. I would rather see my kids pay into their 401K and reap the long term bnefits."

Finally, I think this is a winner of an issue to publicize - SS privatization, the return! Privatization got crushed last time, and I can't see why opinion might have changed in the last year or so. Of course, it does seem to add to the incentives not to be the minority party in all branches of the Federal government anymore - if we keep losing elections, the Republicans will eventually succeed in trashing just about every bit of protection we have (of which, by the standards of the developed world, we already have relatively little).

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 10, 2006 - 10:35am Tom Wright said:
Some troll posts have been zero-rated by "trusted users" and thus disappear. Check your preferences at page bottom to see if you can choose to show "low-rated comments".

Go on-site to add to, or just read the other comments, and to access any links and photo's if provided, just click on the following addresses:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/09/social_security_to_be_phased_out_in_2007

http://www.buzzflash.com

[Saundra Hummer]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"We are the ruling race of the world. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . He has marked us as his chosen people. . . . He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples." : Sen. Alfred Beveridge

~~~

"I firmly believe that when any territory outside the present territorial limits of the United States becomes necessary for our defense or essential for our commercial development, we ought to lose no time in acquiring it." : Sen. Orville Platt of Connecticut 1894.

~~~

“Between 1898 and 1934, the Marines invaded Cuba 4 times, Nicaragua 5 times, Honduras 7 times, the Dominican Republic 4 times, Haiti twice, Guatemala once, Panama twice, Mexico 3 times and Columbia 4 times,” Washington has intervened militarily in foreign countries more than 200 times.”

~~~

"If the people are not convinced (that the Free World is in mortal danger) it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert danger. With the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. It is our Job - yours and mine -- to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build up America's might." -- Charles Wilson, Chairman of the Board of General Electric and Truman appointee to head the Office of Defence Mobilization, in a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association, 1950

The quotes above are from the book, "Addicted To War" http://www.addictedtowar.com

~~~~~

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

RSS FEED: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/rssfeed.xml
~~~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?

By
Paul Craig Roberts

09/11/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Alexander Hamilton is often portrayed as an early advocate of strong central government. But even Hamilton understood the danger from government. In the Federalist Papers he wrote:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

I would be more confident of the survival of democracy and civil liberty in the United States if, on this fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a majority of Americans were reading David Ray Griffin’s challenging new book, “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11.”

It is an inexpensive book and available quickly from online booksellers. A person only needs to read the first 56 pages to realize that the official account of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings has many problems and that defenders of the official account have no hard evidence upon which to stand.

On pages 57-75, Griffin summarizes the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission’s incredible tale of flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. The official account is a story of improbable incompetence and failure.

On pages 76-82, Griffin concludes that the failure of the 9/11 Commission Report to produce a believable account or even to acknowledge the most important known facts is itself a conclusive case that the report is a cover-up.

Griffin believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation to provide the neoconservative Bush regime with a “new Pearl Harbor” excuse to launch its imperial ambitions for hegemony in the Middle East and beyond. On pages 85-106, Griffin provides an excellent summary of the neocon agenda and how it was enabled by 9/11.

Griffin expects no further investigation from Congress, official commissions, and government agencies, such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Although Griffin calls on the New York Times to take up the investigation, he does not expect any investigative interest on the part of the media, which has served as a propagandist for the government’s story.

Instead, Griffin places his hope in Christian churches. He calls upon the churches to confront the evil that has America in its grip.

Is the hope that Griffin places on Christian churches realistic? Many of the right-wing evangelical churches are fanatical supporters of the Bush administration and Republican Party. The Rapture churches actually look forward to the Armageddon that they believe Bush is brewing in the Middle East as they think it will bring about their ascent into Heaven.

The attack by conservative Presbyterians on Griffin’s publisher, the Presbyterian Westminister John Knox Press, for publishing his book is more indication that the protestant churches might not be up to the job that Griffin assigns to them. Conservative Presbyterians, who have not read Griffin’s book and whose comprehension of events is dependent on right-wing radio talk shows and Fox “News,” demanded retribution against the John Knox Press for daring to publish a work so blasphemous as to cast doubt on the motives of President Bush and the U.S. Government.

Scientists tend to believe that facts and analysis can prevail over emotions such as those of the conservative Presbyterians. BYU physics professor Steven Jones is one of those scientists. Jones believed that it was safe for him to point out that there appears to be a large energy deficit in the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings. He is prepared for this question to be settled by scientific inquiry and analysis and has called for an independent panel of experts. Jones overlooked that universities, and especially physics departments, are dependent on government research grants. People dependent on government research grants are not independent. Jones, himself has now been placed on paid leave by BYU. The message is clear. The debate is over.

Elected Republican officials, both governors and senators, have demanded the firing of every academic who has expressed doubts about the official line on 9/11. And now a U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Donald Buswell, is being accused of sending an email message “disloyal to the United States.” Apparently, Buswell is guilty of expressing doubts that the airliners alleged to have hit the Pentagon and to have crashed in Pennsylvania would have been vaporized by the impacts. It should scare all Americans that reaching a logical conclusion is an act disloyal to the U.S. government.

It has always been the case that the untutored emotions of ignorant people are material that enable evil deeds. Recognizing that emotion is a powerful shield against facts and that American disbelief in their government’s bad behavior is the government’s best protection when it behaves badly, Griffin opens his book with a short history of well known false flag operations, both by the US and other countries. It is a sobering account.

So much factual information about 9/11 has been kept from the public that we owe it to ourselves and to our country to read Griffin’s brief presentation. I find the facts against the official story of the buildings’ collapse more compelling than the case that has been made in behalf of the official story. I would like to see the issue debated by independent scientists and engineers, if such people exist.

Few Americans understand that an enormous amount of energy was required to produce such a total collapse of the buildings and to pulverize so many tons of concrete, furniture, and office equipment into fine dust. What was the source of this energy, and how did it act so suddenly? The damage to the buildings from airliners was asymmetrical and the fires were scattered. WTC 7 was not hit by an airliner. Yet, all three buildings collapsed symmetrically as if there was no resistance and all structural support crumbled almost instantly.

The function of government commissions is to reassure the public. The fact that the 9/11 Commission came up with a story that is not well supported by the evidence might simply reflect the over-riding political need to reassure the public.

I think that we can accept Griffin’s conclusion that the evidence does not fit the Commission’s story. A real investigation is needed to find an explanation consistent with the evidence, even if it doesn’t reassure the public. But I don’t think this will happen. Even Internet sites that are anti-war, anti-Bush, and independent of the mainstream media, such as Antiwar.com and CounterPunch refuse to post objective reporting about the 9/11 skeptics’ arguments. BYU has closed down the seminars that Jones was holding for his academic peers where his views could be tested by competent authorities. I suspect that other credible skeptics will find pressures brought against them as well.

All of this suggests to me that there is something to hide. If Professor Jones, for example, is wrong about there being insufficient energy in the official account to explain the destruction of the buildings, discussions and debates with his academic peers would bring this out. There is no justification for the university administration to intervene in a matter of scientific inquiry, or for people who know nothing about science to serve as gatekeepers for neoconservative ideologues by branding skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” “Conspiracy theorist” is used to suppress debate about
9/11 just as “anti-semite” is used to suppress debate about Israel’s policies.

Of course, Jones and Griffin were not allowed to express their doubts of the official story without being pressed to offer their explanations. Jones offered the hypothesis that explosives were used and called for the testing of any surviving evidence.

Griffin went further and threw down the gauntlet. He accuses the Bush administration of the deed.

My role in this is as a reporter. I do believe that 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to launch aggressive wars in the Middle East and that it is not the administration’s intent to end the aggression in Iraq. Whether 9/11 was merely convenient for the administration or whether the administration had a hand in it, I do not know.

I am reconciled to the fact that our free democratic society is incapable of producing an inquiry that can arrive at the truth about
9/11.

Paul Craig Roberts , was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington ; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice

Go on-site for any links or follow up or related articles by clicking on the link below:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
No Mercy
"Character teaches above our wills. Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions,
and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment." ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

By
Sheila Samples

09/11/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- A year after triumphantly declaring that work in the Gulf Coast region would be "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen," after promising that "Americans will look back at the response to Hurricane Katrina and say that our country grew not only in prosperity, but also in character and justice," George Bush had the audacity to return to New Orleans.

Unbelievable.

Bush wore the same blue photo-op shirt of a year ago, with sleeves rolled up to show he meant business. With his trademark nod and wink, he said he accepted full responsibility for the government's breakdown in responding to the devastation -- a breakdown which cost many additional lives. After adding that he'd learned his lesson, Bush then launched into his incoherent, all-too-familiar babble that help is on the way.

As I listened to Bush articulate (sic) his "vision" of a "bright dawn" emerging over New Orleans -- watched him peer off in the distance at the brigades of Saints that only he could see "marching home," I wondered if he gave any thought to the bodies of the lost still lying trapped in the debris so close to where he was standing. I wondered if the desperate families who remain broken and scattered throughout the country could see his lofty vision through their tears as they received notices from FEMA that their housing benefits are terminated, their utilities assistance cut off, their insurance claims denied.

In the last five years, George Bush and the greedy corporate mobsters who surround him have taught people throughout the world a lot about prosperity, character, justice -- and about racism. Those innocents who have a right to expect justice in their lives and character in their leaders hit free-market's blind-eyed and cold-shouldered wall in New Orleans. Too late, too many learned that, in George Bush's world, prosperity is for those who can afford it. In George Bush's world there is no safe haven for the poverty stricken or the dispossessed if they are Black -- especially if they are Black.

When Bush speaks, I never know if I'm laughing or crying. I keep hearing strange hyena-like barks of laughter, yet tears stream down my cheeks. Bush is big on role-playing wherever he goes, and -- disregarding the anguished cries of American citizens still pleading for help -- he said his role in New Orleans is "to encourage entrepreneurship." He's excited about his Go Zone legislation, which will give corporations and small businesses tax incentives to invest in the area. Bush said, "the people of this region are looking to corporate America to see if they're here for the long haul...New Orleans is going to rise again," he told business leaders, "and by planting your corporate flag here now and contributing to this city's rebirth, you'll gain some loyal customers when times get better..."

Yep. Plant them corporate flags, boys, 'cause the south's gonna rise again. In all its racist glory.

Strange that the general consensus seems to be FEMA stumbled and fell into the pit of its own incompetence. I hate to be a party pooper, but there's no way any government agency could be so woefully inept on every front. When you consider that martial law was declared immediately; that police, miltary, and armed contractor troops were immediately on site -- not to retrieve bodies floating in the water nor to bury those who lay dead in the streets, but to keep the hungry and thirsty victims from stealing food and water -- when you consider that from 8,000 to 10,000 residents of the St. Bernard Housing Project were immediately locked out of their homes, and FEMA immediately built a formidable iron fence around the project and padlocked it so they could not return; that all national, even worldwide, efforts to help were seamlessly blocked -- it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that FEMA's response was immediate, and thorough as well.

For example, in the Sept. 5, 2005 Daily Kos, diarist DavidNYC posted just a few of what he said were FEMA's "rank failures." Could be, but after turning away experienced firefighters, turning back WalMart supply trucks, preventing the Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel, blocking the Red Cross from delivering food to starving refugees, barring morticians from assisting with the dead, turning back a five-mile-long, 500-boat citizen flotilla which arrived to take the stranded, the injured, the ill and the frail to safety, refusing to use a Navy ship in the area with a 600-bed hospital and medical staff on board, infuriating Chicago's mayor by refusing massive aid while accepting just one truck, and ordering first responders "not to respond," I'd have to say it's possible to conclude that FEMA was up and running and Michael "Brownie" Brown did, indeed, do a heckuva job.

This is America. We don't withhold food and water from starving citizens. We don't turn our backs on human beings in this country who are pleading for help, drowning -- crying out for mercy... Or so we thought. However, if the onslaught and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina taught us nothing else, it is that the middle and lower segments of our society are little more than collateral damage when the destruction of their lives and property serves a political agenda...

The glee with which pundits, media propagandists and politicians pounced on the opportunity offered by the Katrina disaster to rid the city of its poverty population, especially those who owned homes on valuable real estate, is sickening. Baton Rouge Republican Rep. Richard Baker chortled to lobbyists about the more than 1,700 people killed and hundreds of thousands of others displaced, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert agreed. With breathtaking indifference to the plight of property owners and displaced families, Hastert said, "It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level....It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."

It is obvious that the "bright dawn" Bush sees rising over the Big Easy is, in reality, a "white dawn" -- a smaller, whiter city with fewer poor folks. In their brilliant synopsis of the sheer opportunistic evil permeating New Orleans reconstruction, Adolph Reed and Stephen Steinberg write in the Black Commentator, "...the Housing Authority of New Orleans has shut down its public-housing operations, and informed landlords of people assisted by federal rent vouchers that government rent subsidies for impacted units have been suspended indefinitely."

The authors point out the obvious -- "If public housing and affordable housing in New Orleans are not rebuilt, if rent subsidies are withheld, then what 'choice' do people have but to relocate elsewhere? The certain result will be 'a smaller and stronger New Orleans,' depleted of its poverty population."

Thus, if the government has anything to do with it, those airlifted and taken by bus from the area, families split, parents separated from their children, will relocate elsewhere -- permanently. They are no longer welcome in a city where not Saints, but private corporations, developers and Bush's beloved "entrepreneurs" are marching in...

At least one person was a bit uneasy about the prospect of so many evacuees relocating in her state, even if they were better off. Former first lady Barbara Bush, the current president's mother, looked at the black sea of humanity packed into the relentless heat of the Houston Astrodome, and commented, "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them."

Yes. Being crammed into an arena in unfamiliar surroundings with no food, water or possessions is just another ho-hum day in the life of the poor, and always good for a chuckle, isn't it? Is there anything about the demons and trolls who run this country that is not totally incomprehensible, raging mad -- desperately absurd? Not a single one appears to possess the character -- the ethical "gravity" it would take to bring them down to reality from their fantastical delusions.

Which brings us back to FEMA. Bush said FEMA had learned its lesson and would be "ready" for the next disaster. No doubt. The next time Bush declares martial law, Halliburton's KBR should have the detention facilities, for which it received a $385 million contract in January, ready and waiting. According to a KBR release, the camps call for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a national disaster." Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reins of government to FEMA. State and local governments will be under military control.

Is there hope for American citizens like those in New Orleans whose lives have been, continue to be, destroyed by cruel indifference? Yes, of course, but it will take citizens like you and me to stand up for what we know is right, to repair our shredded Constitution, and breathe new life into our comatose Bill of Rights.

We were warned every step of the way. We have been insulted and deceived, our courts dismantled, our Congress neutered, our children murdered in an illegal, genocidal war, our elections stolen, our tax dollars wasted. Today, we are stranded on our own rooftops, pleading for a November 2006 rescue.

Well, help is not on the way. It is up to us. We must check the voting records of every single Congressperson and of every single Senator -- Republican and Democrat. Those who violated their oath to protect the U.S. Constitution from enemies within must be shown no mercy. They are devoid of character and of virtue. In concert with the man in the blue photo-op shirt with the sleeves rolled up, they maliciously turn the other way while sending American citizens to their deaths. They are disloyal -- treasonous. Together, they have disgraced this great nation. They must go.

Only then will the wounds inflicted from New York to New Orleans to Iraq begin to heal.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comments (9)

Go on-site to access links and to check related articles by clicking on the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14926.htm::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
9.11.06
Even on 9/11, neocon chickenhawks can't refrain from straw men attacks
In case you thought the anniversary of 9/11 would tone down the rhetoric and the dishonest creation of straw men that don't exist, think again. Over the last week, we've been treated to some good ol' fashioned McCarthyism - that is, attacks on unnamed groups of people who supposedly advocate for signing a peace treaty with Osama bin Laden, and who supposedly think President Bush is a greater enemy to our country than terrorists.
There was Rush Limbaugh on CBS last week who said:
"Some say we should try diplomacy...Some Americans, sadly, are not interested in victory...Critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill."
Then, like clockwork, the Democratic Leadership Council chimed in through their spokesman Marshall Wittman, a former top official for the Christian Coalition. In his 9/11 piece shedding crocodile tears for the rise of polarization he purports to hate, he makes this outrageously polarizing and inflammatory statement:


"Some believe that our President is a greater threat to our security than the Islamic-fascists."
You'll notice, of course, that neither Limbaugh or the DLC actually names anyone. Instead, like the loyal McCarthyist disciples they are, they prefer to use the nebulous "some." Why? Because they can't actually name any single political figure who even comes close to fitting their dishonest descriptions. But because these two chickenhawks who helped push us into war while hiding behind their pundit chairs need to feel big and manly and tough because they were always made fun of and beat up on the kickball field and mocked for wetting their beds as children they feel the need to resort to making up strawmen.

Honestly, I really thought this kind of thing would stop, at least for 24 hours, so that the country could mourn the dead. Apparently, though, there is no line that cannot be crossed anymore if you are a right-wing talk show host, or a spokesman for a corporate-funded, neocon front group in Washington. All of this - the dead victims, the sickened first responders - is just one big joke to people like Limbaugh and Wittman. So blinded by their desperation to promote themselves, they are willing to defile even the most sacred of days.

Posted by David Sirota at 2:38 PM | Link | Discuss (13)

categories: National Insecurity
::
Since 9/11, we’ve come so far yet progressed so little
On the 5 year anniversary of 9/11, it is important to remember how far we've come in some areas, and how little progress we've made in others.
A quick look at the political landscape shows we've gone from a time where both parties pledged to work together in a bipartisan fashion to go after terrorists, to a 2002 midterm campaign where President Bush accused his opponents of "not being interested in the security of the American people," to a 2004 campaign where the White House resorted to using the government's homeland security warnings to prop up its poll numbers, to a 2006 campaign where senior Republican senators like Sen. Mike DeWine (R) who behaved like irresponsible yes-men on the Intelligence Committee before 9/11 now attack their opponents for trying to fix the intelligence apparatus before disaster struck. So - in terms of politicians making solemn pledges of bipartisanship and then quickly defiling the memories of victims for their own political gain, unfortunately we've come a long way, baby.

Where we haven't moved very far is on treating the survivors of 9/11's aftermath with a minimum amount of dignity. As CBS's 60 Minutes detailed this weekend, the Bush administration and the New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration both ignored the plight of thousands of first responders who have become severely ill from dust inhalation at Ground Zero. Worse, it has become clear these two politicians used their power to pretend the air quality at Ground Zero was perfectly healthy, misleading these now-sickened first responders into thinking they didn't need to take more serious precautions to protect themselves. The White House had the asbestos industry lobbyist heading the government's Council on Environmental Quality doctor press releases to reassure these workers that everything was fine.

We also haven't seen much progress in actually securing this country. As I noted in a post late last week, the White House's Iraq obsession was responsible for allowing Osama bin Laden to escape, the Iraq War has turned into a giant recruiting advertisement for radical Islamic jihadists, the GOP has refused to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Congress has prioritized tax cuts over homeland security priorities - and country club conservative pundits, most of them chickenhawks who refused to serve when they had their chance, cheer it all on, as President Bush behaves like a WWF wrestler, screaming "bring it on" to terrorists from the safe confines of a secret service-guaded podium that sits thousands of miles away from the frontlines. Meanwhile, as if mimmicking a real-life version of Clockwork Orange, we're all supposed to sit in a trance and watch ABC's 9/11 fantasy-fiction-as-documentary production, and forget that the Bush White House was aggressively trying to slash counter-terrorism funding before 9/11, even as it was receiving red-alert warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack.
Go on-site to access this article, and it's numerous links, as well as other articles relative to this one:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

[Saundra Hummer]

............. Rick Santorum Ad
"Important Job"

Johnny Santorum: My dad's opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more.
Daniel Santorum: And they criticized us for attending a Pennsylvania public school over the Internet.
Elizabeth Santorum: And he votes in Washington almost 40 weeks some years. And when he's not voting...
Peter Santorum: Dad's traveling all across Pennsylvania. 67 counties.
Patrick Santorum: That's a lot.
Johnny Santorum: Our dad works hard for the people of Pennsylvania, but one thing he's made very clear to us...
Sarah Maria Santorum: Being our dad is his most important job he'll ever have.
Rick Santorum: I'm Rick Santorum, your Senator, and I approve this message
:: :: ::
Santorum's Family Affair
The senator puts his children in a TV ad saying opponents "criticized us," but the criticism really was levied at their father.

September 12, 2006

Summary

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum shows his children claiming that political opponents have criticized him "for moving us to Washington," and that "they criticized us for attending a Pennsylvania public school over the Internet." In fact, the critique was of Santorum, not his children. And the controversy was over money, not Santorum's family values.

The ad is Santorum's response to accusations by local officials that he exploited a Pennsylvania program that paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition for his children to be educated via a publicly supported Internet charter school while the family was living in Virginia.

Analysis

If all politics are indeed local, then where Santorum lives and who pays for his children's education may be at least as serious a re-election issue for him as Iraq or immigration. And indeed, Santorum's ad "Important Job" began running in Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, featuring his six children addressing just that issue.

"They criticized us"

In the ad 13-year-old Johnny Santorum says "My dad's opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more." And 11-year-old Daniel Santorum adds that "they criticized us for attending a Pennsylvania public school over the Internet."

That misstates matters. The criticism wasn't of Santorum's children, but of the senator himself. And it was not over moving the children to be near him, nor was it about choosing "public school" or "the Internet." Rather, it concerned whether Pennsylvania taxpayers should foot a very substantial bill for the Santorum brood's education-via-Internet from a Virginia suburb of Washington, DC.

From 2001 to 2004, five of Santorum's six children participated in classes at the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, an online charter school that serves children from kindergarten through 12th grade. The school is open to the children of Pennsylvania residents. Under state law, the local school districts of the residents pay 80 per cent of their per pupil costs toward the school's tuition. For the 2004-2005 academic year the tuition for Santorum's five children would have been $38,000. The controversy centers on whether or not the Santorums are "residents" of the Penn Hills School District which paid for part of the tuition.

The Santorums do own a home in Penn Hills, a suburb of Pittsburgh, but spend most of their time in the family's other home in Leesburg, VA, a suburb of Washington, D.C. Santorum's ad says that he moved his wife and kids to Virginia so his family "can be with him more" as he fulfills his responsibilities in the Senate. School district officials argued that despite the fact that the Santorums own a home in Penn Hills, they are not "residents." The School Board officially petitioned the state for the $73,000 that it says was wrongly paid to the cyber school over the four-year period. State officials sided with Santorum. During the summer of 2005 the Pennsylvania Department of Education denied the school district the requested funds, saying officials delayed too long in challenging the residency of the Santorums and that they were therefore still considered residents of Penn Hills.

The controversy was ultimately resolved in Sept. 2006 when the State agreed to pay $55,000 to the Penn Hills School District. The settlement was not characterized as a reimbursement for the Santorum's tuition, but instead as an admission that the Pennsylvania Department of Education issued conflicting deadlines for filing challenges. The Santorums were not a party to the agreement. They withdrew their children from the cyber school after the issue became public. The children are now homeschooled in Virginia.

Partisan Criticism?

Santorum has complained that the criticism is partisan. It first surfaced in local newspapers and then was championed by school-board member Erin Vecchio, who is also the chairwoman of the local Democratic committee. Vecchio says that the Santorums never lived fulltime in the Penn Hills home they bought in 1997. She told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, "You have to be able to prove you're a (Penn Hills) resident. He doesn't sleep there." Other Board members disagreed. Board member Heather Hoolahan said, "The problem is not with Senator Santorum. The problem is that the law is inherently flawed. He believed he was entitled to it, and that's a common misconception -- that taxpayer equals resident."

The battle over residency may be a bit of a flashback for the Senator, who in 1990 while seeking a seat in the House of Representatives criticized incumbent Doug Walgren for not living in the congressional district, but instead, in a wealthy Virginia suburb. When asked about this contrast during the televised debate with Democratic challenger Bob Casey on Meet the Press, Santorum had this to say :

Santorum: First off, he [Walgren] never owned a home in the district, ever, in 14 years. Let me finish. He never owned a home for 14 years, never had a residence there...I mean, the, the, the bottom line is that I, own a home there, I pay all—I pay my local taxes, I pay my state taxes, income taxes, I pay real estate taxes, and I have, and I can—and my driver’s license there, I vote there, my dentist is there. I mean, the bottom line is, yes, I have a job here in Washington, that’s what the people of Pennsylvania elected me to do. And I pay all my taxes there, and, and I want to be a father who’s with his children. And I own a home, I pay my taxes. My opponent didn’t own a home, and he didn’t pay his taxes.

- by James Ficaro



Sources
Daniel Reynolds, " Santorum school flap continues ," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 19 Nov. 2004.

Marc Levy, " Pa. offers deal over Santorum tuition ," Associated Press, 2 Sept. 2006.

Reid Frazier, "Board Revises Cyber Policy ," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 11 Aug. 2005.

"State Pays to settle Santorum tuition spat," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 2 Sept. 2006.

Amy McConnell Schaarsmith, "Penn Hills loses Santorum cyber school tuition fight," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 11 July 2005.
This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045

To access this and to subscribe go to their home page by clicking on the following link. On-site there are usually numerous links to items in the articles. Keeps you abreast of who is being truthful and who isn't..... It's a two way street>

http://www.factcheck.org