A Controversial and/or Informative Site [Archive] - Page 18

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 01:33 PM

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bush's SOTU:
Nixon Would Have Been Proud
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on January 24, 2007,

http://www.alternet.org/story/47090/
With 500 members of Congress packed into the peanut gallery, the attention of the nation's political and media establishments and millions of Americans hanging on his every word, the president of the United States gave his State of the Union address last night.

He does it every year -- it's in the Constitution!

Earlier yesterday, when asked by reporters what the best part of the speech was going to be, White House Spokesman Tony Snow replied, "You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds."

But those who were expecting some glittering bling-bling would have been disappointed; what made last night's SOTU noteworthy is that George W. Bush simply had nothing to say. It might have been the first time in American history.

Of course, everyone will pretend he said something important -- that it was a major address. The media will pick it apart and discuss its "significance"; lawmakers from both parties will quote bits and pieces of it to support or oppose this or that legislation; bloggers will remind us of what he said when he actually does the opposite and so on. But all you really need to know is that last night president George W. Bush could have come out on stage and, after pausing to let the ovation die down, he might have looked at the cameras with those beady little eyes and said, simply, "Folks, I got nothing. G'night!"

Yes, he went through the motions. After slowly making his way to the podium, straining to bear the weight of a 28 percent approval rating -- the lowest any president has had on the day of the Big Speech since Nixon's 1974 SOTU -- he engaged in a mini love-fest with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying, "I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker." It was, admittedly, a nice moment, even coming as it does 19 years after Pakistan had its first female prime minister.

He then gave a surprisingly smooth version of the usual boilerplate, laced heavily with tried-and-true focus-tested language. But consider what he really offered the American people last night, during what most folks consider to be a time of real crisis in this country.

The first 30 minutes focused on domestic issues. He said the "economy is on the move" and touted 41 months of job growth, even as new data released last week shows that income inequality is rising to "unprecedented" levels.

He called for a balanced budget -- the Fox camera caught new Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel laughing out loud -- and for earmark reform a week after the Dems passed a bill doing just that. He talked about "entitlement reform," saying that Social Security needed to be "saved" -- a narrative that economist Dean Baker calls Bush's "Social Security WMD story."

He told a nation with over 40 million people who lack health insurance that -- aside from poor children and the elderly -- "private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs." The centerpiece of his speech, if there was one, was a proposal for a standardized tax deduction of $7,500 for singles and $15,000 for families that would allow them to purchase a "basic private healthcare policy" -- code for the cheap, high-deductible plans that accompany those health savings accounts he's proposed in the past. It sounds good, but it's a nonstarter -- the tax credits would discourage younger, healthier people from buying decent coverage -- taking them out of the risk pool and increasing rates for everyone else -- and provide a disincentive for preventive care. American Prospect writer Ezra Klein called it "almost laughably wrongheaded," and said it "won't survive an instant in Congress. Pete Stark, chair of the House Health Subcommittee, has already dismissed the idea of hearings." It was, like the rest, much ado about nothing.

On immigration, the president again said he'd double border patrols and called for a civil debate leading to "comprehensive reform." It was the only time he got more applause from the Democratic side of the aisle than from the Republicans. I should note that despite a near-rebellion among his base over the issue, Bush has yet to offer a concrete proposal on immigration, instead mumbling positive words about various measures put forth in the Senate last year. More nothing.

On energy, he said that technology would ultimately wean us from our addiction to oil just one day after a high-powered group of business leaders, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, declared that inventing new technology isn't enough.

His proposal to increase mileage standards and reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over the next ten years -- the Fox News commentators said, "one might wonder if such a thing is even possible" -- is certainly a good idea. But this is an administration that is joined at the hip with Big Oil. Bush has opposed raising fuel efficiency standards for his entire political career, most recently last February; does anyone believe that such a proposal won't go the way of his War on Steroids in Baseball or his plan to land a man on Mars -- those ghosts of SOTUs past?

It was clear that he wanted to focus on domestic issues; just weeks after proposing an escalation of troops in Iraq that two-thirds of Americans oppose, he all but shouted, "for the love of God, can we please change the subject!" By my rough reckoning, he spent about eight minutes on the "War on Terror" and another six on Iraq, dodging between the two in his usual way.

He said, "We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq." While the Taliban are busy building schools in Afghanistan, he was right about al Qaeda; we drove them out of Afghanistan so they could set up a new safe haven in Pakistan.

The highlight of the evening's discourse was when Bush said, "Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies." And there was Dick Cheney, smirking over the president's shoulder and disproving the claim even as he uttered it.

We face the twin demons of Sunni and Shiite extremists, said the president, who will come from "all directions" and take over the whole of Iraq if we withdraw. He blamed Iran for supporting those Shiite extremists -- a somewhat questionable charge -- and al Qaeda for aiding their Sunni counterparts; as we've come to expect in Bush's speeches, there was no mention of his Saudi friends who are reportedly financing the very insurgents responsible for the majority of U.S. deaths.

Of his escalation plan, he said: "Our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success." Left unsaid was that he had fired those generals who disagreed. His plan garnered only scattered applause from the Republicans, while the Dems sat on their hands.

Among the noteworthy aspects of the speech was what was left out. As the AP noted, "Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, La., still is a mess, and the pace of recovery across the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina's strike remains achingly slow after 17 months. But none of this captured President George W. Bush's attention on the year's biggest night for showcasing policy priorities."

To be fair to the president, it didn't really matter what he said; Americans are fully aware of the state of our union. Polls this week paint a grim picture of a nation that has lost confidence in its leaders. Seven out of ten Americans say the country is headed on the wrong track. A record 64 percent call the Iraq war a mistake, more than at any time during Vietnam, and "for the first time more than half of Americans, 52 percent, say the United States should withdraw its forces to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if civil order hasn't been restored." More than half think the economy's getting worse, and less than a third of the country thinks Bush "shares their priorities." He might as well have gone up there and admitted that he had nothing.

Ultimately, the best thing about this State of the Union was the end -- Miller Time -- and with it, the knowledge that we'll only have to suffer through one more.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
Go on-site for the numorous links, and other articles about this administration.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47090/ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ .

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 01:48 PM

.
/*\./*\./*\./*\./*\

What Adults Should Know About Kids' Online Networking
By
Kate Sheppard
WireTap
Posted on January 24, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/46766/

Social researcher danah boyd (who generally chooses not to capitalize her name) has made a name for herself as an expert on young people and online social networks. A Ph.D. candidate at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley and a graduate fellow at the University of Southern California Annenberg Center, boyd has also worked as a social media researcher at Yahoo, Google, and Tribe.net. Recently, she appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, where she enlightened Bill about Myspace and the "dopey kids" it attracts. At 29, boyd has become the go-to woman for "adults" trying to figure out what "kids" do online all day, and one look at her blog, Apophenia, offers insight into her exhausting speaking/interview schedule.

We caught up with boyd recently to talk about social networks, kids these days, and the intersection of technology and political organizing.

Kate Sheppard: How did you start researching "digital publics"?

danah boyd: I first went online when I was about 14. My brother was a hardcore geek and I thought what he was doing was really lame, and I wanted nothing to do with it. Then I realized there were people in there, and it wasn't just about coding. And I started talking to people online and participating in all sorts of social interaction, and found it fascinating. So when I went to college, I decided I was going to study computer science, in part based on those experiences.

Needless to say, computer science degrees are not meant to engage with the web in any socially relevant way. So I ended up getting involved with a lot of computer graphics, which was awesome. When I entered college, I started blogging, so I was also having this whole web experience.

My research has gotten more and more related to youth over the years [and to] identity, and performance in online environments, which in many ways are online public environments.

KS: What sort of relationships are young people forming online? Who are they connecting with?

db: Most of what's happening is they're building relationships, they're engaging socially, they're seeking validation, they're seeking negotiation of status, and this is happening both on and offline in a very fluid way. My generation was much more about "going online" and it being this separate universe, in many ways a totally separate social world with social rules and scripts and what not. But for a lot of young people, it is a fluid environment that moves between their offline and online worlds. The technology doesn't act as a separator.

And what you end up having is two different clusters of kids. You have kids who are getting all they need in terms of validation and status, and everything else from school, peers in the physical world, peers from church, summer camp, activities, school, those kinds of obvious physical environments. They are just replicating their networks and their community online, using all the online tools -- IM, email, blogs, Myspace, that kind of thing -- to talk to the people that they already have networks formulated around.

You still also have the marginalized and ostracized kids who are actually actively seeking out a community of peers online because they don't have one offline. This is who I was growing up. The assumption from the earlier days of the Internet was that this latter [behavior] is all that the kids were doing, and actually that's become the less common practice.

KS: What are some the differences between online and offline networks?

db: There are sort of four properties and one key practice that are fundamentally different online. The key practice is that you have to write yourself into being. To a certain degree we do this offline as well, whereby you have a body that you're working with that you then accessorize to hell. Online you don't have a body, you don't have a presence, you don't have anything that sort of marks your existence.

There are four functions that are sort of the key architecture of online publics and key structures of mediated environments that are generally not part of the offline world. And those are persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences. Persistence -- what you say sticks around. Searchability -- my mother would have loved the ability to sort of magically scream into the ether to figure out where I was when I'd gone off to hang out with my friends. She couldn?t, thank God. But today when kids are hanging out online because they've written [themselves] into being online, they become very searchable. Replicability -- you have a conversation with your friends, and this can be copied and pasted into your Live Journal and you get into a tiff. That creates an amazing amount of "uh ohs" when you add it to persistence. And finally, invisible audiences. In unmediated environment, you can look around and have an understanding of who can possibly overhear you. You adjust what you're saying to the reactions of those people. You figure out what is appropriate to say, you understand the social context. But when we're dealing with mediated environments, we have no way of gauging who might hear or see us, not only because we can't tell whose presence is lurking at the moment, but because of persistence and searchability.

KS: How does online or digital identity differ from one's day-to-day life presentation?

db: It's a performance, right? In that performance there are things that are magnified. Think of it this way. My favorite thing about online dating is that 80 percent of women are above average looking, according to their marker, and 80 percent of men make above average in salary. Is this true? Of course not. But our self-perceptions are often very distorted. We want to be seen in the best light. This is why we sit home with a shitload of makeup and try to construct a "Don?t we look suave" sort of appearance. The same thing happens online, but instead of using expensive paints for our faces, we're using digital ones. But we're still trying to put what we think is our best foot forward for the social context at hand.

KS: Why are we so drawn to portray ourselves online like this?

db: You have a generation that is restricted from social life and a lot of mobility in many ways because of their age. They can't get into a club or a pub or anything like that, which is where a lot of socialization happens for 20- 30-somethings. They're getting banned from places like malls and other such fun. At a younger age, they don't have a car. Their parents are afraid to let them go hang out in the park or other because they might be raped or molested or kidnapped or killed, etc.

Their primary hangout is at their friends' houses. This is all fine and good when you're thinking about everything in constrained social groups. But there's a reason why we start to engage with public life that is not simply our friends. And that has to do with seeing and being seen and going through this process of figuring out how the social world works. The problem for today's teenagers is, what is their public life? Where is it that they can go and see and be seen and go through all of these social? Where is it they get to control their space their way? Myspace. It's a great place for teens to make a public world on their terms. If your friends are there, and you get to portray what really matters to you, that's really significant.

KS: What are the biggest misconceptions/myths about social networking online?

db: Myth No. 1 is that everybody is on there to meet people, and everyone is on there to engage in social networking. That's one of the reasons that I call them "social network" sites instead of "social networking" sites. It has [more] to do with constructing or presenting your social network, showcasing it, showing it off, engaging in the status around it. The idea of social networking, going to meet tons of strangers, is typically a much more common practice among adult users of these sites.

Myth No. 2 is that kids are in grave danger just because of participation. The risky behavior is not putting information about yourself online, which is what most adults think. We do not have a single case related to Myspace where someone has been abducted. We've had plenty of press coverage of these things, and every single one of them has proven to not be an abduction, but a runaway situation, or the kid was abducted by their noncustodial parent.

KS: How do we extend discussions of favorite bands and television shows into more social and political issues to draw out this social/political realm that now exists online?

db: Civic engagement happens when you have access to civic life. Civic life is inherently public. Youth are silenced in nearly every way possible in civic life offline. Why should they care? They don't see how it's relevant. In fact, they're being ignored at pretty much every turn. Needless to say, the 10 percent of kids who are in the Young Republicans club are like "Weee! We're really engaged." But that has to do more with their parents than anything else. And in fact, most kids' parents are disengaged. This is not a country of really engaged political life.

Are kids political by their very nature? Yes. They're actually deeply politically engaged in the things that matter to them. Look at what happened when 750,000 kids responded to the news feed crisis on Facebook. That was a pretty political move, and a very powerful one. And you have the 50,000 kids who walked out of school over immigration policy. It happened in part through different forms of technology -- mobiles, IM, Myspace.

KS: Do you see these social network sites replacing public meetings, like town hall meetings, protests, and social gatherings? How will these types of events be changed by a generation that's growing up socially online?

db: Again, most of it's going to reflect the offline [world]. They're going to become tools that are used to enable offline engagement, for people who are actually motivated that way. We already see this on Facebook, where Facebook is leveraged in fights for the class presidency.

You're going to see some sort of wave of communication and structure from the most politically engaged. This tool won't just make everybody engaged. For people who are engaged, it will become very valuable. But that's true of everything else. Is SMS a political tool? No. Did people in the Philippines use it to overturn a particular government? Yes. People are inherently political and they found a new tool to allow for mass mobilization, and it was effective. So I see the same thing to be true for a lot of these sites. It's a question of how they can be repurposed to be effective in a particular moment.

Kate Sheppard spent three years as an editor for Buzzsaw Haircut, Ithaca College's award-winning student magazine. She is now an editorial intern at Grist Magazine in Seattle, a contributor for WireTap, and a freelance writer. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46766/ /*\./*\./*\

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 02:05 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Why We Love to Hate Hillary
By
Jack Hitt
Mother Jones
Posted on January 24, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/46237/

Daniel Edwards is that sculptor whose work includes a shiny dollop said to be the bronzed poop of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby, the severed head of baseball legend Ted Williams, and a nude Britney Spears in a primal birth position. A few months ago, the Museum of Sex in Manhattan unveiled his latest work: a bust of Hillary Clinton. Cast in the heroic style of the 19th-century statesman found in any City Hall park, it showed the New York senator with a long, elegant neck and solemn expression above two perfectly round, youthful, barely covered breasts. I'd guess a 36B.
"It was a quote by Sharon Stone that triggered it," Edwards explained to me. Stone, an actress famous for exposing a different part of her anatomy, had recently expressed doubt that Hillary could become president because "a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Edwards says he wanted to imagine Hillary Clinton as president of the United States and created, therefore, a monumental image. "But that wasn't enough," he explains. "I had to make sure she was depicted as a woman, unmistakably a woman. The way I did that was to be more revealing with her breasts than is normally seen."

Edwards' version of Hillary's breasts is where it all gets interesting. He chose not to depict Hillary with bared breasts, in the classical style of Greek sculpture; his Hillary's bust is upheld by a bustier worthy of Victoria's Secret. "I didn't want the sculpture to be titillating or a piece of graphic realism," he explains. "It's more symbolic of womanhood and to reveal her as a woman."

Hillary's "womanhood" is in need of public revelation? What does that say about her? But, more curiously, what does it say about us that Hillary inspires this casual intimacy? Her life, her looks, her politics, her marriage -- and now her breasts -- are all daily grist at the nation's coffee shops, still, 15 years after she was introduced to America. According to one accounting, there are 17,000 websites devoted to Hillary Clinton. And there is really no aspect of our collective fears or furies that cannot be grafted onto her character. Did she refuse to meet with mothers of dead soldiers? Did she kill Vince Foster? Did she get two Black Panthers off on murder charges? Did she cause the Enron scandal?

Despite their proven falseness, such accusations are routinely made because it's easy to mold the facts and fictions of Hillary's life into any kind of argument you like. Even her body has become a public landscape that most Americans feel quite comfortable trekking across in search of cultural clues about ourselves and our politics. Edwards' sculpture merely makes literal this national impulse.

It all began when the nation had regular debates about her hair, but now we're comfortable in our kitchens and on our talk shows presuming any damned thing we want to about her. Is she gay or straight, closet conservative or secret liberal, snarling she-wolf or one smart cookie baker? It isn't only her career as a public figure that's clay in our hands. No part of her life, however sacred, is off-limits. John McCain once got a lot of laughs cracking this joke: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was still in high school at the time. In 2003 Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce.

In the spring of 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page story that employed investigative journalism tactics to extrapolate the potential number of conjugal visits the Clintons' marital bed hosted each month. Using "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities," the author concluded: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. ... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."

Damn aides.

When Edwards fashioned Hillary into the image that he thought most telling, he was on to something. Hillary is way beyond something so banal as a politician. The details of her life are familiar enough; perhaps that's why all the profiles of her over the last 10 years have always seemed tedious and repetitive. It's how we shape those facts that's interesting. Hillary herself once said she had become some kind of Rorschach blot in which Americans see many things.

Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary. Consider her poll numbers. Hillary Clinton has favorables in the high 40s right now and unfavorables running about even. Her "no opinion" numbers are in the low single digits, approaching zero. Most politicians start with a huge swath of "no opinion" voters whom they can then try to convert. If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her.

Hillary-hating is such a national pastime, for both Democrats and Republicans, that it should be its own verb: "Hillarating." Typically, even her supporters make the case for her only after plowing through a lot of caveats, lessons learned, and after muttered contempt for some aspect of her person. Hillarating is not like normal political hating -- opposing someone's ideology, for example. Loathing Hillary happens on multiple levels, ranging from her marital choices and fashion sense to her ambivalence on torture or support for a flag-burning amendment. And liberal feminists are as comfortable Hillarating as anyone else, perhaps more so.

"The source of the strong feelings goes all the way back to when we were introduced to her as Bill Clinton's copresident," says Nora Bredes, director of the Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership in Rochester, New York. After the health care defeat in 1993, Hillary retreated into being a wife and then a proper first lady before emerging again "as an international leader and then in the late '90s re-creating herself as a victim of his infidelity and then again stepping out as a candidate for the Senate," says Bredes. "People get uncomfortable when it's not a neat story. Is she a progressive feminist or a cautious moderate? People don't know exactly who she is, and so different reactions are almost invited."

Not since Richard Nixon has the body politic been treated to so many variations on the same person. "The New New Nixon" was introduced with such frequency once upon a time that it became shorthand for a kind of political marketing joke. Hillary has assumed that cultural niche, always inventing a new look and more "humanized" self for each situation. And in turn, we've seized upon various elements of her changeling character to shape, à la Daniel Edwards, our own private Hillarys. She is a Cosmo quiz of an enigma, so let's cut right to the answer key in the back pages and find out what kind of Hillary you see.

The Martha Stewart Hillary: For you, the New York senator is, as Newt Gingrich's mother once observed, "a bitch," or, as William Safire phrased it, "a congenital liar." You tend to relish the catty details that reveal her as a petty-minded overachiever, like when she peevishly denied her ghostwriters writing credit. You believed the 2003 rumor that Wesley Clark had been ordered into the campaign by some Clinton consigliere to serve as her stalking-horse. In the mid-1990s, you wanted to buy that Jerry Falwell tape alleging that she bedded and then killed Vince Foster, had him rolled up in a rug and dumped along the Potomac. You snarkily refer to her by the name that grates most on those who despise her, Hillary Rodham.

The Tammy Wynette Hillary: The famous invocation of the country-western singer happened during a 60 Minutes interview in 1992. Hillary defended her husband's philandering by saying, "I'm not sitting here some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette." And this is where it can get tricky. Most people forget Hillary's next line: "I'm sitting here because I love him." The cognitive dissonance is confusing, because, of course, that is the Tammy Wynette position ("And tell the world you love him / Keep giving all the love you can"). When she dissed Tammy, she left the impression that the real reason she was standing by Bill was ruthless desire for power. Then after getting into hot water over health care reform, she assumed the Tammy position, that of doggedly loyal wife. This was the Hillary who beamed at Bill's side and cut her hair in a prim, wifely fashion. Amid a flurry of sex scandals that would culminate in Monicagate, this Hillary allowed herself to be photographed in her one-piece bathing suit snogging with Bill on the beach -- causing an entire nation to wince.

The Eleanor Roosevelt Hillary: This Hillary first emerged at her 1969 college graduation, when her commencement speech was considered so controversially feminist that it landed her in the pages of Life magazine. The speech sent Wellesley's president, Ruth Adams, into such a tizzy that, after spotting Hillary swimming, she had a campus security guard run off with her clothes to humiliate her. This is the Hillary who figured out, after the health care train wreck, how to be a good first lady, and quickly became the "Most Admired Woman in America" several years in a row. This Hillary had an office in the East Wing that handled the protocols of napkin folding, and an office in the West Wing that adroitly kept up her silent participation in the crucial political issues of the day.

The Dianne Feinstein Hillary: You see her as a phony centrist always triangulating toward the ideological middle, willing to betray her true liberal self for power.

The Barbara Boxer Hillary: You see her as a phony liberal, always playing to the amen chorus of the far left, willing to betray her true centrist self for power.

The Lisa Simpson Hillary: We're seeing of lot of this conscientious Hillary lately. When she ran for Senate, her critics said she was just running on name recognition. "But she was able to give milk prices to upstate New Yorkers," says Helen Thomas, the former upi reporter who has covered the White House since John Kennedy. "Then, in the Senate, she acted like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, asking experienced Republican senators to 'teach me' how it all works." This is the Hillary who got straight A's; the law school graduate who in 1974 wowed the old D.C. pols on the Watergate Committee; the one who attempted to master health care in 1993; and who in 2000 visited Buffalo 26 times and earned its citizens' votes. This Hillary first appeared at age four when, according to her mom, the future senator confronted the neighborhood's meanest girl bully, knocked her down, and then exclaimed, "I can play with the boys now!"

The Diana Prince Hillary: Bill's wife is the secret identity of Wonder Woman. Is there anything she can't do? Even if you hate her, you admire her fundraising ability and her $8 million book advance. You hear that joke about Bill seeing Hillary chatting with an old boyfriend pumping gas at a filling station and Bill says, "Just think, if you'd married him, you could have been the wife of a gas station attendant," to which Hillary replies, "Bill, if I'd married him, he would have become the president" -- and you think it's just good reporting.

The Lady Macbeth Hillary: You fixate on pictures of Hillary wearing big dark sunglasses, behind which she conspires to take over the world. Ruthless, conniving, calculating, icy, and manipulating, this Hillary crafted that phony post-Monica talking point -- "I could hardly breathe" -- as evidence of her "emotional side." This Hillary spooked her potential senatorial opponent K.T. McFarland, a former Pentagon official, into charging that she "had helicopters flying over my house in Southampton today taking pictures." This Hillary will abandon her principles for short-term political gain and will coldly undercut her oldest friends if need be -- remember Peter and Marian Wright Edelman? This is the Hillary who, hours after hearing the truth about Monica, was in the solarium considering whether to help Bill's speechwriters draft his dodgy confession. This version of the senator is known by the name that elevates her into the pantheon of scheming one-named women such as Medea and Evita. She is, simply, Hillary.

It's not just that Hillary herself is seen in half a dozen ways, but that each variety of Hillary is embraced across the political spectrum. The word-association part of the Hillary Rorschach test fails as political litmus because everyone uses the same essential vocabulary. The language that one expects to hear from her right-wing critics -- that she's untrustworthy, two-faced, opportunistic, and scheming with a hidden agenda -- you are just as likely to hear from other women in power, feminists, and people on the left. You expect to read Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan calling her a "cynical leftist political operative" who sees "our country as a platform for her core ambitions." But you also get Cindy Sheehan comparing her to Rush Limbaugh; Susan Sarandon complaining, "What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they believe strongly in something, not people who are trying to get elected"; and the late Wendy Wasserstein saying Hillary "has flip-flopped on so many issues of image that her behavior can justifiably be called erratic."

Some of the more common adjectives hurled at Hillary are familiar to any high-achieving female. And, sure, the woman known in high school as "Sister Frigidaire" faces all the glass-ceiling, woman-in-a-man's-job, underestimated, underpaid, overworked gender guff that also frustrates senators Olympia Snowe and Mary Landrieu. But what makes our reaction to her far more extreme?

More than any other public figure, Hillary forces us to acknowledge that the path to power for American women is not all that clear, more an odyssey than a march. The national trauma began when Hillary violated perceived roles of domesticity, says Betty Winfield, a University of Missouri professor who has been monitoring Hillary's public perception since the campaign of 1992. "People had a very preconceived idea about how a first lady was supposed to act, the image of a supportive wife but not too outspoken," says Winfield. "Hillary had no noblesse oblige cause, nothing coming from the domestic sphere like highway beautification or illiteracy or anti-drug use among teens. No, no. She was going to change the entire health care system for the whole country."

This didn't sit well, says Winfield, in part because "women who attain power or public recognition as satellites of great men are subject to a lot more criticism than women who arrive to the public arena on their own accomplishment." (In her day, Dolley Madison was accused of being lascivious, Jefferson's mistress, and trading sex for votes.) Of course, long before she was first lady, Hillary was already accomplished, having clawed her way up the law firm ladder to become the first female partner in Arkansas' oldest and most prestigious firm. The closest parallel at the time was...Marilyn Quayle. How quickly we all forget that Marilyn was a law partner with her husband in a Clintonesque firm called Quayle and Quayle. When Dan was named vice president in 1988, the governor of Indiana offered to appoint Marilyn to fill out his term in the U.S. Senate. Hillary merely took up the work of bushwhacking a path originally macheted by a woman now almost entirely forgotten.

Like Quayle, Hillary had her career sights aimed high, so how awkward was it that when she ascended to the West Wing in 1992, it was via the highest bedroom in the land. Certainly it explains why she uttered such mortifying lines as the classic: "If you vote for my husband, you get me; it's a two-for-one blue-plate special."

That original confusion about her role persists. Typically, says Winfield, women in power are seen as "either the domineering dowager or the scheming concubine." In the American psyche, Hillary is a two-for-one special, seen as both Election's Tracy Flick and a postmenopausal Margaret Thatcher power-Frau -- despised for possessing sexuality and being devoid of it.

One of the first criticisms, says Edwards of his sculpture, "was that critics said the piece looked like 'Jimmy Carter with boobs.'" Edwards notes that the Internet is a kind of Dantean pit of Hillary imagery; he describes his work as an attempt to rescue her femininity from the sexual inferno in which he discovered her. "Before I came along, there were all these Photoshopped images of her," he says. "They'd take a lot of porn images and then splice her in. Oh my God...she's had to have seen them."

Most men, especially when women aren't around, will typically open up a conversation about Hillary in precisely these terms. Long before they get to her politics, they gossip about her comeliness, and the judgment is always harsh. Busting Hillary back down to mere dame, and a rejected one whose sexual allures fail, seems to be a necessary preamble to any discussion of her. In October, her Senate opponent, John Spencer, accused her of being ugly. (He now officially denies it.) The Daily News quoted him as claiming that Hillary had spent "millions of dollars" on plastic surgery. "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew," Spencer said. "I don't know why Bill married her."

The point is, whether the real Hillary is brimming with sexuality or is entirely drained of it, any talk about her is always borne ceaselessly back to her intimacies, her appearance, her sexuality, her femininity. Why?

There are so many answers to that question, it's one of the reasons the country can't stop talking about her. But here is one: Hillary is an avatar of an existential dread skulking in the hearts of every couple who've tried to put together a life since the feminist revolution. This anxiety explains why the darkest question a liberal feminist can ask is: Why didn't she leave that son of a bitch? And it's why the coarsest question a conservative man can ask is: Who would do the bitch? Both point to deep fears that emerged alongside feminism, grounded, as every question since that revolution is, in the politics of the bedroom.

Hillary has come to embody a dark fear in the hearts of modern men: the wife who neglects the joys of the bedroom for her career. The middle years of marriage are hard enough (or so I have read), trying to keep the flame flickering amid the anxieties of bills, the call of career, the squall of little children. That's the age-old stuff. Add to that a novel stress on the guy: a new destructive Oedipal force right at his side, his wife. She wants a career equal to, if not better than, her husband's. Will she be more famous, make more money, hold more prestige?

And there's Hillary, pushing onward, to where? The presidency itself. She could possibly pull off what George W. Bush has attempted: surpassing a familial predecessor in achievement and esteem. As always, we imagine, Hillary is watching and learning, waiting her turn.

The flip side to Hillary's ambition evokes every career woman's greatest fear. How fragile is marriage? It can come apart as quickly as that girl delivering the pizza can snap her thong. And there is no amount of superachieving or hard work that can prevent this lurking humiliation. Just ask the other Hillary: As Martha Stewart ascended to the heights of fame, her husband, Andy, pulled a Bill and started screwing one of the young office assistants. It's absurd, sure. It's clichéd and pathetic. But, for the working wife, trying to build a career off the foundation of her marriage to even the nicest (smartest, richest, handsomest) man, her worst fear is that he'll stray in this, the most debasing of ways. It's a complete denial of her womanhood, an essential insult. It's why the kind of anger liberal women feel toward Hillary always circles back around to the issue of why she stayed in the marriage. Why didn't she take a stand against male grossness?

Instead, she toughed it out. And she gets no love from any side for it. To the right, she stayed not for any principle or for Chelsea but because she's a clawing shrew who will suffer any ignominy to attain power. To the left, she had a chance to take a stand for all the women who've been humiliated, and she didn't. (Bill, it should be noted, is largely forgiven, even revered, by left-leaning women.)

But the more body blows Hillary withstands from critics (or her husband), the stronger she can look. Who can forget when Rick Lazio marched across a stage in 2000, shoved a campaign pledge in her face, and tried to strong-arm her into signing it? Hillary coldly asked him to step away. It was the turning point of that campaign. That motherfucker. Suddenly female voters saw in Hillary every woman who has had to put up with demeaning crap from men. And a lot of male voters simply saw an underdog standing up and rallied to her side. She crushed Lazio by 12 points. In November, John Spencer, who will be remembered only for calling Hillary ugly, went down to a defeat three times as ignominious.

It's amazing to see just who can rush to Hillary's side when the issue becomes the bare-naked question of trying to bring down a high-achieving woman. During a discussion of snipes at Martha and Hillary on Tina Brown's TV show, Laura Ingraham, who once wrote a book called The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places, confessed, "I've gone through that. I'm the right-wing info babe. That's the box I'm put in.... Powerful women carry a heavier burden.... No one likes to see a woman get too powerful, too fast, too smart."

Ask your friends if their fear and loathing of Hillary has anything to do with her being a woman, and you'll undoubtedly get a denial. That might be someone else's problem, but certainly not mine. But after a Lazio moment, or when John Edwards' wife told guests at a Ladies' Home Journal luncheon that her "choices" had made her "happier" and more "joyful" than Hillary, an epiphany can occur, as it did for The Nation's Katha Pollitt, who wrote, "If people keep making sexist attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton, I may just have to vote for her. That means you, Elizabeth Edwards!" One has to wonder, especially considering the massive voter support she's received in two elections, if Hillary doesn't already have her own hidden vote: not just feminist columnists, but moderate and even Republican women who might exult in Hillarating until they step into the seclusion of the voting booth, where all the watercooler chitchat, pissy remarks, and catty complaints fall away to reveal a working woman getting harassed in a man's world -- and they recognize what they see.

Hillary is an icon of our most transformative personal revolution. Racial integration was about bringing excluded people to a metaphorical and literal lunch counter that was already there. A public place. But the feminist revolution was about remaking the private world, the nest and resting place for all us careerists.

Hillary explained it in that notorious speech at Wellesley in 1969. She said, "But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves." She was in the first class of women's libbers, back when "the Working Woman" was more an idea than a reality and the future held infinite possibility. She left Wellesley fired up with the rhetoric of Steinem and Friedan. They had revealed to the world the new theory; she would show them how it worked in practice. Hillary is the real revolutionary: She had a career. She had a family. She had a husband with a career. They were both ambitious boomers -- perhaps the most ambitious. They wanted not just good jobs but the very best of all possible jobs. And every step of the way she demanded and got -- to use the old-school rhetoric -- the freedom to choose.

That language pops up with Hillary from time to time, such as one curious moment during her first Senate campaign when men and women, liberals and conservatives, all still had inflamed opinions on whether she should stay in her marriage or not. Asked after a speech about her decision to remain with Bill, she said: "I fought all my life for women to make their own choices, in their personal and professional lives. I made mine."

How retro-1970s an answer is that? Hillary is still talking that talk and walking that walk, even though the revolution never really worked out as drafted. Those day care and health care support systems never arrived. Glass ceilings appeared, lower pay persisted. Feminism gained an angry militant opposition that now works to outlaw abortion state by state. Without widespread public support, the movement fell onto the shoulders of the individual women who could tough it out, women like Sister Frigidaire, the woman who could visit Buffalo 26 times. A lot of women just got tired. Many shrugged off the fight for full professional independence and happily went home to raise the kids. Feminists gamely tried to make the argument that their intention all along was to allow any of these fine choices to be made. But a lot of compromises were made all around. Now Gloria Steinem is like some oldest living Confederate widow occasionally showing up on TV to remind us what it was like, back in the day. Then, a certain ideal seemed inevitable -- the feminist enjoying both the pleasures of motherhood and the Eisenhower-era man's life of full professional reward. Of those idealists, Hillary is arguably the only one still in our face.

In her Wellesley speech, she concluded with a poem, a portion of which eerily captures the trajectory of the woman she would become: "And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle / For all those myths and oddments / Which oddly we have acquired / And from which we would become unburdened / To create a newer world / To transform the future into the present."

History's receptacle. And an entire nation has been filling it with our myths and oddments ever since: Hillary Clinton. Who soldiers on, even as the rest of America has backed off from 1970s-style feminism just a little (or a lot). Once upon a time, to use the old-school rhetoric again, people like her said, "I can have it all." She wholeheartedly believed it. She would like to have it all. And in two years, she just might get it.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
To access numerous links:View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46237/ :: :: :: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 03:31 PM

.
XXXXXXXXXCheney:
Talk of blunders in Iraq is 'hogwash'
POSTED: 4:32 p.m. EST, January 24, 2007

Story Highlights
• NEW: Cheney: Premise of blunders hurting credibility on Iraq is "hogwash"
• NEW: Vice president says question about daughter is "out of line"
• Congressional opposition won't stop plan to increase troops, he says
• Pulling out of Iraq would validate terrorists' strategy, Cheney says.
:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the suggestion that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq and led members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to question President Bush's plan to send more troops to Baghdad.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, carried out a day after President Bush delivered his State of the Union address, the vice president was told that some Republicans in Congress "are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."

To that Cheney responded: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee defied President Bush on Wednesday and approved a resolution declaring that sending more troops to Iraq is "not in the national interest."

"We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of the harshest Republican critics of the plan. (Full story)

Cheney said the administration is committed to moving ahead with its plan to send more troops to secure Baghdad, even if Congress passes a resolution in opposition.

"It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

If U.S. forces were to pull out of Iraq, "We would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task ... that we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's the biggest threat."

Cheney added, "The notion that somehow the effort hasn't been worth it or that we shouldn't go ahead and complete the task is just dead wrong."

Bush's Iraq plan also calls for U.S. forces to help Iraq better equip its military and accelerate training of Iraqi troops. The Iraqi government plans to take full responsibility for the country's security by November.

Bush asked Congress and the public to give his plan to help the Iraqi government end sectarian violence "a chance to work."

"We went into this largely united," the president said during Tuesday's speech. "And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." (Full story)

Two-thirds of the people surveyed in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released on the eve of the speech oppose the plan. The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday and was based on telephone interviews with 1,008 adult Americans. It has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

Cheney said the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein was the right move.

"The world is much safer today because of it," the vice president said. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed, his sons are dead, his government is gone. And the world is better off for it."

Cheney added that had Hussein been allowed to remain at the helm of Iraq, "he would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran."

Cheney acknowledged "ongoing problems" in Iraq, where an insurgency is blamed for dozens of Iraqi deaths each day and more than 3,000 U.S. military fatalities over the course of the nearly four-year-old war.

"There's problems, ongoing problems. But we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off," Cheney said.

He added, "We still have more work to do to get a handle on the security situation, and the president's put a plan in place to do that."

Asked to describe the biggest mistake made by U.S. war planners, Cheney said: "I think we underestimated the extent to which 30 years of Saddam's rule had really hammered the population, especially the Shia population, into submissiveness. It's very hard for them to stand up and take responsibility, in part because anybody who's done that in the past have had their heads chopped off."

Asked about the pregnancy of his daughter Mary, who is in a relationship with a female partner, Cheney expressed irritation with his questioner.

"I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf," he said. "And, obviously, I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question."

More on CNN TV: Vice President Dick Cheney on the State of the Union. Watch "The Situation Room," 7 p.m. ET tonight

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html XXXXX .

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 04:02 PM

.
~~~~~~~"If we do go to war, psychological operations are going to be absolutely a critical, critical part of any campaign that we must get involved in."

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

~~~
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Joseph Goebbels was born in 1897 and died in 1945.
Goebbels was Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda~~~
"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."

Abraham Lincoln

~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 04:26 PM

.................
Hey, Gang of 500 - Fox News is Not a Real News Outlet
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
By Cenk Uygur

01/24/07 "ICHBlog" -- -- This blog post was put together by a number of people in the progressive movement who believe that journalism matters and that Fox News Channel does great disservice to the institution of the media (perhaps intentionally) by pretending to be legitimate members of the press (hence, I agree completely with this post, but this is not solely my work)
The recently-debunked "madrassa" smear against Barack Obama shows that it's time for serious journalists, news consumers, and Democratic politicians to send a clear message to the "Gang of 500" - ABC's term for the all-knowing consultants, strategists, pollsters, pundits, and journalists who guide Washington DC's conventional wisdom.

The message: Fox News is not a real news organization! It is not a source of journalism and it is not remotely credible, so stop treating it that way. Fox is the television equivalent of The National Enquirer and deserves zero respect as a news outlet.

At the end of this post, I ask you to share your ideas on how we can send that message. Should Democratic politicians refuse to go on Fox? Should news viewers pressure the White House Correspondents' Association (202-452-4836) to deny membership to Fox? Should the DNC (202-863-8000) deny Fox floor rights at the 2008 convention? Should Fox advertisers be denied our dollars?

As you ponder those questions, I'll give credit where credit is due - to Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz for being among the first of 500 to directly call out Fox for "raising questions about journalistic behavior."
Moonlighting on CNN this Monday, Kurtz reported that "a little-known conservative magazine" published a story "based entirely on unnamed sources" alleging that Senator Obama was schooled in a Muslim madrassa. "Fox News channel touted the claims on two programs," Kurtz said and showed a clip of Fox talking about the "outing" of Obama's "madrassa past."
"As we now know, there is no madrassa past," Kurtz concluded. "This, unfortunately, is how the media food chain works. A bogus charge appears on some magazine or on some website and works its way up to bigger news outlets - all based on little or no evidence."

He was so close to getting the story 100% right. But, Howard, Fox is not a "bigger news outlet." That would require it to be a news outlet. Next time, try "bigger tabloids posing as news outlets."

Wolf Blitzer came on screen and made up for Kurtz's mistake, saying, "CNN did what any serious news organization is supposed to do in this situation - we actually conducted an exclusive first-hand investigation." You can view the video for yourself to see the playground and classrooms Obama went to as a 6-year old, and the school's administrator talking about religious tolerance.

One final note: Kurtz reports that "Fox News executive Bill Shine says some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions." But if you watch those hosts' fake mea culpa on Monday, one says "We were reporting a story from Insight magazine" and another says, "That's what it says in Insight magazine, so we reported that..."

The third host says, "Senator Obama was on our show when his book came out and we would love to have him back...Come back, Senator Obama." Should he? How do you think we should send a meaningful signal that Fox is not a real news outlet?

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide. The Young Turks began as Sirius Satellite Radio’s first original program, and, while still on Sirius, is now nationally syndicated and available on itunes and online at www.theyoungturks.com and www.radiopower.org.

Go on-site for the numerous links in this article and to join the discussion on this new blog site at ICH.

Here's one of the comments. Others aren't as calm, or rational.

Arvy: Not a Real News Outlet
I thought that Greenwald's Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism already did a pretty good job of debunking that myth several years ago.

But there's only so much that anyone can do about the public's tastes for "vast wateland" products that are deliberately designed to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" and succeed on that basis. In fact, The National Enquirer mentioned in this article provides another popular example.

It is often said that peoples get the governments they deserve. To a very considerable degree, that also appears true of the "news" media they deserve.1

January 24, 2007http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/97/2/ ......... .

Saundra Hummer

January 24th, 2007, 04:48 PM

.^^^^^^^^^End Corporate Control Over Our Media

By Sen. Bernie Sanders:
If You Are Concerned About Health Care, Iraq, the Economy, Global Warming You Must Be Concerned About Corporate Control of the Media

Broadcast - 01/22/07
Democracy Now!
Audio Runtime 8 MinutesCLICK PLAY TO LISTEN
(go on-site to view, script is below)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16252.htm

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comment (1)

AMY GOODMAN: This is Bernie Sanders speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We have already taken a giant step forward in transforming our country, because what we have done -- and the size of this conference indicates our success -- we have begun the long road to make media a major political issue in America. And more and more, in campaigns and in non-campaigns, when people who are running for office go before the public and, as been mentioned, when they talk about healthcare or the environment or the dozens of other important issues, somebody in the front of the room is going to raise their hand and say, “Well, what do you think about corporate control over the media? What are you going to do about that?” So, to the degree that we have already raised consciousness on this issue, we should be very proud. But, obviously, we know that we still have a very, very long way to go.

I happen to believe that we are reaching a moment when critical mass is kicking in. Because of your efforts, because of a growing grassroots movement all over America, what I can tell you is that not only in the House is there a media caucus where this issue is now going to reach a higher level than ever before, I can tell you that it's going to happen in the Senate, as well. I can also tell you, absolutely, that we will not succeed unless you are there, unless there is a strong grassroots media, which demands fundamental changes in media today and the end of corporate control over our media. We've got to work together on that.

Now, you are going to hear from a lot of folks who know more about the details of the media than I do, but what I do know a lot about is how media impacts the political process, what media means for those of us who day after day struggle with the major issues facing our country and a goal of trying to improve the quality of life for all of our people.

And I want to spend just a minute in telling you what I suspect most of you already know. If you are concerned, as been said, about healthcare, if you are concerned about foreign policy and Iraq, if you are concerned about the economy, if you are concerned about global warming, you are kidding yourselves if you are not concerned about corporate control over the media, because every one of these issues is directly controlled and directly relevant to the media.

Let me just talk about a few. Four years ago, George W. Bush told the American people that a third-rate military power country called Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they were about to attack the United States of America. That's what he told us. I can tell you, because I was there in the middle of that, in opposition to that -- that day after day, those of us who oppose the war, among many other things, would be holding national press conferences that you never saw. I can tell you, as you know, that hundreds of thousands of people in our country were so disgusted with the media simply acting as a megaphone for the President that they turned off American media, and they went to the BBC or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

In terms of the war in Iraq, the American media failed, and failed grotesquely, in exposing the dishonest and misleading assertions of the Bush administration in the lead-up to that war, and they are as responsible as is President Bush for the disaster that now befalls us. Media plays a role. And the disintegration of Iraq, the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, of over 3,000 Americans, the cost of hundreds of billons of dollars out of our pockets -- directly related to the failure of the media.

Let me touch on another issue, an issue that I am deeply involved in. If you were to ask me what the most significant untold story of our time is, in terms of domestic politics, I would tell you very simply that that story happens to be the collapse of the American middle class. Simply stated -- I don’t want to speak at great length on it, but simply stated, despite an explosion of technology, huge increase in worker productivity, tens of millions of our fellow Americans have seen a decline in their real wages and are working longer hours for lower wages. In fact, what you probably don't know is that the working people in our country work longer hours than do the working people in any other industrialized nation on earth.

How did that happen? How did it happen today that a two-income family has less disposal income than a one-income family did thirty years ago? How does it happen that thirty years ago, one person working forty hours a week could earn enough money to take care of the family; now, you need two, and they're still not doing it? Now, one might think that this is an interesting story. One might think that globalization and disastrous trade policies, which have lowered the standard of living of millions of American workers, might be a story that should be covered.

What I can tell you is that when NAFTA was first passed over ten years ago -- and I strongly opposed NAFTA -- we did some research. We did some research. We went through the editorial pages of every major newspaper in America, every single one of them was prone after, and today, despite a $600 billion trade deficit, the loss of millions of good-paying blue-collar and white-collar jobs, these corporate titans are still in favor of unfettered free trade, despite the disastrous impact it has had on America's workers.

Now, what is all of this about? What happens? If the reality of working people's lives are not reflected in the TV, in the newspapers, what happens? This is what happens. People lose their jobs, because corporations shut down. Just had an instance in Vermont this week. 175 workers shut down, lost their jobs, because of free trade.

People working long hours, people working for lower wages, they turn on the television set, they do not see that reality. What they see is the issue is personal responsibility. You can't afford healthcare? You're losing your pension? Then the problem is with you. Work a little bit harder. It is not a systemic problem. It is not a problem that can be solved by government. It is not a problem which asked you to be involved in the political process. You are the only person who can find a job that pays you a living wage. That's your fault! And you are the only person who can’t find a job that provides you with healthcare. That's your fault! And you're the only father who can't afford to send your kid to college. That's your fault! Don't get involved in the political process. It won't do any good. So people turn on the television -- they’re hurting, they're exhausted -- they do not see a reflection of their reality in the media. They do not understand that participation in the political process can bring about change, and that is not by accident.

When we wake up in the morning and we brush our teeth, for better or worse, we see our own reflections in the mirror. When we turn on the television, somebody is providing us a mirror to the world, and what we want is that mirror to reflect the reality of ordinary people and not the illusions of a few.

AMY GOODMAN: More with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders after break.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to the Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Talk about healthcare. We are told that it is quite amazing. After sixteen years in the Congress, you hear these guys getting up on the floor announce, “We have the best healthcare system in the world. Yeah!” 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Even more are underinsured. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Costs are soaring. Best healthcare system in the world.

But, you know, go out on the street and ask people how many major countries in the world do not have a national healthcare program, which guarantees healthcare to all people. And you know what? Most people do not know, because they have not seen it reflected in the media, that the United States of America is the only nation on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all of its people. They do not know about the healthcare systems in Scandinavia. They do not know about European healthcare systems. And the only thing they will hear about the Canadian healthcare system are the problems that that system has. That's what they will hear.

I can remember in the early 1990s, during the early years of the Clinton administration, there was a lot of debate about the need for real healthcare reform. Do you happen to know which piece of legislation in the House had far more support than any other concept? You probably don't. It was legislation to support a single-payer national healthcare system. That's a fact. But, as somebody who was involved in that fight, we would turn on the television and say, “Hey, single payer has more support than any other concept. Are you going to talk about single payer?” “Oh, no, no. We don’t talk about single payer. It's not feasible.” Virtually no coverage about what a single-payer concept is about. Virtually no coverage about international healthcare and how other countries are doing a better job than we are doing.

In terms of the environment. In terms of the environment, if we are told over and over again that there is a serious scientific debate about the causation of global warming or whether global warming actually exists, it has an impact upon our consciousness. Why should we break our dependency on fossil fuels, why should we move to sustainable energy, if there is a debate among the scientific community? And that is, in fact, what you hear in the media. Well, you know what? There is no debate among the scientific community.

Now, here's an issue that I’m sure you see on the TV almost every night -- it probably bores you, you see it so much -- and that is that the United States today has the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth. I was joking. You don't see that on television very often. Now, here is at issue, you know, which is of enormous significance from an economic point of view, as well as a political point of view, as well as a moral point of view. Richest 1% of the population in America owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. Richest 13,000 families earn more income than do the bottom 20 million families. In many ways, in my view, we are moving toward an oligarchic form of society. Do you think that maybe this is an issue that should be thrown out there on the table? Do we think it's a good idea that so few have so much and so many have so little? But that is an issue that is beyond the scope of what establishment media is literally allowed to discuss.

Now, I have been in politics for a long time. I have been asked a thousand questions by media. Not one member of the media has ever come up to me and said, “Bernie, what are you going to do to deal with the outrage of America having the most unfair distribution of wealth of any country on earth? What are you going to do about it?” Have you ever heard any political leader ever being asked that question? Why not? Why is that issue outside of the scope of what we are allowed to talk about?

AMY GOODMAN: Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform. It took place last weekend in Memphis, Tennessee.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

Go on-site to read or to view video by clicking on the following link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16252.htm ^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 02:21 AM

.~~~~~~~~~
Iraqis will never accept this sellout to oil corporations
By:
Kamil Mahdi
1/22/2007 7:22:00 PM GMT

(Reuters Photo) Smoke rises from a destroyed oil pipeline in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad.

Go on-site to view photo's, comments and any links if available.

The U.S.-controlled Iraqi government is preparing to remove the country's most precious resource from national control.

Today Iraq remains under occupation, and the gulf between those who profess to rule and those who are ruled is filled with blood. The government is beholden to the occupation forces that are responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe and a political impasse. While defenceless citizens are killed at will, the government carries on with its business of protecting itself, collecting oil revenues, dispensing favours, justifying the occupation, and presiding over collapsing security, economic wellbeing, essential services and public administration. Above all, the rule of law has all but disappeared, replaced by sectarian demarcations under a parliamentary facade. Sectarianism promoted by the occupation is tearing apart civil society, local communities and public institutions, and it is placing people at the mercy of self-appointed communal leaders, without any legal protection.

The Iraqi government is failing to properly discharge its duties and responsibilities. It therefore seems incongruous that the government, with the help of USAid, the World Bank and the UN, is pushing through a comprehensive oil law to be promulgated close to an IMF deadline for the end of last year. Once again, an externally imposed timetable takes precedence over Iraq's interests. Before embarking on controversial measures such as this law favouring foreign oil firms, the Iraqi parliament and government must prove that they are capable of protecting the country's sovereignty and the people's rights and interests. A government that is failing to protect the lives of its citizens must not embark on controversial legislation that ties the hands of future Iraqi leaders, and which threatens to squander the Iraqis' precious, exhaustible resource in an orgy of waste, corruption and theft.

Government officials, including the deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, have announced that the draft oil law is ready to be presented to the cabinet for approval. Salih was an enthusiast for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and the Kurdish militia-led administration he represents has signed illegal oil agreements that it is now seeking to legalise. Given that parliament has not been meeting regularly, it is likely that legislation will be rushed through after a deal brokered under the auspices of the U.S. occupation.

Iraq's oil industry is in a parlous state as a result of sanctions, wars and occupation. The government, through the ministry of oil's inspector general, has issued damning reports of large-scale corruption and theft across the oil sector. Many competent senior technical officials have been sacked or demoted, and the state oil-marketing organisation has had several directors. Ministries and public organisations are increasingly operating as party fiefdoms, and private, sectarian and ethnic perspectives prevail over the national outlook. This state of affairs has negative results for all except those who are corrupt and unscrupulous, and the voracious foreign oil corporations. The official version of the draft law has not been published, but there is no doubt that it will be designed to hand most of the oil resources to foreign corporations under long-term exploration- and production-sharing agreements.

The oil law is likely to open the door to these corporations at a time when Iraq's capacity to regulate and control their activities will be highly circumscribed. It would therefore place the responsibility for protecting the country's vital national interest on the shoulders of a few vulnerable technocrats in an environment where blood and oil flow together in abundance. Common sense, fairness and Iraq's national interest dictate that this draft law must not be allowed to pass during these abnormal times, and that long-term contracts of 10, 15 or 20 years must not be signed before peace and stability return, and before Iraqis can ensure that their interests are protected.

This law has been discussed behind closed doors for much of the past year. Secret drafts have been viewed and commented on by the U.S. government, but have not been released to the Iraqi public - and not even to all members of parliament. If the law is pushed through in these circumstances, the political process will be further discredited even further. Talk of a moderate cross-sectarian front appears designed to ease the passage of the law and the sellout to oil corporations.

The U.S., the IMF and their allies are using fear to pursue their agenda of privatising and selling off Iraq's oil resources. The effect of this law will be to marginalise Iraq's oil industry and undermine the nationalisation measures undertaken between 1972 and 1975. It is designed as a reversal of Law Number 80 of December 1961 that recovered most of Iraq's oil from a foreign cartel. Iraq paid dearly for that courageous move: the then Prime Minister, General Qasim, was murdered 13 months later in a Ba'athist-led coup that was supported by many of those who are part of the current ruling alliance - the U.S. included. Nevertheless, the national oil policy was not reversed then, and its reversal under U.S. occupation will never be accepted by Iraqis.
-- Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi academic and senior lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter
K.A.Mahdi@exeter.ac.uk
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=13243

This has always been "The Plan", it was layed out before this group of interlopers were ever in office. It comes as no surprise to us or the Iraqi's. SRH ~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 10:58 AM

.
~~~~~~~
Ohio Election Workers convicted of felony
By
Evan Derkacz
Posted on January 25, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/47208/
Two low-level elections workers from Cuyahoga County, Ohio, were each convicted of a felony for "negligent misconduct of an elections employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty."
According to the prosecutors, they were "secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount."

And of course, Ohio tipped the election to Bush. But this is no smoking gun -- though it is another exposed gear in the dirty election fraud machinery, to be sure.

Though the AP article is a bit short on meat, we are fortunate enough to have the Black Box Voting folks all over this one.

Not only are these two employees taking the heat while the higher ups aren't even being questioned (Elections Board Director Michael Vu and County Board of Elections chair Bob Bennett), but it looks like the convicted workers' defense attorney happens to be a former Chairman of the Board of Elections back in '95.

This is no huge coincidence, of course, nor is it likely to signal anything particularly nefarious, as he is the person most familiar with the numerous and arcane laws governing elections in Ohio.

The one thing that does give one pause is the fact that, as Black Box points out, the defense lawyer didn't appear to push his clients toward a plea bargain, despite the fact that they were videotaped doing something that violated the law.

That sounds like some crappy lawyering.

Black Box notes that if these workers were just, as they claimed, following procedure, is it plausible to wonder whether illegal "procedures" had been in place since his years as chairman?

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/47208/
~~~

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 11:11 AM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The World Agrees:
Stop Bush Before He Kills Again
By
Robert Scheer
AlterNet
Posted on January 24, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/47179/

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our president, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.

President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the U.S. presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.

In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world's people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.

"The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the global poll. "The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.' "

More depressing, that judgment is shared by those who know us best: our allies in Britain, the only country still willing to share our sacrifices in Bush's once ballyhooed "Coalition of the Willing." Despite British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dogged support of his American chum, fully 81 percent of Britons told the BBC they are opposed to U.S. actions in Iraq, while a scant 14 percent still believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Mideast.

But it is not just our failure in that all-important region that disgraces us. Those around the world who still believe we play a positive global role has dropped to a miserable 29 percent, strikingly similar to Bush's overall performance numbers at home, according to the most recent CBS poll. So it's true: Bush is "a uniter, not a divider" -- uniting people across the world in their opposition to his policies.

With a whopping 71 percent saying in an ABC-Washington Post poll that the country is seriously off track, the Post called it "the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade." And that's at a time when the economy, presumed to be the all-important bellwether, is in halfway decent shape.

It's the war, stupid, and ending it is the major concern of most Americans, while all other issues are in single digits of importance to them.

In a shocking twist, Americans are now turning to the Democrats in Congress for leadership on foreign policy. "Three in 5 Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan," reported the Post. That is a mandate the Democrats ignore at their own peril.

Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush's sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

In fact, it seems as if everyone gets it except the president and those still hunkered down with him in the White House. "They've backed themselves into a tough corner," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Post, "and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want."

He added that it makes Bush seem to say, "I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway." Hardly the message that the leader of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy should be sending to the world. It is a message voters in the midterm election soundly rejected, along with the association of this great country with torture and chicanery, and it is the basis of what the Post calls a mainstream America "honeymoon" with the Democrats.

Americans understand in their gut that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with democracy, here and abroad, would be disastrous. In the same way Congress repudiated an out-of-control president three decades ago, the House and Senate must show the world today that our celebrated system of checks and balances is not just a fanciful mirage.

Spreading the ideal of democracy throughout the world remains a compelling obligation of those who enjoy freedom, making this an excellent occasion to demonstrate that we still possess a system capable of holding a deceitful and egomaniacal leader accountable.

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47179/
:: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 11:24 AM

.
XXXXXXXXXX
Chuck Hagel: 'Bush tried to get authorization to attack half the planet'

By
Joshua Holland
Posted on January 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/47178/

ThinkProgress has this story today …

......The Bush administration has taken a series of steps in recent weeks that appear to be setting the stage for a military confrontation with Iran. Congressional leaders have been raising red flags. "I'd like to be clear," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week. "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization." Recent comments made by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) explain why Congress's resistance is so vital.

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East -- not just in Iraq -- in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn't specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

Asked about his vote in support of the final Iraq war resolution, Hagel told GQ, "Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote."

Some of the blogs are calling this a "bombshell' revelation, but for the life of me I can't really understand why. It's long been clear that the administration is full of people who embrace the plainly delusional idea that there really is a "War on Terror" -- that we face a coordinated international Islamic Jihad. Fortunately, that's not the case (although on our current path we're making the emrgence of such a movement more likely).

The point is: if you think you're fighting a "Clash of Civilizations" against some massive nihilist conspiracy that exists throughout a given region, why wouldn't you seek authority to attack "them" wherever you find them? Given what we know of the Bush administration, the only surprising thing about this story is that they asked Congress for permission, even if they did so "begrudgingly."

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/47178/

XXXXX .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 01:07 PM

.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
....the other day I did a piece, "Surging from Kenai, Bush's Sacrificial Americans," on the American rural and small town dead of the Iraq War. It lacked hard figures. Subsequently, I discovered that they existed, which is why I return to this important and undercovered subject again today. Tom~~~The Forgotten American Dead
Rural America Pays the President's Price in Iraq
By Tom Engelhardt
When we hear about the American dead in Iraq, we normally learn about the circumstances in which they died. Last Saturday, for instance, was, for American troops, the third bloodiest day since the Bush administration launched its invasion in March 2003 -- 27 of them died. Twelve went down in a Blackhawk helicopter over Diyala Province, probably hit by a shoulder-fired missile. Five died under somewhat surprising and mysterious circumstances. They were attacked in a supposedly secure facility in the Shiite city of Karbala by gunmen who, despite their telltale beards, were dressed to imitate American soldiers and managed to drive through city checkpoints in exceedingly official-looking armored SUVs. They could, of course, have been members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, but were probably Sunni insurgents from a neighboring province. The rest of the Americans in that total died as a result of roadside bombs (IEDs) around Baghdad or fighting with Sunni insurgents, mainly in al-Anbar Province. The Pentagon announcements on which such news is based are usually terse in the extreme. The totals, 29 dead for the weekend (as well as hundreds of Iraqis), did, however, become major TV and front-page news around the country.

These deaths are presented another way in the little, black-edged boxes you see in many newspapers. (My hometown ledger, the New York Times, has one of these almost every day, placed wherever the humdrum bad news from Iraq happens to fall inside the paper and labeled, "Names of the Dead.") These, too, are taken from the Pentagon death announcements, which offer the barest of bare bones about those who just died. But they do tell you something that should be better noted in this country.

Take the Pentagon announcements for Iraq "casualties" from January 11th through January 23 -- 21 dead in all, 17 from the Army, 2 from the Marines, and 2 from the Navy (one in a "non-combat related incident" in Iraq, the other in Bahrain).

Then just check out their hometowns. Remove a few obvious large metropolitan areas, or parts thereof -- Boston, El Paso, Jacksonville, Irving (home of the Dallas Cowboys), and Irvine (California) -- and here's the parade of names you're left with:

Temecula (California), Henderson (Texas), San Marcos (Texas), Lawton (Michigan), Cambridge (Illinois), Casper (Wyoming), Richwood (Texas), Prairie Village (Kansas), Ewing (Kentucky), Wisconsin Rapids (Wisconsin), Redmond (Washington), Peoria (Arizona), Brandenburg (Kentucky), Sabine Pass (Texas), and Cathedral City (California).

A couple of these like Peoria (pop. 138,000) and Casper (pop. 52,000) are small cities. Others like Lawton (1,800) or Richwood (3,200) have the populations of small rural towns. On the face of it, if you were to intone this litany of the home places of the dead, it would minimally qualify as a list of the forgotten places of America, the sorts of hometowns you would only know if you had grown up there (or somewhere in the vicinity).

Are Sabine Pass or Cambridge, Illinois (not Massachusetts), or Wisconsin Rapids small towns in rural America? Probably, though any one of them (like Temecula) could, in fact, be a suburb of some larger urban area. Still you get the point. Go read the Pentagon death notices yourself, if you doubt me on where the dead of this war seem to be coming from.

As it happens, though, we don't have to rely on the anecdotal or the look of the names of the places from which the American dead have come. Demographer William O'Hare and journalist Bill Bishop, working with the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute, which specializes in the overlooked rural areas of our country, have actually crunched the numbers in an important study that has gotten too little attention. Matching a data set from the Department of Defense listing the dead and their hometowns against information from the White House Office of Management and Budget on which counties in this country are metropolitan, they found that the American dead of the Iraq and Afghan Wars do indeed come disproportionately from rural America. Quite startlingly so.

According to their study, the death rate "for rural soldiers (24 per million adults aged 18 to 59) is 60% higher than the death rate for those soldiers from cities and suburbs (15 deaths per million)." Of rural areas, Vermont has the highest rate of casualties, followed by Delaware, South Dakota, and Arizona. Only 8 of our states have higher urban than rural death rates.

Demographer O'Hare, who himself grew up in the small Michigan town of Flushing, tells Tomdispatch:
"We know that soldiers from rural America are dying at higher rates than those from urban America, strikingly higher, 60% higher. We know, from other research, that the rural young join the military at higher rates than those from metropolitan areas. The dearth of opportunity in rural areas simply leaves more young people there with fewer alternatives to the military.

"Dozens of case studies show that opportunities are moving away, part of a long-term shift. The opportunity differential between rural and urban America is probably higher now than at any time in the past. Our study highlights the price some young folks and their families are paying for lack of opportunity in rural America."

What does this mean? Just over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq. If the U.S. population is 300 million, then that's just 0.001% of it. Add into this the fact that the American dead come disproportionately from the most forgotten, least attended to parts of our country, from places that often have lost their job bases; consider that many of them were under or unemployed as well as undereducated, that they generally come from struggling, low-income, low-skills areas. Given that we have an all-volunteer military (so that not even the threat of a draft touches other young Americans), you could certainly say that the President's war in Iraq -- and its harm -- has been disproportionately felt. If you live in a rural area, you are simply far more likely to know a casualty of the war than in most major metropolitan areas of the country.

No wonder it's been easy for so many Americans to ignore such a catastrophic war until relatively recently. This might, in a sense, be considered part of a long-term White House strategy, finally faltering, of essentially fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home. When, for instance, soon after the 9/11 attacks the President urged Americans to go to Disney World or, in December 2006, to go "shopping more" to help the economy, he meant it. We were to go on with our normal lives, untouched by his war.

In an interview this week, the Newshour's Jim Lehrer asked the President the following:
"If it is as important as you've just said -- and you've said it many times -- as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military -- the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They're the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point."

And here was the President's pathetic but indicative answer:
"Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war."

In other words, our President wants -- has always wanted -- most of us to do nothing whatsoever.

To put all of this in some kind of crude context, let's consider the Iraqi side of this horrific equation. Just recently, the United Nations announced that in 2006, approximately 34,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. As Jon Weiner pointed out at the Nation Magazine's "The Notion" blog, this was clearly an undercount. Not all the December 2006 figures for the civilian dead were even in when it was toted up; bodies that didn't make it to morgues or hospitals couldn't be counted; embattled areas where officials might have underreported couldn't be dealt with; and, of course, though we don't know how the UN separated combatants from noncombatants, the report "almost certainly omitted deaths of Iraqi policemen, soldiers, insurgent fighters, and members of private militias like the Badr brigade."

Nonetheless, if the Iraqi population is about 27 million, then even that one-year undercount represents more than 0.1% of it. If, as such figures do indicate, total Iraqi deaths since the invasion reached even the low end of the recent Lancet study's estimates -- that is, several hundred thousand dead (and they could well be far higher) -- then we are talking about a country that has already lost at least 1% of its population as direct casualties of the President's invasion and occupation. (Remove relatively peaceful Iraqi Kurdistan from the equation and these numbers will, of course, look worse.)

To take another crude measure of such things, sociologists sometimes claim that an average American knows approximately 200 people by their first names. So think of those 3,000 dead Americans, significantly from rural areas, as known on a first-name basis to 600,000 other people. (If you include the war wounded, of course, these figures would go far higher.) On the same exceedingly crude basis, those 34,000 dead Iraqi civilians of 2006 alone would have been known by 6,800,000 other Iraqis. If you add in the Iraqi wounded, those who have fled the country, those who have become internal refugees in the roiling civil war and ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, there obviously can essentially be no one in Iraq who has escaped intimate knowledge of the ravages of the American invasion and occupation, and the insurgency and civil war that have followed.

In other words, you have a war launched by a country whose people, in a personal sense, can hardly know that it's going on and it's being fought in a country that has been taken apart and ravaged more or less down to the last citizen.

Or think of it this way: The forgotten rural American dead are the Iraqis of the American War. I leave you to wonder about what the Iraqi dead are. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\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, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

Note: The Carsey Institute report by William O'Hare and Bill Bishop, "U.S. Rural Soldiers Account for a Disproportionately High Share of Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan" can be read by clicking here (pdf file) or you can go to this page at Rural Strategies.org, an interesting outfit that also focuses on the problems of rural America, to find the report and more material on the rural dead of the war, including a good piece on small towns and casualties by Nick Stump that appeared on the Daily Kos site.
Copyright 2007 Tom Engelhardt
Go on-site for the numerous links by clicking on the following:
URL: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=160190 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 02:05 PM

./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Webb: If Bush Doesn’t Take The ‘Right Kind Of Action…We Will Be Showing Him The Way’In his response to the State of the Union, Sen. James Webb’s (D-VA) offered a harsh criticism of President Bush’s national security and economic policies. He said that Bush “recklessly” took the country into war with Iraq, ignored the advice of his top advisers, and is now holding the nation hostage in the war’s “predictable — and predicted — disarray.” Watch it:

Webb also compared the current situation of economic disparity in the United States to the era of when “robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth” and the “dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.” Like Theodore Roosevelt, Bush now needs to take the “right kind of action” for “the benefit of the American people.” Webb concluded, if Bush chooses a new direction, “we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.”
Digg It!

Transcript:

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/webb-sotu/
Go on-site to view comments, etc.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
.

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 03:07 PM

.
^^^^^^^^^^^Bush's health plan as starting blockDemocrats can't afford to reject a veto-wielding president's ideas on healthcare reform until 2009.
The Monitor's View
from the January 25, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0125/p08s02-comv.html

For Democrats in Congress, two facts stand out over the next two years: The top economic concern of Americans is the rising cost of healthcare, and doing something about it will need the president's cooperation. Any solution will need two-party action.

That was hardly the mood, however, after President Bush proposed his most innovative idea in Tuesday's State of the Union speech. In fact, the Democrats' rejection of his plan to fix the tax code to favor the uninsured could mean the majority party in Congress simply wants healthcare to be campaign fodder for the 2008 election.

Or not.

Getting to yes on some sort of healthcare reform will mean Congress must recognize the veto pen that Mr. Bush still wields until 2009 and thus negotiate with him. And doing so means looking beyond the details of this new proposal and dealing with the basic Bush markers in this debate:

1. Individuals must retain the freedom to choose their type of healthcare, and that requires a market-based approach in which patients and their healthcare providers have maximum say.

2. States such as California and Massachusetts are proving to be laboratories for providing universal health insurance, and a grand federal solution can wait for those models to show promise.

3. The current, limited federal hand in healthcare is in need of reform, and any action there must be revenue neutral.

The details of Bush's proposal – which have been kicking around Washington for more than a decade – are simple: Federal tax policy should not support the kind of excessive health insurance enjoyed by some 30 million Americans that leads to an overuse of medical services and an inflation of costs. And it should reward the uninsured if they buy health insurance. (See related news story.)

The plan would also correct a fundamental unfairness: Healthcare insurance that is now provided as compensation to workers by an employer is not taxed, while anyone who buys insurance on their own receives no tax break.

Making such fixes to the tax code may be inadequate to many Democrats who want a nationalized (and thus rationed) healthcare system like those in Canada, Europe, and Japan, but they are difficult to reject as starting points for joint action.

The president's solution is to provide a tax deduction of up to $15,000 for any family who buys health insurance (and $7,500 for individuals), with those limits indexed to inflation. Spending more than those amounts on health coverage would be taxed.

With such tax incentives, an estimated 3 million of the 47 million Americans without insurance might be able to afford coverage. That's a start as more states move toward providing universal insurance – moves that Bush would support by shifting some federal money to those efforts.

Tweaking this Bush approach may be necessary as its full impact is studied. But ignoring it, as key Democrats have said they will do, means the national dialogue on healthcare will only be delayed another two years. It shouldn't take another election to again send the message that delay is unacceptable.
^^^
Reporters aren't getting the picture any more than are the politicians. There are too many, who, through no fault of their own, cannot, in all certainty, afford to buy their own health insurance, and there aren't jobs for them which have employers to pay into insurance coverage to protect them either. Most states can't afford to take this massive enterprise on either, not even for the most needy of us. SRH
Go on-site to view: Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
^^^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 25th, 2007, 03:42 PM

.*************---------------------
Report by Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization,
publicly released on Jan. 6, 2007
---------------------

FACTUAL ERRORS IN CNN PRESENTS:
NO SURVIVORS

The CNN No Survivors program on the crash of TWA Flight 800 presented invalid analyses and misleading information in support of the government's theory while dismissing and ignoring real evidence pointing to other reasons for the jetliner’s demise.

CNN Crash Sequence Animation

CNN's animation of the jetliner flying onward and upward after it exploded conflicts with the hard evidence provided by the many radar sites that recorded the crash. The radar sites show Flight 800's ground speed increasing immediately after losing electrical power. This acceleration indicates that Flight 800 descended immediately after exploding. Gravity accelerated the jetliner as it went down, just as a bicyclist increases speed going down hills.

This means that the climb shown in CNN's animation and in government simulations are invalid. Indeed, every government simulation and animation released to date conflicts with the radar data at precisely the point when Flight 800 is alleged to have climbed. Independently run simulations showing that Flight 800 descended immediately, fit with the radar data.

So why show Flight 800 climbing? The government used the climb to explain the accounts of nearly 200 eyewitnesses who reported seeing a rising streak of light or flare before the crash. Without the climb, the government's theory does not account for the rising flare. CNN's animation, which also includes a climb, does not fit with what the hard data shows.

The Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization [FIRO] publicly reported the discrepancies between the radar data and government flight simulations in an August 1999 press conference in Washington DC that C-Span covered. FIRO’s findings were based on the official radar-recorded trajectory of the aircraft. After the FIRO press conference, the NTSB conducted several more simulations, none of which matched the radar data. To date, the NTSB has not done any simulation that matches the radar data.

If the NTSB admitted that Flight 800 did not climb—which is what the hard evidence or radar data shows—it would not be able to explain why hundreds of eyewitness reported seeing a rising streak of light moments before the crash. So, the NTSB has stuck with the climb scenario and maintained that the rising streak seen by so many was the aircraft itself. Again, the hard data—the radar evidence—shows otherwise.

NTSB Chairman Hall addressed the data showing that Flight 800 did not climb during the final hearing on TWA Flight 800 in August 2000. Hall asked Witness Group Chairman Dr David Mayer: “Now, if you could show that the airplane did not climb after the nose departed, will that change your analysis?” Mayer responded, “No sir...” Chairman Hall did not ask Mayer why his analysis would not change if the evidence showed that Flight 800 did not climb.

When Hall asked Mayer if he would change his conclusion if the evidence indicated that a different scenario was valid and Mayer responded that he would not, Mayer was being scientifically dishonest.

The Missile Theory
No Survivors producer David Mattingly used the government's flawed reasoning to dismiss the missile theory. The government, through Mattingly's leading questions, said that there was no evidence of a missile anywhere on the plane. However, according to the NTSB's own lead TWA 800 investigator, former Aviation Safety Director Dr. Bernard Loeb, the localized re-crystallization of metal on the center wing tank could have been caused by a missile. Indeed, the NTSB did not rule out a missile as the cause of that damage, according to Loeb. Was Mr. Mattingly aware of Dr. Loeb’s conclusion?

In No Survivors and in government reports, attention was drawn to small shoulder-fired missiles. Mattingly assumes that since there was no evidence of damage from these small missiles that there was no evidence of any kind of missile. Mattingly's statement, “Missiles leave pockmarks on metal” is misleading because it is out of context. He should have said that small, shoulder-launched missiles leave pockmarks. And the segment should have made it clear to the audience that only this small type of missile was being considered and could be ruled out. A key question Mattingly could have asked was: Could other types of missiles have caused this kind of damage? By failing to ask that question, Mattingly fell for the “look here, not there” ploy.

The pockmarks are caused by extremely hot gases and material ejected from a small warhead that is very close to the aircraft when exploding. Many types of larger missiles explode much further away from the aircraft and leave different types of damage signatures—signatures that were in fact present in the Flight 800 wreckage. Even lead TWA 800 investigator Dr. Loeb has not ruled out a large missile as the cause of these signatures.

So the sequence where Mattingly holds up wreckage from a government test involving a small, shoulder-fired missile and asks an NTSB investigator if damage like that occurred anywhere on the aircraft illustrates how improper and incomplete research leads to bad reporting. When the investigator answers “no” to Mattingly’s questions, viewers are left believing that there was no damage to the aircraft consistent with any type of missile. This is incorrect.

Eyewitnesses
CNN interviewed Naneen Levine, who drew a picture of what she saw in front of CNN's cameras: a red dot of light heading nearly straight up and arcing to the right before exploding at Flight 800's position. Naneen's account is consistent with hundreds of other witnesses, and her description of the red dot's trajectory is completely inconsistent with any stage of Flight 800's break up.

The dot went straight up and curved to the right. Flight 800 went to the left and curved downward. CNN did not address this discrepancy, but left discredited government officials to explain that what Levine saw was most likely the plane on fire. This is clearly impossible considering Flight 800's initial trajectory, the radar data, and the debris field locations. CNN’s No Survivors producers apparently were not aware of these discrepancies and did not ask government officials about them.

CNN interviewed two airborne eyewitnesses who saw Flight 800 explode but did not report seeing a missile. CNN chose not to interview the two Air National Guard pilots, Captain Chris Baur and Major Fred Meyer, also airborne witnesses, who were the first to arrive at the crash site. Baur and Meyer described seeing a missile or some flying pyrotechnic device either collide with or explode into Flight 800. Major Meyer flew over-land rescues in Vietnam and has seen missiles before. He is certain what he saw was a missile and that the subsequent explosion was military ordinance. Why didn't CNN interview these witnesses or attempt to explain their accounts?

Smoking Gun Evidence Neglected
Just as egregious as the misleading and incorrect information CNN presented, was the information it neglected.

Immediately after Flight 800 exploded, wreckage was blown out the right side of the plane at apparent super-sonic speeds. Radar data shows that this wreckage was hurled out about one-quarter of a mile from where the jetliner exploded and at an average speed of 500 mph. Given the incredible force of air resistance, this wreckage most likely exited the airframe at a supersonic speed. It traveled nearly perpendicular to the flight path, continuing on before splashing down about one-half mile south of Flight 800’s easterly track.

The Navy found it during salvage operations and marked it “Recovered (Confirmed)” in their salvage report, but for some reason, this wreckage was never entered into the NTSB's debris field database. There are, obviously, important questions to be asked about this debris, the speed with which it left the jetliner and why it was never entered into the NTSB’s debris field database.

This piece of wreckage could not fit in the official theory. Officially and according to the NSTB Systems Group Chairman Bob Swaim, nothing exited Flight 800's airframe at subsonic, never mind supersonic speeds at that time. However, the radar data showing this wreckage and the Navy's recovery location contradict Swaim’s claim.

On the other hand, this wreckage is consistent with witness reports of a southbound missile before the crash. It is unlikely that radar would pick up the smooth, rounded surfaces of an unexploded missile. Radar could, however detect jagged missile parts after detonation. Also, any pieces of Flight 800's airframe that may have been ejected as a result of the detonation would contain adequate reflective surfaces to be picked up. This is precisely what the radar information shows: high-speed wreckage and/or missile parts exiting on a very fast, southerly trajectory just after the initial explosion.

The government has no explanation for this radar data or the Navy's recovery location. And it is presently not listed in the official debris field database. This wreckage would not have been ignored in a responsible report on TWA 800’s demise.

Summary
The No Survivors documentary was poorly researched and inadequately fact-checked. The above lists just a few areas of reporting in the show that were erroneous and misleading. The radar, debris field, forensic, and eyewitness evidence is compelling and consistent. It fits well into a theory involving a missile, while contradicting the government's theory. CNN’s producers relied on discredited government sources and invalid data to present a program that is seriously flawed and full of misinformation about one of our nation’s worst air disasters. CNN could do better. The American public deserves better.
~~~~~~~
For more information on the crash of TWA Flight 800, visit the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization's website.

I remember seeing video of that plane and it looking like a missle was heading towards, it, striking it and exploding. I remember seeing eyewitness accounts saying it was hit by a missle, and then the government saying it was an optical illusion. I never did believe them on this and I'm not into imagining things. It certainly did look like a missle. I always wondered if the government didn't level with us, thinking it would harm air travel, causing the airlines financial ruin, much like happened after 9/11. But then we didn't hear anyone claiming to have launched it either, so it's still a mystery. SRH

From CNN EXPOSED:
http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=31
Full CNN Story
^^^^^^^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 02:19 PM

.*********
The GOP Hypocrite of the WeekSo Many Republican Hypocrites,
So Little Time__________________________________January 26, 2007Alberto GonzalesWelcome back to the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week.Sometimes you think Bush's Consigliere, Alberto Gonzales, is using feigned stupidity as a way to patronize Congress and the American people.

He does it in almost any public pronouncement, larding up his comments with lies and statements that defy any legal logic – which is a bit troubling since he is by title the Attorney General of the United States, AKA the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

That's why even "Snarlin" Arlen Specter was a bit flabbergasted to hear Gonzales declare at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting last week that the Constitution does not grant a right of habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as Specter pointed out. Yet, in a specious statement that is both illogical and a brazen rewriting of the Constitution, Gonzales insisted – get this – "that the Constitution does not contain any express right of habeas corpus, only 'a prohibition against taking it away.'"

Gonzales's colleague in the Bush crime family, Supreme Court Justice Nino "The Fixer" Scalia, runs around the country declaring himself a "strict constructionist," who takes the Constitution literally.

When the Constitution says that you can’t take habeas corpus away, any "strict constructionist" would consider that an express right, except of course for the legal gopher for Godfather Cheney and his spiritual son, Fredo Bush Corleone.

It's both abominable arrogance and grand hypocrisy for the Attorney General of the United States to rewrite the Constitution – and for that Alberto "Consigliere" Gonzales is our BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week.

Until next week, remember our motto: So many Republican hypocrites, so little time.

Catch up with you soon.
* * * Previous HOTW Awards for Alberto Gonzales: February 10, 2006, December 16, 2005, January 28, 2005.* * * This GOPHypocrites.com web site and The GOP Hypocrite of the Week are projects of and © BuzzFlash.com. ******* .

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 03:22 PM

.
.........
A NEWSLETTER
A PETITION TO SIGN

Dear Saundra R.,

Last September, you helped expose inaccuracies and partisan misrepresentations in ABC's controversial docudrama "The Path to 9/11." This Sunday, Fox News' Sean Hannity is planning to broadcast the fictitious scenes that ABC found unfit to air.

As you may recall, one of the outtakes featured a conversation where former national security advisor Sandy Berger refuses to approve a CIA request to attack Osama bin Laden - an event that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission confirmed never occurred.

It's one thing for Fox News to provide their usual biased political commentary. It's another thing to promote discredited fiction as news. We need you to stand up for the truth.

Write Sean Hannity And Demand That He Tell America That This Never Happened!

According to his executive producer, Sean Hannity and Fox News "feel the American people deserve both sides." We can only assume that the producer means fiction vs. fact. It's our obligation to stand up for the facts. ABC Television omitted certain scenes not because they were partisan, but because they were blatantly untrue.

Fox News and Sean Hannity have a right to be partisan and express their own opinions. However, if they want to claim that they're journalists, they have an obligation to report the truth. It's time to step up the pressure on Sean Hannity and Fox News.

Write Sean Hannity And Demand That He Tell America That This Never Happened! http://thinkprogress.org/tellhannity

This Sunday, we'll watch Hannity's America so you don't have to! Check in with ThinkProgress.org for the latest on this story and to see if Hannity responds to our requests. http://thinkprogress.org/

Thanks so much for your continued support,
Stephen Geer
Center for American Progress Action Fund

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.

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 03:39 PM

.X X X X X X XCBS censoring its own news on Iraq?
By
Barry Lando
Posted on January 26, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/47255/
A very disturbing email from CBS's correspondent in Baghdad:
From: lara logan, cbs news baghdad
Subject: help
The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.

Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.

I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.

If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story – not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.

Many, many thanks. Lara.

Watch the video HERE: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2371456n
I hadnt realised it when I made the initial post above, but an indepth look at the controversy surrounding Lara Logan's report has been done by Media Channels. I would urge readers to check out the following url: http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/01/24/helping-lara-logan/

P.S. for those interested, i will be talking about my new book “Web of Deceit” on the Colbert Report Monday January 29th. That same morning, I will be the guest of Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush." He also blogs at Barrylando.com.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/47255/ X X X

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 05:02 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
GOP tries to kill minimum wage
By
Bob Geiger
Posted on January 25, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/geiger/47225/

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), evidently convinced that he was beating a dead horse by continuing his quest to ban flag-burning and discriminate against gay people, announced this month that he would not seek reelection in 2008 and the thought of having so little time left to screw the working poor from a comfy U.S. Senate seat must have just been eating him alive.

Allard, who has voted against a minimum wage increase more often than Fox News smears Barack Obama, went for broke this week and introduced a bill that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely and left the wage rate for the lowest-paid workers to each state.

In Kansas, this would mean that workers would revert to the state-mandated minimum wage of $2.65 per hour, which is currently superseded by the federal minimum of $5.15.

"In its current form, the bill attempts to blindly blanket the Nation with a new Federal minimum wage without regard to unique economic conditions of each individual State," said Allard in fighting the proposed $2.10 increase in the federal minimum wage. "Less Government intervention, at all levels, enables the private sector to attract, recruit, and retain the best possible employees and reward increased productivity and responsibility with higher compensation."

So, according to Allard, employees in all states should expect that the good-hearted nature of business would compensate them in a way that's fair and just -- yeah, that notion has worked out well for us in the past. He also contends that it's unfair for the federal government to mandate a whopping $7.25 per hour when those people in Kansas know damn good and well that they can support their families on just $2.65.

Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and Allard's disgusting legislation was killed, but with 28 Republican Senators voting in favor of no federal oversight of the lowest wage an American worker can be paid.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who has long been the champion of the working poor, must have felt like slapping Allard, but was content to just publicly rebuke him.

"If we accepted the amendment of the Senator, it would effectively eliminate the minimum wage as we know it," said Kennedy in opposing Allard's bill. "We have tried to be not only the strongest economy in the world but one that is going to respect workers and workers' rights and workers' interests and workers' families. The minimum wage does not do so at the present time, but many of us will continue to battle to try to make sure it does. The Allard amendment brings us all in the opposite direction."

What's also instructive is the small number of words that it can take to move a country backwards… Allard's measure was very short and sweet and, in the following 56 words, would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to eliminate federal wage protection for low-income workers:

...... "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided for by the law of the State in which the employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State on January 1, 2007.''.
It doesn't take much, does it?

And here's yet another point where Americans should breathe a massive sigh of relief that they had the smarts to elect a Democratic Congress in November.

Update: Here's the 28 Senators who voted yesterday to eliminate the Federal Minimum Wage.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Who Wanted To Eliminate The Federal Minimum Wage?
Here's the Republican Senators who voted for the measure killed in the Senate yesterday that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
For the record, those running for reelection in 2008 are Alexander, Bennett, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Enzi, Graham, Hagel, Inhofe, McConnell and Sununu.

Oh, and that guy McCain is probably running for president and Brownback definitely is.

posted by Bob Geiger at 1/25/2007 03:05:00 PM
Bob Geiger is a writer, activist and Democratic operative in Westchester County, NY. You can reach Bob at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at BobGeiger.com.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/geiger/47225/ :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 05:22 PM

.~~~~~~~
What Can Be Done in Iraq?
Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions
By Lt. General WILLIAM E. ODOM (US Army Ret.)
Friday, 26 January 2007
Text of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,18 January 2007

The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al Qaeda, not American interests.
Good afternoon, Senator Biden, and members of the committee. It is a grave responsibility to testify before you today because the issue, the war in Iraq, is of such monumental importance.

You have asked me to address primarily the military aspects of the war. Although I shall comply, I must emphasize that it makes no sense to separate them from the political aspects. Military actions are merely the most extreme form of politics. If politics is the business of deciding "who gets what, when, how," as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City once said, then the military aspects of war are the most extreme form of politics. The war in Iraq will answer that question there.

Strategic Overview
The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves. We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:
* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;
* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.
The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners. Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely. Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

2. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al Qaeda, not American interests

We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq. To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Baathist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shiite groups. The Baathist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran. At the same time, our democratization policy has installed Shiite majorities and pro-Iranians groups in power in Baghdad, especially in the ministries of interior and defense. Moreover, our counterinsurgency operations are, as unintended (but easily foreseeable) consequences, first, greater Shiite openness to Iranian influence and second, al Qaeda's entry into Iraq and rooting itself in some elements of Iraqi society.

3. On the international level, the war has effectively paralyzed the United States militarily and strategically, denying it any prospect of revising its strategy toward an attainable goal.

As long as US forces remained engaged Iraq, not only will the military costs go up, but also the incentives will decline for other states to cooperate with Washington to find a constructive outcome. This includes not only countries contiguous to Iraq but also Russia and key American allies in Europe. In their view, we deserve the pain we are suffering for our arrogance and unilateralism.

4. Overthrowing the Iraqi regime in 2003 insured that the country would fragment into at least three groups; Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. In other words, the invasion made it inevitable that a civil war would be required to create a new central government able to control all of Iraq. Yet a civil war does not insure it. No faction may win the struggle. A lengthy stalemate, or a permanent breakup of the country is possible. The invasion also insured that outside countries and groups would become involve. Al Qaeda and Iran are the most conspicuous participants so far, Turkey and Syria less so. If some of the wealthy oil-producing countries on the Arabian Peninsula are not already involved, they are most likely to support with resources any force in Iraq that opposes Iranian influence.

Many critics argue that, had the invasion been done "right," such as sending in much larger forces for re-establishing security and government services, the war would have been a success. This argument is not convincing. Such actions might have delayed a civil war but could not have prevented it. Therefore, any military programs or operations having the aim of trying to reverse this reality, insisting that we can now "do it right," need to be treated with the deepest of suspicion. That includes the proposal to sponsor the breakup by creating three successor states. To do so would be to preside over the massive ethnic cleansing operations required for the successor states to be reasonably stable. Ethnic cleansing is happening in spite of the US military in Iraq, but I see no political or moral advantage for the United States to become its advocate. We are already being blamed as its facilitator.

Let me now turn to key aspects of the president's revised approach to the war, as well as several other proposals.

In addition to the president, a number of people and groups have supported increased US force levels. As General Colin Powell has said, before we consider sending additional US troops, we must examine what missions they will have. I would add that we ask precisely what those troops must do to reverse any of these four present realities created by the invasion. I cannot conceive of any achievable missions they could be given to cause a reversal.

Just for purposes of analysis, let us suppose we had unlimited numbers of US troops to deploy in Iraq. Would that change my assessment? In principle, if two or three million troops were deployed there with the latitude to annihilate all resistance without much attention to collateral civilian casualties and human rights, order might well be temporarily reestablished under a reign of US terror. The problem we would then face is that we would be opposed not only by 26 million Iraqis but also by millions of Arabs and Iranians surrounding Iraq, peoples angered by our treatment of Muslims and Arabs. These outsiders are already involved to some degree in the internal war in Iraq, and any increase of US forces is likely to be exceeded by additional outside support for insurgents.

I never cease to be amazed at our military commanders' apparent belief that the "order of battle" of the opposition forces they face are limited to Iraq. I say "apparent" because those commanders may be constrained by the administration's policies from correcting this mistaken view. Once the invasion began, Muslims in general and Arabs in particular could be expected to take sides against the United States. In other words, we went to war not just against the Iraqi forces and insurgent groups but also against a large part of the Arab world, scores and scores of millions. Most Arab governments, of course, are neutral or somewhat supportive, but their publics in growing numbers are against us.

It is a strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq. Yet this is the implicit assumption on which the president's new strategy is based. We have turned it into two wars that vastly exceed the borders of Iraq. First, there is the war against the US occupation that draws both sympathy and material support from other Arab countries. Second, there is the Shiite-Sunni war, a sectarian conflict heretofore sublimated within the Arab world but that now has opened the door to Iranian influence in Iraq. In turn, it foreordains an expanding Iranian-Arab regional conflict.

Any military proposals today that do not account for both larger wars, as well as the Iranian threat to the Arab states on the Persian Gulf, must be judged wholly inadequate if not counterproductive. Let me now turn to some specific proposals, those advocated by independent voices and the Iraq Study Group as well as the administration.

Specific Proposals

Standing up Iraqi security forces to replace US forces. Training the Iraqi military and police force has been proposed repeatedly as a way to bring stability to Iraq and allow US forces to withdraw. Recently, new variants, such as embedding US troops within Iraqi units, have been offered. The Iraq Study Group made much of this technique.

I know of no historical precedent to suggest that any of them will succeed. The problem is not the competency of Iraqi forces. It is political consolidation and gaining the troops' loyalties to the government and their commanders as opposed to their loyalties to sectarian leaders, clans, families, and relatives. For what political authority are Iraqi soldiers and police willing to risk their lives? To the American command? What if American forces depart? Won't they be called traitors for supporting the invaders and occupiers? Will they trust in a Shiite-dominated government and ministry of interior, which is engaged in assassinations of Sunnis? Sunni Arabs and Kurds would be foolish to do so, although financial desperation has driven many to risk it. What about to the leaders of independent militias? Here soldiers can find strong reasons for loyal service: to defend their fellow sectarians, families, and relatives. And that is why the government cannot disband them. It has insufficient loyal troops to do so.

As a military planner working on the pacification programs in 1970-71 in Vietnam, I had the chance to judge the results of training both regular South Vietnamese forces and so-called "regional" and "popular" forces. Some were technically proficient, but that did not ensure that they would always fight for the government in Saigon. Nor were they always loyal to their commanders. And they occasionally fought each other when bribed by Viet Cong agents to do so. The "popular forces" at the village level often failed to protect their villages. The reasons varied, but in several cases it was the result of how their salaries were funded. Local tax money was not the source of their pay; rather it was US-supplied funds. Thus these troops, as well as "regional forces," had little sense of obligation to protect villagers in their areas of responsibility. For anyone who doubts that the Vietnam case is instructive for understanding the Iraqi case, I recommend Ahmed S. Hashim's recent book, Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq. A fluent Arab linguist and a reserve US Army colonel, who has served a year in Iraq and visited it several other times, Hashim offers a textured study that struck me again and again as a re-run of an old movie, especially where it concerned US training of Iraqi forces.

US military assistance training in El Salvador is often cited as a successful case. In fact, this effort amounted to letting the old elites, who used death squads to impose order, come back to power in different guises. And death squads are again active there. The real cause of the defeat of the Salvadoran insurgency was Gorbachev's decision to cut off supplies to it, as he promised President George H. Bush at the Malta summit meeting. Thus denied their resource base, and having failed to create a self-supporting tax regime in the countryside as the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, they could not survive for long. Does the administration's new plan for Iraq promise to eliminate all outside support to the warring factions? Is it even remotely possible? Hardly.

The oft-cited British success in Malaysia is only superficially relevant to the Iraq case. British officials actually ruled the country. Thus they had decades of firsthand knowledge of the local politics. They made such a mess of it, however, that an insurgency emerged in opposition. A new military commander and a clean-up of the colonial administration provided political consolidation and the isolation of the communist insurgents, mostly members of an ethnic minority group. This pattern would be impossible to duplicate in Iraq.

An infusion of new funds for reconstruction. A shortage of funds has not been the cause of failed reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Administrative capacity to use funds effectively was and remains the primary obstacle. Even support programs carried out by American contractors for US forces have yielded mixed results. Insurgent attacks on the projects have provoked transfers of construction funds to security measures, which have also failed.

A weak or non-existent government administrative capacity allows most of the money to be squandered. Putting another billion or so dollars into public works in Iraq today * before a government is in place with an effective administrative capacity to penetrate to the neighborhood and village level * is like trying to build a roof on a house before its walls have been erected. Moreover, a large part of that money will find its way into the hands of insurgents and sectarian militias. That is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and it has been happening in Iraq.

New and innovative counterinsurgency tactics. The cottage industry of counterinsurgency tactics is old and deceptive. When the US military has been periodically tasked to reinvent them * the last great surge in that industry was at the JFK School in Fort Bragg in the 1960's * it has no choice but to pretend that counterinsurgency tactics can succeed where no political consolidation in the government has yet been achieved. New counterinsurgency tactics cannot save Iraq today because they are designed without account for the essence of any "internal war," whether an insurgency or a civil war.

Such wars are about "who will rule," and who will rule depends on "who can tax" and build an effective state apparatus down to the village level.

The taxation issue is not even on the agenda of US programs for Iraq. Nor was it a central focus in Vietnam, El Salvador, the Philippines, and most other cases of US-backed governments embroiled in internal wars. Where US funding has been amply provided to those governments, the recipient regime has treated those monies as its tax base while failing to create an indigenous tax base. In my own study of three counterinsurgency cases, and from my experience in Vietnam, I discovered that the regimes that received the least US direct fiscal support had the most success against the insurgents. Providing funding and forces to give an embattled regime more "time" to gain adequate strength is like asking a drunk to drink more whiskey in order to sober up.

Saddam's regime lived mostly on revenues from oil exports. Thus it never had to create an effective apparatus to collect direct taxes. Were US forces and counterinsurgency efforts to succeed in imposing order for a time, the issue of who will control the oil in Iraq would become the focus of conflict for competing factions. The time would not be spent creating the administrative capacity to keep order and to collect sufficient taxes to administer the country. At best, the war over who will eventually rule country would only be postponed.

This is the crux of the dilemma facing all such internal wars. I make this assertion not only based on my own study, but also in light of considerable literature that demonstrates that the single best index of the strength of any state is its ability to collect direct taxes, not export-import tax or indirect taxes. The latter two are relatively easy to collect by comparison, requiring much weaker state institutions.

The Iraq Study Group. The report of this group should not be taken as offering a new or promising strategy for dealing with Iraq. Its virtue lies in its candid assessment of the realities in Iraq. Its great service has been to undercut the misleading assessments, claims, and judgment by the administration. It allows the several skeptical Republican members of the Congress to speak out more candidly on the war, and it makes it less easy for those Democrats who were heretofore supporters of the administration's war to refuse to reconsider.

If one reads the ISG report in light of the four points in the strategic overview above, one sees the key weakness of its proposals. It does not concede that the war, as it was conceived and continues to be fought, is not "winnable." It rejects the rapid withdrawal of US forces as unacceptable. No doubt a withdrawal will leave a terrible aftermath in Iraq, but we cannot avoid that. We can only make it worse by waiting until we are forced to withdraw. In the meantime, we prevent ourselves from escaping the paralysis imposed on us by the war, unable to redefine our war aims, which have served Iranian and al Qaeda interests instead of our own.

I do not criticize the report for this failure. As constructed, the group could not advance a fundamental revision of our strategy. Its Republican and Democrat members could not be said to represent all members of their own parties. Thus the most it could do was to make it politically easier for the administration to begin a fundamental revision of its strategy instead of offering a list of tactical changes for the same old war aim of creating a liberal democracy with a pro-American orientation in Iraq.

What Would a Revised Strategy Look Like?

How can the United States recover from this strategic blunder?

It cannot as long as fails to revise its war aims. Wise leaders in war have many times admitted that their war aims are misguided and then revised them to deal with realities beyond their control. Such leaders make tactical withdrawals, regroup, and revise their aims, and design new strategies to pursue them. Those who cannot make such adjustments eventually face defeat.

What war aim today is genuinely in the US interest and offers realistic prospects of success? And not just in Iraq but in the larger region?

Since the 1950's, the US aim in this region has been "regional stability" above all others. The strategy for achieving this aim of every administration until the present one has been maintaining a regional balance of power among three regional forces * Arabs, Israelis, and Iranians. The Arab-Persian conflict is older than the Arab-Israeli conflict. The United States kept a diplomatic foothold in all three camps until the fall of the shah's regime in Iran. Losing its footing in Tehran, it began under President Carter's leadership to compensate by building what he called the Persian Gulf Security Framework. The US Central Command with enhanced military power was born as one of the main means for this purpose, but the long-term goal was a rapprochement. Until that time, the military costs for maintaining the regional power balance would be much higher.

The Reagan Administration, although it condemned Carter's Persian Gulf Security Framework, the so-called "Carter Doctrine," continued Carter's policies, even to the point of supporting Iraq when Iran was close to overrunning it. Some of its efforts to improve relations with Iran were feckless and counterproductive, but it maintained the proper strategic aim * regional stability.

The Bush Administration has broken with this strategy by invading Iraq and also by threatening the existence of the regime in Iran. It presumed that establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq would lead to regional stability. In fact, the policy of spreading democracy by forces of arms has become the main source of regional instability.

This not only postponed any near-term chance of better relations with Iran, but also has moved the United States closer to losing its footing in the Arab camp as well. That, of course, increases greatly the threats to Israel's security, the very thing it was supposed to improve, not to mention that it makes the military costs rise dramatically, exceeding what we can prudently bear, especially without the support of our European allies and others.

Several critics of the administration show an appreciation of the requirement to regain our allies and others' support, but they do not recognize that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the sine qua non for achieving their cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse for them than for the United States, and they know that without US participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional stability. Until we understand this critical point, we cannot design a strategy that can achieve what we can legitimately call a victory.

Any new strategy that does realistically promise to achieve regional stability at a cost we can prudently bear, and does not regain the confidence and support of our allies, is doomed to failure. To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.

Comments
Arvy: The General Is Correct
If politics is the business of deciding "who gets what, when, how," as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City once said, then the military aspects of war are the most extreme form of politics.

I'm not sure that General Odum full appreciates all of the interests involved when he suggest that the war has served primarily other than American interests. Maybe he equates American interests with those of ordinary Americans. In any case, at least insofar as wars under the banner of U.S. "full spectrum dominance" are conerned, he has summed up their extension of political considerations quite well.

On the whole, however, I think U.S. Marine Corps General Smedley Butler said it better away back in 1933 when he proclaimed very simply that War Is A Racket.1

January 26, 2007
klasmu: ...
Arvy:

Beat me to this comment.
What about the MIC, NWO, PNAC, BigOil, Bush Dynasty, Blair Dynasty, etc. Or is an Iranian really the head man of the Geheime Loge (secret lodge).2

January 26, 2007
a guest: Diane V. McLoughlin : http://www.ichblog.eu
Best analysis I've seen yet. However, missing in the assessment on the maintenance of regional stability, and the rising insecurity of Israel, is the fact that Israel herself in her continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is part of the problem. The dire situation of the Palestinians causes the Muslim world great distress. Israel herself is a very expensive line item for the U.S., garnering more American financial aid per year than any other country on earth (combined? Help with this point anybody?), which makes America complicit to the ethnic cleansing. Otherwise, good for the general, his analysis and observations should be on every front page of every major paper in the U.S., IMO. 3

January 26, 2007
johnjmccarthy: Verp Pissed Off Combat Veterans : http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com
What the General states is the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq with one serious oversight.

He does mention "invasion" of Iraq. However, he does not put it in the context of "preemptive" invasion, identified by the Nuremberg International War Crimes Tribunal as the "ultimate war crime", crimes against peace and humanity. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for aggressive war against a sovereign nation who has NOT attacked the USA. Even if Saddam had WMD, that would have not been an excuse for preemptive invastion. Other countries around the world have WMD, but they don't have great supplies of OIL as does Iraq. Draw your own conclusion.

John McCarthy
vpocv@hotmail.com4

January 26, 2007
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/126/2/
~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM

.
<<<<<O>>>>>
The hidden cost of free congressional trips to Israel
By
Jim Abourezk
Friday, 26 January 2007

01/26/07 "ICHBlog" -- - Branded as 'educational,' these trips offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story.

SIOUX FALL, S.D. - Democrats in Congress have moved quickly – and commendably – to strengthen ethics rules. But truly groundbreaking reform was prevented, in part, because of the efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to preserve one of its most critical functions: taking members of Congress on free "educational" trips to Israel.

The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one's opponent.

In my own experience as a US senator in the 1970s, I saw how the lobby tries to humiliate or embarrass members who do not toe the line.

Pro-Israel groups worked vigorously to ensure that the new reforms would allow them to keep hosting members of Congress on trips to Israel. According to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, congressional filings show Israel as the top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percent of overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel. Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, a sister organization of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the major pro-Israel lobby group.

New rules require all trips to be pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee, but Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts says this setup will guarantee that tours of Israel continue. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported consensus among Jewish groups that "the new legislation would be an inconvenience, but wouldn't seriously hamper the trips to Israel that are considered a critical component of congressional support for Israel."

These trips are defended as "educational." In reality, as I know from my many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian territories.

What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours is congressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied on billions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this government funding would seriously impair Israel's harsh occupation.

One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and the Palestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips – or if more members toured Palestinian lands. America sent troops to Europe to prevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. But when it comes to flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel, the US sends more money and shields Israel from criticism.

Congress regularly passes resolutions lauding Israel, even when its actions are deplorable, providing it political cover. Meanwhile, polls suggest most Americans want the Bush administration to steer a middle course in working for peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.

Consider, too, how the Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into a dangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles its sabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions – and alleged pursuit of nuclear arms – while remaining silent about Israel's nuclear-weapons arsenal.

Members of Congress may not be aware just how damaging their automatic support for Israel is to America's interest. At a minimum, US policies toward Israel have cost it valuable allies in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world.

If Congress is serious about ethics reform, it should not protect the Israel lobby from the consequences. A totally taxpayer-funded travel budget for members to take foreign fact-finding trips, with authorization to be made by committee heads, would be an important first step toward a foreign policy that genuinely serves America.

• Jim Abourezk is a former Democratic senator from South Dakota.

Comments
Arvy: As a first step ...
... AIPAC should be required to register as agents of a foreign government. It's an old issue and it might not put an end to their pay-offs for services rendered, but at least they'd lose their tax-exempt status.1

January 26, 2007
worldist: No wonder Israel exersizes overwhelming influence! : http://www.worldsocialism.org
Wow! This says it all! Pure government sponsored coercion of elected officials, in effect paid for in a round about way by the unsuspecting US tax payer

The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one's opponent.

So it really is now the United States of Israel! Unless all subsidies and official ties are broken from the putrid State of Israel. United States of America no longer exists in my minds view of reality.

No wonder Albert Einstein objected to the establishment of the State of Israel when Truman gave Israel the go-ahead. Albert also turned down the offer to be president of Israel and the Lukid Party was branded by prominent US Jews as being Racist, Fascist and Superstitious.
2

January 26, 2007
bigjack2: Simple bribary
If in fact members of congress put their siganture on a document attesting they will vote in favor of bills favoring Israel, then in fact they are selling their vote.

Last time I looked that was a major felony.

j.3

January 26, 2007
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/124/1/<<<O>>>
.

Saundra Hummer

January 26th, 2007, 10:32 PM

.
lllllllllllllllllll
Bluesman B.B. King hospitalized in Texas
By
RASHA MADKOUR
Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
B.B. King was hospitalized for a low-grade fever following the flu but was in good condition Friday, his management agency said.
The 81-year-old bluesman was expected to be discharged Saturday, a hospital spokesman said. King's agency said he plans to perform Tuesday in Fort Worth.

"He's doing great," said Tina France, vice president of Lieberman Management of New York. "He's in good spirits and cracking jokes."

King had been scheduled to perform Thursday at the Grand Opera House, but was admitted to The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said Paul McCarthy, a hospital administrator.

King, who has a history of diabetes, was taking antibiotics for a 100-degree fever, France said. The ailment in a younger person wouldn't have required hospitalization, but King is being monitored because of his age, she said.

His concerts in Galveston, Orange and Tyler, Texas, previously scheduled for this week and early next week, will be rescheduled for June, France said.

John Koloen, a hospital spokesman, said the hospital in Galveston, about 50 miles southeast of Houston, was keeping King in the elderly acute care unit until Saturday "just to make sure."

With his trademark guitar that he named "Lucille," King racked up hits including "The Thrill Is Gone," "Every Day I Have the Blues" and "You Upset Me Baby."

Born on a plantation in Itta Bena, Miss., King started out on street corners playing for pocket change, according to his Web site. He went on to become one of the nation's most influential blues musicians.

In December, President Bush awarded King the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his musical contributions.

Get well soon B.B.
You're someone we all love, admire, and treasure! SRH

On the Net:

B.B. King:

http://www.bbking.com

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

lllllllllllllll .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 12:23 AM

.
~~~~~~~

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, will be known only as Americans.”

Martin Kelly
~~~

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”

President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906
~~~

“A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.

“We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world — no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”

Woodrow Wilson
-
From his Campaign Speeches, 1912~~~

“If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire — ‘Here is $1,000.’ What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, ‘Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.’ What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. “But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe.”

Janice Fine
-
Dollars and Sense magazine
~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 02:49 PM

.
X X X X X X X
CNN, Fox News Spar Over Obama Report

By
BILL CARTER
The New York Times
Updated:2007-01-27 15:18:32

WASHINGTON (Jan. 24) - A disputed report on the Web site of a conservative magazine about Senator Barack Obama’s childhood schooling kicked off a pointed exchange this week between the rival cable news networks CNN and Fox News, when CNN seemed to make an overt effort both to debunk the report and to question the quality of Fox News’s journalism.

Who Do You Trust?
Blogging 2008: Smear Attempt | Talk About It: Post Thoughts
The original report, posted on the online version of Insight, a magazine owned by The Washington Times, said that as a child in Indonesia, Mr. Obama had attended a madrassa, a type of school that has been known to teach a radical version of the Muslim faith. Mr. Obama, who spent a few years in Jakarta as a boy, is a Christian.

Adding to the political volatility of the report was the attribution of the news to “researchers connected to” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The two senators are expected to be the leading candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, attracting intense news coverage, and the sparring between CNN and Fox News, which are often described as ideological opposites, may be a prelude to more accusations of inaccurate reporting.

The back-and-forth also comes amid a backdrop of increasingly nasty competition between the two networks, with CNN trying to promote the quality of its journalism as a counter to Fox’s ratings. Fox continues to command by far the largest news audience in cable television.

Representatives of Mr. Obama of Illinois and Mrs. Clinton of New York denounced the Insight report, calling it false and an effort by a conservative publication to smear two Democratic contenders at the same time.

The Fox News Channel discussed the report on two of its programs. It was also picked up by The New York Post, which shares ownership with Fox News, and was discussed by several conservative talk-radio hosts.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message: “This is a textbook example of how the other side works. A right-wing rag makes up a scurrilous charge and prints it with no real attribution. The smear gets injected into the atmosphere and picked up by talk radio. In this case both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton were victimized.”

Democratic Contenders in 2008
A spokesman for Mr. Obama had previously been quoted in The Washington Post as calling the report “appallingly irresponsible.”

On its Web site yesterday, Insight defended its report, saying, “Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story.”

CNN’s political director, Sam Feist, said he had seen the Insight report discussed on “Fox and Friends.” Mr. Feist said he wanted to determine the validity of what he said, if true, would be a “holy-cow political story,” so he sent a correspondent, John Vause, to Jakarta from Beijing. Mr. Vause’s report, broadcast Monday on CNN, described the Jakarta school as unaffiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. The school headmaster said it was a “public school” that did not “focus on religion.”

The president of CNN US, Jon Klein, said that his network’s report was “not a response to Fox per se, though they did seem to relish repeating the Insight-reported rumor without bothering to — or being able to — ascertain the facts.”

In its report, CNN included a clip from the Fox News program “The Big Story With John Gibson.” Mr. Gibson interviewed a Republican political strategist about Mrs. Clinton’s reported role in the Obama rumors. As Fox News has in every story on the madrassa accusations, Mr. Gibson used the attribution “according to Insight magazine.” But he also said: “Look at what some anti-Obama Democrats are doing to her political rival now. They are playing the Muslim phobia card.”

On Monday, the hosts of “Fox and Friends” said they wanted to clarify earlier comments after Mr. Obama’s office contacted the show, declaring its report “absolutely false.”

In comments after Mr. Vause’s report, the CNN anchors Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper seemed to chide others for not practicing legitimate journalism on the story. “CNN did what any serious news organization is supposed to do in this kind of a situation,” Mr. Blitzer said. “We actually conducted an exclusive firsthand investigation inside Indonesia to check out the school.”

Mr. Cooper said: “That’s the difference between talking about news and reporting it. You send a reporter, check the facts, and you decide at home.”

A Fox News spokeswoman, Irena Briganti, said CNN was mainly looking for publicity in attacking its higher-rated rival. Of Mr. Cooper’s comment, she said, “Yet another cry for attention by the Paris Hilton of television news, Anderson Cooper.”

Obama's Background: Go on-site to view photo's and accompaning text by clicking on the following URL:

URL: http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/cnn-fox-news-spar-over-obama-report/20070124114109990001

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company
2007-01-24 11:42:03 X X X .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 03:02 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (Paperback)
Vincent Bugliosi,
With Opening Comments
by
Molly Ivins and Gerry Spence
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
With the ongoing crisis of America being held hostage by a rogue, runaway executive branch, we thought it was time to return to the scene of the original crime that made this horror possible: the theft of an election from the American people by five members of the Supreme Court.

It may be January of 2007 when we write this updated commentary on Vincent Bugliosi's indictment of the Supreme Court coup leaders, which Molly Ivins (now seriously ill with a relapse of cancer) called the "J'Accuse" of the new millenium, but we are not getting over it.

How can you get over a man who lost a presidential election by more than 540,000 votes acting like a dictator for six years -- and doing everything in his power to build the institutional constructs of fascism?

As a Washington Post columnist (Andrew Cohen) noted on January 26: "Over the past few years, whenever the White House has seen or sensed trouble looming for its most controversial and tenuous positions in the legal war on terrorism, it has suddenly changed course, altered the playing field, or unilaterally declared itself beyond the purview of the prevailing rule of law. No legal defeats for this administration, no explicit concession of limits on its authority, just a series of tactical or strategic retreats that allow it to show to the world a visage of supreme executive branch power-- while at the same time allowing it at some future date to advance the same losing arguments. And all of it is done in secret, under the cloak of national security, so as to hide not just true secrets but embarrassing facts and legal opinions."

There are terrorists in the world, but Bush and Cheney are not conducting a war against terrorism. They are conducting a war on democracy, a war against the will of the American people, a war against the truth.

In a January 26, 2007, Associated Press article, Nino "The Fixer" Scalia is quoted as dismissing those who believe democracy was stolen. "It's water over the deck — get over it," Scalia said on January 23, 2007.

Several years ago, BuzzFlash offered Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's vital legal critique of the Supreme Court action that gave birth to this Bastard regime. We also interviewed Bugliosi, who -- interestingly enough -- was the lead prosecutor in the Charles Manson case.

Now, with the ongoing runaway administration steaming ahead toward Armageddon, it is important to read this book to remember that all of this current horror and destruction of democracy came about as the result of a partisan crime sanctioned by 5 members of America's top court.

It is both fitting and appropriate that the felonious Supreme Court five grace the cover of "The Betrayal of America" in the form of mugshots.

But we were the ones mugged by their theft of democracy.

Bugliosi dissects what the felonious five did and decides that if there were justice, they what they accomplished was the biggest heist in American history.

Since that time, we as a nation founded on Constitutional principles -- and the world -- have suffered grievously.

It is time to revisit the scene of the crime -- and Vincet Bugliosi serves as a legally incisive, impassioned guide through the mugging of democracy and the birth of a regime of insidious, carefully calculated tyranny.

Go on=site to see more on this administration, and other topical issues of the day by clicking on the following link:
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/497
X X X
.

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 03:16 PM

.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Minimum Wage Rises, Sky Does Not Fall

By
Barbara Ehrenreich,
AlterNet
Posted on January 23, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/47051/

When I flew to Seattle last week, airport security gave me trouble over the four-pound ham I was carrying. Several TSA officials gathered to consider the question of whether ham is a "gel," to which I retorted: If ham is a gel, so am I. I suggested that they biopsy it for hidden box-cutters. I offered to divide it into 21 three-ounce chunks, each appropriately stowed in a Ziploc baggie. But no deal.

So I broke down and told them I was flying into what I had been warned would be a food-free zone: Washington, with the highest minimum wage in the country ($7.63 an hour), could hardly be expected to have affordable restaurants or a functioning economy of any kind. Notable conservative economists have almost unanimously predicted that an increased minimum wage would result in wild price increases and mass unemployment, and I had a suitcase full of clippings to prove it.

I would be entering a culinary wasteland, facing fast food meals of $20 and up, and if I tried to fall back on soup kitchens, thousands of unemployed restaurant workers would be lined up ahead of me.

So imagine my surprise when I arrived, ham-less, in Seattle to find it fully functional, if not positively bustling. Restaurants were packed, and I could still get a grilled salmon sandwich for $7.95 at a cafeteria-style place overlooking the sound. My hotel was amply staffed with congenial people and - perhaps only because of the un-Seattle-like cold, no beggars approached me on the streets. Nor can you say the dire effects of a higher minimum wage just haven't had time to set in: Washington raised its minimum wage above the federal level of $5.15 an hour about a decade ago.

In fact, according to a January 9th article New York Times, Washington's economy is booming, generating 90,000 new jobs in the last year. Even business groups have stopped griping about the state's minimum wage. The article quotes a pizza store owner in the western part of the state: ''We're paying the highest wage we've ever had to pay, and our business is still up more than 11 percent over last year.''

My next stops were in California, with a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, slated to go up to $8 next year. Again, no imported ham was required. Sidewalk taquerias flourished, as well, or so I'm told, as those celebrity sushi spots where you can pay $100 for a bite of fresh chum.

Overall, 29 states have raised their minimum wages above $5.15 an hour, and -- lo! -- the sky has not fallen. Could we have some apologies, please, from the economists who predicted a retail apocalypse?

Not that a $7 or even $8 minimum wage is utopian. My book Nickel and Dimed is often wrongly described as an account of my attempts to live on the minimum wage. Far from it; I averaged $7 an hour, which, according to the federal government, is well above the poverty level for a family of one. But I couldn't get by on that, thanks to the high rents even in trailer parks and residential motels, and I never went near pricey housing markets like San Francisco or Seattle. In the Seattle area, a "living wage" (calculated to reflect local housing and other basic costs) is $11.89 an hour for a single person and $25.35 for a family of three - more than three times the current minimum wage.

There is no moral justification for a minimum wage lower than a living wage. And given the experience of the 29 states that have raised their minimum wages, there isn't even an amoral economic justification either.

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 14 books, most recently "Dancing in the streets: A History of Collective Joy."
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47051/ $$$$$$$ .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM

.
.................
U.S. Plan for Iraqi Force Surprises Senator

By
Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 27, 2007; A12

Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress that he might supplement efforts to secure Baghdad using the Iraqi Facilities Protection Service, a 150,000-man force that guards Iraqi government agencies. But that service is widely considered unreliable, and elements were described in July by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as "more dangerous than the militias," according to Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

"The prime minister said he wanted to get rid of the FPS as fast as possible," Reed said this week, recalling his meeting with Maliki in Baghdad last summer. There are "bad elements" in FPS units that "are carrying out murders and kidnappings . . . [and] attacking the infrastructure that they are supposedly protecting," Reed said in his trip report about what Maliki had told him. "Because of the FPS," Reed wrote, Maliki said that "some governmental ministries' guards are more dangerous than the militias."

The FPS was formed in 2003 by order of L. Paul Bremer, then administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, to protect the 27 Iraqi ministries and their facilities throughout Iraq. Each minister, who generally represents one of Iraq's political parties, has his or her own FPS unit, whose armed members wear military uniforms.

The Iraq Study Group described FPS members as having "questionable loyalties and capabilities." It quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that they are "incompetent, dysfunctional and subversive," with some serving the manpower needs of sectarian party militias and death squads.

Reed said in an interview that, with security being the main concern of President Bush in pressing for additional U.S. troops in Baghdad, he was "surprised" that Petraeus would describe FPS units, also known as ministerial security forces, as assisting in the protection of the city. The Senate confirmed Petraeus yesterday as the new top U.S. commander in Iraq.

"There are tens of thousands of contract security forces and ministerial security forces that do, in fact, guard facilities and secure institutions, and so forth," Petraeus said in testimony earlier this week, "that our forces -- coalition or Iraqi forces -- would otherwise have to guard and secure."

When Reed responded that he was "shocked" that the FPS was mentioned in those terms -- because Maliki had told him "that some of these ministerial forces are worse than the insurgents" -- Petraeus replied: "Some, indeed." Later, in answer to a question, the Army general acknowledged that "some of those ministerial forces are part of the problem instead of part of the solution."

Maliki was not the only official who spoke to Reed in July regarding concerns about the FPS. Army Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, described the FPS members, along with about 8,700 personal security guards provided to Iraqi political figures, as among "the proliferation of armed groups . . . [presenting] a serious challenge to stability." Dempsey said the Iraqi Defense Ministry paid the salaries of the personal security details "but has no control over them." Each of the 275 members of Iraq's Council of Representatives, as its national assembly is called, is entitled to 20 guards, many of whom are chosen from within their families.

Dempsey was particularly critical of the FPS, saying: "They have a reputation for gross misconduct." He specified as "particularly notorious" the FPS units associated with the ministries of transportation and health, both under the control of associates of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The FPS units employed by those ministries are "a source of funding and jobs for the Mahdi Army," Sadr's militia, according to the Iraq Study Group report.

Dempsey told Reed last summer that the FPS and the personal security details "should be reformed" and "outfitted with different uniforms to distinguish them from the police and clearly identify them." More recently, Dempsey told reporters that the FPS should be brought under the control of Iraq's Interior Ministry this year.

In Basra, Reed was told by Maj. Gen. John Cooper, commander of the British troops in that area, that the FPS was "a major problem." In Fallujah, members of the Marine Expeditionary Force said that when they retook the hospital in Ramadi, local leaders insisted "that the FPS be barred from returning because of their corruption and unreliability."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), upon returning from a brief trip to Iraq this month, announced that she will introduce legislation that would require -- as a condition of continued funding -- certification that the FPS and the private security contractors for the Iraqis are free of sectarian and militia influence.

"Instead of cutting funding to American troops, cut the funding to the Iraqi forces and to the security forces . . . that we pay for to protect the members of this government," Clinton said last week on the PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." "We have to do something to get their attention in order to force them to deal with the political and the economic and the diplomatic pieces of the puzzle that confront us," she added.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Go on-site for links for photo and links in this article.

URL: http://www.buzzflash.com[/url] .............

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 03:46 PM

.
:: :: :: :: ::
Bush Defies Lawmakers To Solve Iraq
Gates Says Doubts Bolster Enemy
By
Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 27, 2007; A01

Declaring "I'm the decision maker," President Bush yesterday challenged congressional efforts to formally condemn his Iraq plan, while Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned that a proposed Senate resolution criticizing the deployment of additional troops would embolden the enemy.

"Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. "I'm sure that that's not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect."

Bush consulted with Gates and Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will head U.S. forces in Iraq, at an early-morning meeting at the White House. Speaking with reporters afterward, the president complained that lawmakers "are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work."

Bush later met with House Republicans at a retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore and, according to two Republicans present, mocked the Senate by telling the House members that he found it "ironic" that senators would oppose his plan to dispatch 21,500 more troops to Iraq but praise and unanimously confirm Petraeus, who helped design it.

Democrats responded angrily to Gates's comments, which were similar to what Petraeus said at his Tuesday hearing before his confirmation yesterday. "The American people will rightly dismiss these accusations as a desperate attempt by the administration to support a failed policy that is not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) disputed Bush's suggestion that the Democrats have not come up with a plan. Speaking at the Brookings Institution, he said his party was united around the proposition that the United States should shift more responsibility to the Iraqis, begin a "phased redeployment" of troops and initiate more aggressive regional diplomacy to stabilize Iraq.

Yesterday's administration comments were part of a White House campaign to try to keep Republican lawmakers from signing on to any resolution that criticizes the president's new strategy in Iraq. By keeping down the number of Republican defections, the administration hopes to make any vote appear highly partisan and to buy Bush's new plan more time.

With Bush's leverage on Capitol Hill at a low, the White House appears to be relying heavily on GOP leaders to orchestrate the opposition to two resolutions condemning the troop buildup, according to lawmakers, lobbyists and administration officials. White House lobbyists and senior officials at the National Security Council are continuing to meet with lawmakers, but a number of senators said they did not perceive the lobbying as particularly aggressive. The strategy, as they described it, is to muddy the waters with a number of competing resolutions that could siphon support from a strong message of disapproval for the president's plan.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved a resolution opposing the introduction of the additional troops, calling for more diplomacy and a regional peace effort, and demanding that U.S. troops be deployed away from urban sectarian hotbeds to guard Iraq's borders, hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces. Bush defied Congress yesterday to come up with an alternative to his Iraq strategy, but advocates say the committee's resolution amounts to one.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) has offered a similar resolution, while also calling for measurable benchmarks in Iraq. Warner's resolution includes language accepting Bush's constitutional powers as commander in chief, leaves rhetorical room for some additional troop deployments and treats the fight with Sunni extremists in Anbar province as a matter separate from the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

GOP leaders, meanwhile, are coalescing around a resolution drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would establish strict benchmarks for the Iraqi government and the Bush administration to meet, without criticizing the president's plan. The leaders may also offer a simple resolution of support for Bush, saying the president's plan should be given a chance.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said that the administration would still like GOP leaders to block any vote but that at this point even some of the most ardent Republican conservatives need some way to voice their skepticism on the record. The best the White House can hope for is what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called a "smorgasbord" of resolutions that splits both parties and pulls senators in multiple directions.

Like other GOP lawmakers, McConnell said time is running out for the president. "I think everybody knows what the consequences are. The president doesn't have a stronger supporter in the Senate than the person you're looking at, but I repeat, this is the last chance for the Iraqis to step up and demonstrate this government can function," he said. "The message to the Iraqi government could not be more clear."

Administration officials say they realize their position on the Hill is precarious. Many Republicans blame the war in Iraq for their electoral debacle last November, and if the situation does not improve soon, the administration will be faced with massive defections within the GOP -- not only on nonbinding resolutions but perhaps also on bills that limit the president's ability to prosecute the war.

But several administration officials said they felt they had a good week, with Petraeus making an effective case for more time at his confirmation hearing Tuesday and only one Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), defecting when the Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution against additional troops on Wednesday.

"No one is under any illusion that we are going to win over many Democrats or turn around the country. What we need to do is stabilize Republicans," said one senior White House official who was not authorized to speak on the record. While many Republicans are very anxious to vent their displeasure with the situation in Iraq, Republican stalwarts still seem reluctant to part with the president.

"I think he made the case in the State of the Union message . . . that this is the best that he and his military commanders can come up, so give us a chance," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah). "If you are going to say no, you better have an alternative."

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Go on-site to access links, (& photos, when provided), just click on the following URLs:

http://www.buzzflash.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600653.html :: :: :: :: :: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 04:14 PM

. :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots

By
Marisa Taylor and Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers
Talking Points Memo | US Attorneys
Posted on Fri, Jan. 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is transforming the ranks of the nation's top federal prosecutors by firing some and appointing conservative loyalists from the Bush administration's inner circle who critics say are unlikely to buck Washington.

......The newly appointed U.S. attorneys all have impressive legal credentials, but most of them have few, if any, ties to the communities they've been appointed to serve, and some have had little experience as prosecutors.

......The nine recent appointees identified by McClatchy Newspapers held high-level White House or Justice Department jobs, and most of them were handpicked by Gonzales under a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act that became law in March.

......With Congress now controlled by the Democrats, critics fear that in some cases Gonzales is trying to skirt the need for Senate confirmation by giving new U.S. attorneys interim appointments for indefinite terms. Some legal scholars contend that the administration pushed for the change in the Patriot Act as part of its ongoing attempt to expand the power of the executive branch, a charge that administration officials deny.

......Being named a U.S. attorney "has become a prize for doing the bidding of the White House or administration," said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who's now a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "In the past, there had been a great deal of delegation to the local offices. Now, you have a consolidation of power in Washington."

......A Justice Department spokesman said it was "reckless" to suggest that politics had influenced the appointment process.

......The appointments have troubled some current and former prosecutors, who worry that the Justice Department is tightening its control over local U.S. attorneys' offices in order to curb the prosecutors' independence.

......If they're too close to the administration, these lawyers said, federal prosecutors might not be willing to pursue important but controversial cases that don't fit into the administration's agenda. Similarly, they said, U.S. attorneys could be forced to pursue only Washington's priorities rather than their own.

......The selection of U.S. attorneys has always been a political process.

......Traditionally, the top assistant U.S. attorney in each local office temporarily fills any vacancy while home-state senators search for preferred candidates to present to the White House for consideration. If it takes more than four months to find a permanent successor, a judge can extend the temporary appointment or name another acting U.S. attorney. Ultimately, the candidates must be confirmed by the Senate.

......Gonzales gained the ability to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms as a result of a change to the Patriot Act that stripped federal judges of their appointment power.

......A Justice Department spokesman denied that Gonzales has sought to compromise the independence of U.S. attorneys' offices by appointing political loyalists. In some recent cases Gonzales has followed the traditional process.

......"Allegations that politics inappropriately interfere with personnel decisions made about U.S. attorneys are reckless and plainly wrong," department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said. "... The bottom line is that we nominate experienced attorneys who we believe can do the job."

......He said that it's common for attorneys to serve stints at department headquarters and that it "can be tremendously beneficial" for a U.S. attorney to have served in Washington.

......Gonzales and his aides also deny that they're attempting to do an end run around the Senate. In a recent letter to two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the change was sought to avoid conflicts involving federal judges appointing officials to posts in the executive branch of government.

......At a recent Senate hearing, Gonzales said the administration is committed to giving senators of the president's party their traditional say in selecting U.S. attorney candidates.

......Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

......-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

......-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

......-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

...... -John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

......-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

......-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

......-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

......-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

......-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

......Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments.

......Roehrkasse said that while some newly appointed U.S. attorneys might have political connections, they all have outstanding credentials.

......Todd Jones, who was a U.S. attorney in Minneapolis during the Clinton administration, said he was concerned by the overall trend of an administration putting into place a "more centralized, command-and-control system."

......Several prosecutors said prior Republican administrations avoided such tight control.

......"Under Reagan and the first Bush administration, we worked very hard to push the power out to the locals," said Jean Paul Bradshaw, who was a U.S. attorney in Kansas City under President George H.W. Bush. "Local attorneys know how a case will play in their areas, what crimes are a problem. Ultimately, these decisions are better made locally."

......Peter Nunez, a U.S. attorney in San Diego under President Reagan for six years, said prosecutors have expressed frustration with the strict oversight from Washington.

......"I've heard nothing but complaints over the last six years about how many things the Justice Department is demanding relating to bureaucracy and red tape," Nunez said.

......In the wake of the recent firings of a half-dozen U.S. attorneys, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, filed bills that would restore to federal judges the right to name interim appointees when vacancies develop. On Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., whose office has confirmed that he inserted language making the change in Patriot Act last year, gave his qualified support to Feinstein's bill.

......Justice Department officials have refused to say how many prosecutors were fired or to explain the firings, but Feinstein has said she's aware of the ouster of at least seven U.S. attorneys since March 2006.

......Former U.S. attorneys who know some of those ousted said they were concerned because the administration in some cases offered no reason for the dismissals.

......Among those dismissed were Carol Lam of San Diego, whose office won a bribery conviction against then-Rep. Randolph "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and prosecuted several members of San Diego's city council. The Cunningham case is ongoing.

......Also ordered to resign was Kevin Ryan, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, who was overseeing high-profile investigations into steroids use by major league baseball players and the backdating of stock options by Apple Inc., and other firms.

......"One of the strengths of any administration towards the end of their time in office is having highly experienced people in place," said Tom Heffelfinger, the former U.S. attorney in Minneapolis who voluntarily resigned and was replaced by Paulose. "It helps things function really smoothly, and you get your priorities handled aggressively and efficiently."
Go on-site for numerous links within this article and to access other topical information of the day, as well as in their archives:
http://www.buzzflash.com
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm:: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 04:59 PM

:: :: :: :: ::
Bush's father complains of news media "hostility"
Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:37 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's father accused the news media of "personal animosity" toward his son and said he found the criticism so unrelenting he sometimes talked back to his television set.

"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.

The elder Bush, the 41st U.S. president, had a relatively collegial relationship with the press but things turned sour during his losing 1992 re-election campaign. He got so fed up with media coverage that supporters at the time circulated hats with the slogan "Annoy the Media -- Re-Elect Bush."

"I won't get too personal here -- but this antipathy got worse after the 43rd president took office," the former president said. He was speaking at a reception for a journalism scholarship awarded in honor of the late Hugh Sidey, White House correspondent for Time magazine.

"And so bad in fact that I found myself doing what I never should have done -- I talk back to the television set. And I said things that my mother wouldn't necessarily approve of," Bush's father said, according to a transcript of his remarks.

The current President Bush's approval ratings have slumped to the lowest level of his presidency -- around 33 percent -- amid anger over the Iraq war and opposition to his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. In an election widely seen as a referendum on Bush, Democrats in November captured both houses of the U.S. Congress.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

Go on-site to view article, links and photo.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-01-26T223441Z_01_N26396581_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-FATHER.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Media Hostility?

GW Bush had such a free ride; not being scrutinized as he should have been by the press and some of us just never could figure out why. I remember the giggley, acting the school boy, interview with GW Bush Tim Russert conducted early on in his administration; I was floored by his lack of professionalism in how he avoided asking GW any hard ball questions. It were as if they had had a great time out the night before and had developed a really friendly relationship and were picking up where they'd left off. It was a nice exchange between the two, but it wasn't the place for it, it was supposed to let us in on his plans for the country, his policies, and the reasons why and we were only given fluff. I wrote to him and told him of how I viewed his conduct, how utterly surprised I was in how he used his time with him, how he let him GW off easier than anyone I had ever seen in any of his interviews. Of course I wasn't surprised when I never heard back from him.

I had always enjoyed Tim Russerts way of conducting his Sunday morning program, "Meet the Press", but the GW Bush interview was disturbing. I now watch for bias in anything he broadcasts. SRH :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 05:24 PM

.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bush brushes aside criticism of health plan

By
Caren Bohan
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:10am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush brushed aside criticism of his new health care plan as "reflexive" partisanship and urged the Democratic-led Congress to work with him on the issue.

The president's proposal, to offer tax breaks to people to encourage them to buy health insurance on their own while taxing some with employer-provide health coverage, has received a chilly reception from Democratic lawmakers, labor unions and some consumer groups.

But Bush, who unveiled his plan in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, said that he has spoken to some Senate Democrats who seemed willing to open discussions.

"While some members gave a reflexive partisan response, I was encouraged that others welcomed this opportunity to reach across the aisle," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"One Democratic senator said the initiatives I put forward were 'serious proposals' and encouraged his fellow Democrats to 'respond in a constructive way,'" Bush said.

He said that another Democratic senator had pledged to work toward the goal of expanding health coverage "through sincere bipartisan efforts."

Bush said he viewed these comments as a good start.

Bush's proposal would provide a new tax deduction of $15,000 per family and $7,500 for individuals who purchase private health insurance.

But families with employer-provided health plans that exceed the $15,000 cap would for the first time face a tax on some of their benefits.

The president said the plan would make health insurance more affordable to the 47 million people who lack coverage while discouraging the purchase of "gold-plated" health insurance that drives up costs throughout the system.

Critics say Bush's approach would not help enough of the uninsured and would undermine employer-provided coverage that is a mainstay of the U.S. health system.

Bush also used his radio address to pitch another State of the Union initiative -- his call for a large increase in the use of renewable fuels over the next decade.

"By expanding our use of renewable and alternative fuels like ethanol, we can become less dependent on oil, and confront the serious challenge of climate change," Bush said.

Bush set a goal of a five-fold increase in the use of ethanol and said his aim was that by 2017, it would displace about 15 percent of gasoline made from crude oil.

The president's energy initiatives have been less controversial than the health proposal, but many Democrats have urged stronger action, such as mandatory caps on carbon emissions, to address climate change.

© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2007-01-27T153012Z_01_N26417343_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2 /\/\/\/\/\ .

Saundra Hummer

January 27th, 2007, 07:13 PM

.*************
Tens of thousands demand Iraq pullout

By
CALVIN WOODWARD and LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writers
1 hour, 52 minutes ago

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.
Celebrities, a half-dozen lawmakers and protesters from distant states rallied in the capital under a sunny sky, seizing an opportunity to press their cause with a Congress restive on the war and a country that has turned against the conflict.

Marching with them was Jane Fonda, in what she said was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years.

"Silence is no longer an option," Fonda said to cheers from the stage on the National Mall. The actress once derided as "Hanoi Jane" by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but needed to speak out now.

The rally on the Mall unfolded peacefully, although about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building. Police on motorcycles tried to stop them, scuffling with some and barricading entrances.

Protesters chanted "Our Congress" as their numbers grew and police faced off against them. Demonstrators later joined the masses marching from the Mall, around Capitol Hill and back.

About 50 demonstrators blocked a street near the Capitol for about 30 minutes, but they were dispersed without arrests.

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. They claimed even more afterward, but police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than 100,000.

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members, including seven whose deaths were reported Saturday.

More Hollywood celebrities showed up at the demonstration than buttoned-down Washington typically sees in a month.

Actor Sean Penn said lawmakers will pay a price in the 2008 elections if they do not take firmer action than to pass a nonbinding resolution against the war, the course Congress is now taking.

"If they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians," he said. Actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also spoke.

Fonda was a lightning rod in the Vietnam era for her outspoken opposition to that war and her advocacy from Hanoi at the height of that conflict. Sensitive to the old wounds, she made it a point to thank the active-duty service-members, veterans and Gold Star mothers who attended the rally.

She drew parallels to the Vietnam War, citing "blindness to realities on the ground, hubris ... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed." But she noted that this time, veterans, soldiers and their families increasingly and vocally are against the Iraq war.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), threatened to use congressional spending power to try to stop the war. "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," he said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us.

"The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Now only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

White House spokesman Trey Bohn responded that Conyers "needs to learn the difference between fact and fable, between a soundbite and a slur." He said Conyers' "assertion that the president fires generals with whom he disagrees is flat wrong."

On the stage rested a coffin covered with a U.S. flag and a pair of military boots, symbolizing American war dead. On the Mall stood a large bin filled with tags bearing the names of Iraqis who have died.

A small contingent of active-duty service members attended the rally, wearing civilian clothes because military rules forbid them from protesting in uniform.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Md., said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.

In the crowd, signs recalled the November elections that defeated the Republican congressional majority in part because of President Bush's Iraq policy. "I voted for peace," one said.

"I've just gotten tired of seeing widows, tired of seeing dead Marines," said Vincent DiMezza, 32, wearing a dress Marine uniform from his years as a sergeant. A Marine aircraft mechanic from 1997 to 2002, he did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.

About 40 people staged a counter-protest, including Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, who lost his leg to a bomb in Iraq.

He said the anti-war protesters, especially those who are veterans or who are on active duty, "need to remember the sacrifice we have made and what our fallen comrades would say if they are alive."

Bush reaffirmed his commitment to his planned troop increase in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president was in Washington for the weekend. He is often is out of town during big protest days.

"He understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Protest organizers said the crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states.

Associated Press writers Stephen Manning and Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

On the Net:

United for Peace and Justice: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_re_us/iraq_protest;_ylt=AoHG6mz4oQ5E0ueQublEGzas0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
******* .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 01:38 PM

.:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
BAY AREA BUZZ
Posted on Sat, Jan. 27, 2007
Chevron
holds talks with
Iraq to build facility
Iraq is in negotiations with San Ramon-based Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. to build a new $3 billion petrochemical facility, and is in talks with several other Western companies over industrial projects.

In an interview Thursday, Fowzi Hariri, Iraq's minister for industry and minerals, said the discussions with Chevron and Exxon began this week in Washington and are at an early stage.

"It will be one or the other company for this new facility, not both," he said. "We're hoping to have a (Memorandum of Understanding) in place by about July."

The minister, who has been in his post since June, said the issue of security was a prominent feature of the discussions, given the sectarian conflict that has come to characterize Iraq over the past year. He said he emphasized to the companies that much of the violence has been in Baghdad.

The discussions with the companies have been greatly aided by an Iraq foreign investment law that won final approval last October, he said.

Chevron also reported Friday that a deepwater test well off the coast of Angola, Africa's fastest-growing oil producer, showed a "significant" discovery.

More than 85 meters of oil was found in the Lucapa-1 well drilled in waters of 3,940 feet to a depth of 10,955 feet, and the output tested at commercial rates, Chevron said Friday in a statement. Further drilling will be conducted to appraise the well and determine potential reserves, the company said.

Communications
Pleasanton-based Polycom Inc., a communications solutions provider, reported fourth-quarter 2006 revenues of $186.5 million, up nearly 20 percent from $156.1 million for the same period in 2005.

Net income was $32 million, or 35 cents per share, up by more than 50 percent from $21 million, or 23 cents a share, for the corresponding quarter in 2005.

For the entire year, revenues rose 18 percent to $682.4 million from $580.7 million in 2005. Net income was $98.1 million ($1.09 a share) in 2006, up 30 percent from $75.5 million (78 cents a share) in 2005.

In the fourth quarter of 2006, more than half of revenues came from video communications, about a third from voice communications and a fifth from network systems.

Banks
Shirley Nelson, chairman and chief executive officer of Oakland-based Summit Bank and Summit Bancshares Inc., announced that Nancy Dal Bello has been named as Summit Bank's vice president, real estate loan officer. Dal Bello previously worked in positions at NSBC Bank USA, Bank of the West, Sanwa Bank and Federal Home Loan Bank.

Compiled from wire and staff reports. Got Bay Area business news? Reach Drew Voros at 925-943-8099 or dvoros@cctimes.com.
© 2007 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.contracostatimes.com :: :: :: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 02:01 PM

.
~~~~~~~

"Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."

Andrew Jackson
Farewell address, 04 March 1837

~~~

"What is the great Amercican sin? Extravagance? Vice? Graft? No; it is a kind of half-humorous, good-natured indifference, a lack of "concentrated indignation" as my English friend calls it, which allows extravagance and vice to flourish. Trace most of our ills to their source, and it is found that they exist by virtue of an easy-going, fatalistic indifference which dislikes to have its comfort disturbed....The most shameless greed, the most sickening industrial atrocities, the most appalling public scandals are exposed, but a half-cynical and wholly indifferent public passes them by with hardly a shrug of the shoulders; and they are lost in the medley of events. This is the great American sin."

Joseph Fort Newman
Atlantic Monthly ~ October 1922

~~~

"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is slavery:

Jonathan Swift."
Irish author, 1667-1745

~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 02:21 PM

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\Tomgram:
Robert Lipsyte Observes the Holy (Football) Day
In the coming week, whole forests will be pulped to explicate the most obscure aspects of what Tomdispatch Jock Culture Scribe (and former New York Times sports columnist) Robert Lipsyte assures us is this country's ultimate Holy Day, Super Bowl Sunday. This website aims to ease your burden in life. With that in mind, the piece that follows may not save your soul, but it will certainly save you untold hours of pre-game watching and reading. The ultimate piece about the ultimate day of our entertainment year, it absolves you of all need to check out anything else. You can now be completely productive until next Sunday.

Lipsyte, appearing at Tomdispatch (like a dream) every second month to make sense and nonsense of Jock Culture, has just seen his latest Young Adult novel, Raider's Night, published. It's a genuine shocker about the over-the-top pressures, familial and peer, of high-school football. Now, settle back and take a good dose of that old time religion, straight. Tom
Celebrating the Judeo-Lombardi Era

Bears, Colts, and Lambs
By Robert Lipsyte
1. In the Beginning…
"Sports are the real thing. Work is the opiate -- work and revolution and politics." -- Michael Novak in The Joy of Sports

Given the chance, I'd watch the Super Bowl with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who knows about Baal and ball. Twenty years ago, in Lynchburg, Virginia, at a Liberty University Flames game, Dr. Falwell told me: "Jesus was no sissy. He was tough, he was a he-man. If he played football, you'd be slow getting up after he tackled you."

He had me at "sissy." The rest was revelation. The muscularity of Dr. Falwell's evangelical Christianity was a perfect fit with football, another win-or-lose game. For Americans, war hasn't produced a real winner for more than 60 years. That's why we need football. But let's get back to Dr. Falwell.

"My respect for Catholicism and Mormonism goes straight up watching Notre Dame and Brigham Young play," he told me. He hoped that, someday, Notre Dame and Liberty, his evangelical college, would meet for the national championship, thus informing the nation that "the Christians are here, we're not meek and we're not going to fall down in front of you. We're here to stay."

While we wait for his Holy Bowl to show us how to kick the other cheek, we do have the gospels, saints, and rituals of the Super Bowl, arguably the holiest day of the American calendar. Nothing in sports draws us together as surely -- not elections, the Academy Awards, disasters, terrorist acts, or celebrity deaths. The Super Bowl is a melting pot hot enough for atheists, Sodomites, and Teletubbies to become one with the Saved, if only for a single Sunday. But that's a start.

If I did get to watch the Super Bowl with Dr. Falwell this time around, I'd ask him the following question: Did God design football -- and encourage it to evolve into Superbowl-dom -- as a model religion for the most powerful empire on earth?

This is not some snide random note from your Jock Culture scribe. Because the entire football season is packaged as a prelude to the championship, it is easy for evangelists to pound home their lesson that life is merely a series of downs en route to salvation. Leave it to heretics to bemoan the loss of process, the idea that a well-played life has honor and meaning even if there is no trophy or ring at the end.

Dr. Falwell avowed the rules when he told me, "If ever you adopt a philosophy that winning is not important, it's how you play the game, you cop out. This is America. If you're not a winner it's your own fault."

Amen, the whistle has blown.
2. Lives of the Saints

"Religion is a communication system that is constituted by supernatural beings and is related to specific patterns of behavior." -- H.H. Penner

I covered the second and third Super Bowls -- that second one was still called the American Football League-National Football League Championship Game and only given a roman numeral retroactively -- and came to meet the three iconic figures of the early church: Vince Lombardi, Joe Namath, and Pete Rozelle. Back then I called them the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which was joke-y and misinformed. They were not the Trinity. They were saints of the church of pro football -- hard-working, talented non-WASP products of Americanization -- and role models for what a coach, a superstar, and a sports commissioner should be. I would say that's all they were until the Saul/Pauls growing the church in the late twentieth century also made them role models for the most important symbolic positions in the most powerful empire on earth.

Rozelle became the model of the charismatic politician who, while working at the sufferance of the corporado owners, could persuade those strong-willed rich men to hang together for their self-interest. Lombardi was the CEO/general who could contain and lead not only the Green Bay Packers but the state's armies by his intimidating moral power -- as well as his authority to hire and fire. And Namath, the glamorous hero who could deliver the winning bomb, was the quintessential fungible youth to be sent out to fight and die.

I came to admire them each as individuals -- although not the willfully misinterpreted symbols they became -- in the same spirit that I would rather hoist a few with Falwell's he-man Jesus than Paul's ethereal martyr. Lombardi, Namath, and Rozelle were saints because they were believers; they loved their sport and lifted it beyond what was, until then, the national sport, baseball. (Think of baseball as the timeless, heart-breaking sports equivalent of Judaism, which had supplanted pagan boxing.) It wasn't their fault that the National Football League became a bloated, pretentious empire -- it is currently penetrating both the European and Chinese markets -– destroying its young with steroids, obesity (we are approaching the 400-pound lineman), and untreated head injuries. Violence sells.

The trickle-down Rozelles in sports, government, and business are now slick front men -- each pretending to be The Decider -- as they angle for options; the little Lombardis are bullies and tyrants who seem more interested in power as a platform than as a force for improvement. We are ass-deep in numb-nuts Namaths now, girl and boy starbabies in TV, music, movies as well as sports who learned to strut before they learned to score.

Some of them are actually amusing; a few of them are sociopaths who could jump into the stands and mess you up. (The Jock Chromosome has a bad-boy gene for which, I believe, the League now fishes, but that's a subject for another day.)

Back to the original saints of an imperial church they could not have imagined. I met Lombardi first, in 1968. He threw a cocktail party for the press several days before his mythic Green Bay Packers beat the Oakland Raiders (owned by Rozelle's rival and arch-enemy, Al Davis, who was Satan) in Super Bowl II. I arrived late with a breathless question: Did Coach have any comment on Jerry Kramer's statement that the Packers had been a little flat this past season after winning the first Super Bowl because a new league alignment had brought them less challenging competition?

.....Squat and beady-eyed, Lombardi snapped, "Kramer who?"

....."Your offensive guard," I said.

.....He glared at me. "He never said that."

....."But I heard him on the radio."

.....Lombardi snarled, "Don't come in here and tell me things like that."

I hid for awhile, had a couple of drinks, and made another approach. Lombardi seemed in good spirits, holding forth on the effect of potential wind-chill factors on running, passing, and kicking. This was new thinking in football; in retrospect, he sounded like a twenty-first century Weather Channel anchor. I said something inane about how he seemed more like a New England fisherman than a Brooklyn boy.

He began to cackle, and just when I thought I had scored a social touchdown, he said, "Who is this guy? Doesn't he know New York's right on the water? It's an island, we're on the ocean, we look at the sky."

I joined the laughter: Who was this dumbo they were talking about? Later, I decided that, if Lombardi -- harsh and driven and rigorous (he had once taught Latin) -- were my sports editor, I'd win the Pulitzer. It was pretty much the way his players felt. It would hurt, but he could make them better.

Lombardi probably didn't originate the saying, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," but he did allow himself to be identified with the phrase, both because he was vain and because, in football, it's true. More important, he never connected it to the larger culture, to social climbing, politics, or war. The role of pro coach he helped create has, by now, been transformed in ways that would be unrecognizable to him. Autocrat is no longer enough, now that the coach isn't an unquestioned father-figure for white farm boys from nuclear families. Contemporary athletes demand "respect" and need coaches who pretend to be "working with" them. Most of today's successful coaches are mind-bending manipulators who make athletes believe they alone can make them winners. Lombardi could be a bully but he treated athletes individually and humanely; current bullies tend to treat the athlete as an interchangeable piece in their own intelligent designs.

There was a lot that Lombardi, good as he was, didn't understand. While dying, according to David Maraniss' splendid biography, When Pride Still Mattered, Lombardi shouted out in his sleep, "Joe Namath! You're not bigger than football. Remember that."

Forget that. For a few shining hours, Namath was a lot bigger than football, and one of the reasons why football got bigger.

While Lombardi was beatified by the establishment and reviled by the counterculture, Namath, as Broadway Joe, became a swinging symbol of rebellion, disdained by the establishment (except those making money off him) and idolized by the young (who somehow missed his work ethic, his loyalty to teammates, and his deeply conditioned submissiveness to authority.)

Legend aside, Namath was no bad boy (not even as wild as some of the Packer stars Lombardi winked at) and his vices -- consensual sex, whiskey, facial hair -- seem quaint compared to those of today's felon-athletes.

But he outraged the traditionalists with his price-tag ($400,000 paid by a new owner, a music impresario), his white shoes (meant to alert tacklers, I'm convinced, not to break those franchise legs), and his 1969 boast that his upstart American Football League New York Jets would beat the old NFL's Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. (Lombardi privately agreed.) It was that victory which validated the merger of the two leagues.

In those days, access to athletes was easy. The biggest obstacle to interviewing Namath during Super Bowl Week (while he was lounging at the hotel pool) was the huddle of children and old ladies he was entertaining. Namath was a nice guy: decent, polite, thoughtful.

"People don't know what they're seeing, reporters don't know what's happening in a game," he said to me pleasantly once. "I throw a pass that's intercepted and people blame me when it was the fault of someone who wasn't where he should have been. I throw a touchdown pass and I get the credit when it was under-thrown and only a great catch made the play."

So much for journalism. But I knew he was right. And the kind of hero you'd want to block for.

Still, there was a lot Namath didn't understand either, including the church's willingness to sacrifice him for its image. Commissioner Rozelle ordered him to sell his part-ownership in a Manhattan saloon called Bachelors III because some of his co-owners had alleged underworld connections. Nothing seemed more threatening to the League than the possibility of a fixed game. For awhile, Namath, a loyal stand-up guy, refused to walk away from his friends. He even threatened to leave football if he had to, but eventually -- inevitably -- he submitted, publicly and tearfully.

Rozelle always seemed to get his way, but then his way always seemed to be for the greater good of The League. He did not appear to have an ego. He had been a public relations man, and was invariably appropriately smooth and tanned.

I met Rozelle during my first Super Bowl week. Another New York Times reporter, Bill Wallace, led me aboard a yacht bobbing on the Intracoastal Waterway. There, in the stern, sipping cocktails were Rozelle and his friend and mentor, Tex Schramm, general manager of the Dallas Cowboys. I've met most of the commissioners of my time from baseball's thin-skinned patrician Bowie Kuhn to basketball's brilliant smart-ass David Stern, but none had Rozelle's combination of bonhomie and noblesse oblige. Even then, he knew. He acted glad to see me, but this was clearly an audience with a prelate of a church on the rise.

Later in my career, recalling the scene, I thought I should have made some crack about kissing his Super Bowl ring. But, of course, there wasn't one yet. So we drank, chattered, considered the sunset. I remember two things vividly. He asked me not to mention that he was living on the yacht for the week; he didn't want to give working-class fans the impression that he was an elitist. It was just that he sometimes needed to hide out and work. He didn't actually make me swear to keep his secret, to put the meeting on deep background. I had the feeling he really wanted it to leak out, along with his explanation, to give the impression that this arriviste sport actually had class.

And then he launched into his larger vision of a future in which the two leagues would be formally merged. Everything would be done to give teams a chance for parity. "On any given Sunday," he said, "any team in the league could beat any other."

It was nonsense, of course, but thrilling. The same message that had moved so many others elsewhere: Any kid can grow up to escape poverty, racism, sexism, and become President of the United States. It was about Hope. What more can a leader offer? No wonder so many of those self-made powerhouse owners were willing to subjugate their egos and their immediate wants and needs to Rozelle's version of the greater good. He inspired. And I knew he would never hold it against me for mentioning the yacht, which I did, so long as I also mentioned "on any given Sunday."

Rozelle was no more the perfect commissioner than Lombardi was the perfect coach or Namath the perfect star. He chain-smoked, a sign that his preternatural calm was no deeper than his tan, and he never won his battle against the League's fallen angel, the renegade owner Al Davis, who bedeviled him with provocative declarations and litigation intended to sow disorder.

Davis was the commissioner of the upstart American Football League when it challenged the NFL by raiding its players. He opposed the merger and quit as commissioner, continuing to build the Oakland Raiders into one of the most successful franchises in sports. He promoted it as a kind of outlaw organization; its silver and black colors more gang than team. He reveled in rehabbing bad boys cut from other clubs. He won three Super Bowls and an anti-trust suit when the League tried to stop him from moving to Los Angeles. Then he moved back to Oakland -- and kept right on suing.

Al Davis' own vision was as simple as his slogan, "Just win, Baby." No egalitarian any Sunday for anyone, but "Just win, Baby," for just me, just now.

3. Did Pat Tillman Die for Our Sins?
"Pro football keeps telling them you can't be second-rate, you have to be winners. No matter who you victimize, no matter how hard you work or who you sacrifice, it's all worth it to be No. 1." – Dave Meggyesy.

Go Google who has been canonized into the Hall of Fame, and you will see that there have been worthy latter-day saints since Lombardi and Namath. The commissioner who followed Rozelle, Paul Tagliabue, expanded the church and filled its coffers. Pro football is considered the national pastime now and its closest rival, NASCAR, proudly proclaims it is using the NFL as its marketing model. Rituals like Monday Night Football have bloomed and faded like guitar masses. More minorities have joined the game and the black quarterback is now commonplace. For the first time, a black head coach will appear in this Super Bowl. In fact, for the first time a black head coach will win a Super Bowl, since both head coaches are black.

There have been faux rebels along the way, more adversaries or Devil's advocates than apostates. Think liberation-theology priests. The Cleveland Browns great running back Jim Brown quit the game at his peak in 1966 to become an actor and then a powerful and positive force among Los Angeles gangs, which are merely another kind of exclusive brotherhood. The St. Louis Cardinals' linebacker Dave Meggyesy has been a continuing progressive voice since the 1970s and recently retired after many years as a players' union official. The running back Dave Kopay, who came out after he quit in 1972, remains a strong voice for gay athletes. He recalls that Lombardi, for whom he played in Washington, made it clear he would allow no gay-bashing in his locker-room. Now that's a saint.

Of course, America's most famous murder defendant, O.J. Simpson, was also one of the game's premier running backs. I liked him. (That's another story up the road.)

But my point is this: Ghetto activist, socialist, gay hero, (If He Did) It Boy, they all loved the game and somehow re-affirmed its value. I'd say three of them were minor saints and one, well, ask Dr. Falwell if Jesus could have tackled O.J.

And then there is Pat Tillman. He could be The One.

He is certainly the most complex and mysterious figure in recent football history. The former NFL defensive back enlisted in the Army Rangers after 9/11 and was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. His story was quickly spun by an administration desperate for a hero; He was given a posthumous Silver Star for saving his unit by sacrificing himself. He briefly became a symbol of old-school patriotism. But even after the story was unspun -- he was apparently questioning the invasion of, and war in, Iraq (where he had also served) before he was killed -- it still made no sense.

Why had he enlisted in the first place? He was 25, recently married and had just more than doubled his salary with a 3-year $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals.

Was he a thrill-seeking psycho or a player who took the responsibilities of citizenship all-too-seriously? Did he want to make a moral statement or was he thinking ahead to his political CV?

Was his death by fratricide an accident or a homicide? After all, he had reportedly advised fellow Rangers to vote for John Kerry and, on his next leave, was looking forward to meeting Noam Chomsky.

These questions are not answered in the explorations of Tillman's life I've read -- Mike Towle's hagiographic biography I've Got Things To Do With My Life and Mike Fish's three-part investigation for ESPN.com last year.

And the Army has yet to fulfill its promise of a satisfactory inquiry.

Tillman -- at least in what's been written about him -- emerges as a seeker and a mad-dog; a quirky, intellectually and spiritually curious young man who majored in marketing at Arizona State and graduated, with high marks, a semester ahead of his class. As a kid, he was a risk-taker; as a football player, he was bold and ferocious. Small for a college linebacker and slow for an NFL safety, he compensated with vicious hits and smart play. He seems to have had that critical gift a defensive back -- and an Army Ranger -- needs: He was free of moral delay, that instant of doubt that can cripple a reactive strike. Yet people who knew him talk of his compassion and his need for thoughtful discussion.

Can I lead you to the right place by telling you that he wore his hair very long and that he may have been the only NFL player who rode his old bike (coaster brakes) to training camp? (Coaches and sergeants described him as "humble.") He gave up all that money; he put himself through the hell of Ranger training, Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and then died at the hands of brothers who had sworn the same oaths to higher authority.

You can imagine how close I was to calling Dr. Falwell. Had anyone who played the game come closer to you know who? Men got up slowly after Tillman tackled them.

But I had a moral delay. How could I reconcile this thought with what Paul Reynolds, a college teammate of Tillman's, told Towle? "I would talk to him about Jesus Christ and having a faith, oh yeah. We'd talk about God and stuff. But Pat was a thinker. My wife and I would talk about it, wondering how anyone could be as driven and self-motivated as Pat without believing in God. But he was."

So I leave it to you -- what to make of Pat Tillman. It's something to think about, maybe during half-time on Super Bowl Sunday. Jesus wasn't Jesus either until the writers got hold of the story.

And think about this, as reported by Mike Fish of ESPN.com: The Army officer who directed the first official inquiry into his death, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, told Fish that he didn't feel driven to identify Tillman's killer or killers, that it didn't really matter, that there would have been no fuss except for Tillman's celebrity and his family's insistence, which might be traced to their lack of Christian faith.

Lt. Col. Kauzlarich added: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more -- that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

4. Varieties of Religious Experience

" Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goal posts of life." A Bobby Bare song

Over the past forty years, I've been to Super Bowls as a newspaper columnist and a TV correspondent; I've watched the game on TV alone and in a group; in the late 1970s, I even attended anti-Super Bowl parties at which we ostentatiously ignored the game, jogged, ate healthful snacks, and screened Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly films, dividing ourselves into Fred-ites or Gene-ists to compare the two, a sorry substitute for judging the finesse vs. power of, say, O.J. Simpson vs. Jim Brown. There was a certain subversive pleasure in the anti-Super Bowl parties, but not enough. It was less like the back-alley thrills of paganism in the early centuries of Christianity's ascension than the dull rationality of organized Atheism.

And it brought up an agnostic thought: If you had to work so hard to convince yourself and others that there was nothing there, maybe there was something there. Okay, there is no God and there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we do need to get down on our knees and turn up the sound because there is the Church of Football.

Have faith. For all your wishful thinking and their wistful name, the New Orleans Saints apparently didn't have enough of it -- or maybe the team needed government help as badly as its Sodom of a city. The Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts had faith in their quarterbacks, Rex Grossman and Peyton Manning, both prodigal sons criticized for wayward passes. And both those cities are capitals of the empire, the hog butcher and the team thief -- it was only 23 years ago that the Colts' former owner trucked his club out of Baltimore one night. The club is now run, of course, by his son.

Any Given Sunday is reserved for those who have been saved, who have accepted that so long as there is an American Empire, football will be its religion and the Super Bowl its Holy Day.

So relax and enjoy it as best you can until the barbarians reach the gate and make us watch soccer. Pop the beer, dip the chips, and be a pew potato. At the end of the last day, all that counts is the final score.

As Dr. Falwell, George Bush, and their coach, the Devil, agree, Just win, baby.

Robert Lipsyte, the Jock Culture Correspondent for Tomdispatch.com, is a former sports journalist for the New York Times as well as CBS and NBC network news. His most current book is the controversial Young Adult novel, Raiders Night, which has been described as a kind of Friday Night Darks. Lipsyte believes that sports is the most fun you can have, legally, with your body in public, and anything else is child abuse. He can be reached at Robert@Robertlipsyte.com. He only answers intelligently designed e-mails.
[Note to Tomdispatch Readers: With the next post, Chalmers Johnson returns to this website with a major piece, "Empire v. Democracy." Don't miss it.]
Copyright 2007 Robert Lipsyte http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=160469

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 03:32 PM

.
.^^^^^^^^^^^
Gangsters for Capitalism
Saturday, 27 January 2007
By Clinton L. Cox

01/27/07 -- -- Although benign U.S. intentions are an article of faith among many Americans, theft, murder and oppression have always been central to U.S. policies and practices in the non-white world. George Bush’s crusade for ‘democracy’ is yet another chapter in the shameful saga.

“The U.S. has routinely destroyed democracy throughout the globe while its leaders spout words about spreading democracy.”
“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism....

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” – Major-General Smedley Butler, 1933. General Butler was the most decorated U.S. military officer of his day. His experiences helping the United States Government subvert democracy throughout the world so that multinational corporations could steal the land and resources of other nations, prompted him to write a short but politically devastating book, War is a Racket, in 1934. The use of military, economic and political power to control weaker nations is a thread that runs throughout the history of the United States from the past to the present – though most Americans either deny that fact or are ignorant of it.

The recent death of Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean torturer and murderer whom the United States helped bring to power in a coup in 1973 – toppling the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende – was simply one of the latest reminders of the history of the U.S. government in subverting democracy in order to advance the interests of U.S. bankers, oil companies, sugar interests and other economically powerful groups. Far from being a force for good in the world, the U.S. has routinely destroyed democracy throughout the globe while its leaders spout words about spreading democracy: words Condoleezza Rice invoked while helping supply the Israelis with bombs they dropped on Lebanese children in what may have been a death blow to Lebanese democracy. Words George Bush invokes while killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children so that major U.S. companies can steal Iraq’s oil.

“The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power,” declared Haitian historian Patrick Bellegarde-Smith. Bellegarde-Smith was writing about Haiti’s history, but his observation applies equally well to the history of the United States, including its current history: those who rule this country fear democracy, especially in lands populated by people of color, because democracy in those lands and in those hands threatens the vast wealth and political power of white elites.

“Those who rule this country fear democracy, especially in lands populated by people of color.”

This fear is especially strong in a nation that was born from a decision by privileged white males to craft a Constitution that protected their privileges, whether their wealth had been gained from buying and selling enslaved Africans, stealing Native American land, or in some other kind of “business” transactions.

“We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them (slaves),” said Gen. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina in praising the advantages the new Constitution gave slaveowners, “We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make.”

The men who ratified the Constitution invoked words about “democracy,” while making sure that Black people, Native Americans, women and white males without property, were not represented at their Constitutional Convention. Patrick Henry and other “patriots” successfully argued for passage of the Bill of Rights, in order to make sure the federal government could not free their slaves under any circumstances, such as it did with some of the Black men who fought in the Revolutionary War.

“May Congress not say that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war?” Henry asked in arguing for the Bill of Rights. And once Congress passed such a law freeing some Black men, he warned, it could also declare “that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Thus the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights were adopted on the premise that slavery should be legally protected in the new nation. This pro-slavery decision shocked the Marquis de Lafayette and other freedom fighters, including the 5,000 Black American men who had risked their lives to build a new nation based on democracy.

And so when Black men, women and children in Haiti rebelled against the French who enslaved them and created a free Black republic, the reaction of those in power in the United States was not to embrace their democracy: rather, the so-called Founding Fathers were terrified at the thought of a Black-ruled democracy and passed even harsher laws to control slaves in the United States, lest the “infection” of freedom threaten slavery in this country.

“The so-called Founding Fathers were terrified at the thought of a Black-ruled democracy in Haiti.”

The result was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which was authored by Pierce Butler of South Carolina, and was the first federal act making it a crime to harbor an escaped slave or to try and prevent a slave’s arrest or capture. The Act also made it mandatory to transport a recaptured slave to any state or territory that demanded his or her return.

The U.S. bitterly opposed democracy in Haiti precisely because it threatened slaveocracy in the U.S.

This pattern of U.S. opposition to the freedom of people of color, therefore, was seen from the earliest days of this nation as a threat to white power and privilege. The destruction of democratic governments whenever U.S. interests are threatened or perceived as being threatened, is a goal that is pursued no matter which party is in power.

The list of nations where the U.S. has subverted democracy is long and there are so many places we could begin. But let us start with Cuba and the Philippines in the Spanish-American war of 1898.

U.S. newspapers and politicians filled the air with alleged sympathy for the Cubans and Filipinos suffering under the brutality of the Spaniards. There were denunciations throughout this country of concentration camps in Cuba run by Spain’s Gen. Valeriano “Butcher” Weyler, a man described by the “New York Journal” as “pitiless, cold, an exterminator of men....There is nothing to prevent his carnal, animal brain from running riot with itself in inventing tortures and infamies of bloody debauchery.” And so the United States went to war, including Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry as well as other regiments of Black soldiers. While stationed in the South, the Black soldiers were disarmed and more of them were killed by sheriffs and other alleged upholders of the law than were killed fighting in the war. An estimated 123 Black men, women and children had been lynched the year before the soldiers went South: burned at the stake, hung from trees, riddled with bullets or flayed alive by white mobs. But still the soldiers went to fight for freedom for other people.

They were welcomed as liberators by the Cubans and fought bravely, including saving Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders from near annihilation at a Spanish-held fort called Las Guasimas.

The Rough Riders could not advance “and dared not retreat,” said one Black soldier, “having been caught in a sunken place in the road, with a barbed-wire fence on one side and a precipitous hill on the other....At the moment when it looked as if the whole regiment would be swept down by the steel-jacketed bullets from the Mausers, four troops of the 10th U.S. Calvary came up on ‘double time.’”

“In justice to the colored race,” wrote Rough Rider Frank Knox, who later became Secretary of the Navy, “I must say that I never saw braver men anywhere. Some of those...will live in my memory forever.”

But another man had a far different opinion, especially of the Cubans. Winston Churchill, a young military observer from England, had not realized--just as most of the American public had not realized--that a large percentage of the Cuban fighters were Black. “A great danger presents itself,” an alarmed Churchill wrote. “Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field, are negroes. These men, with Antonio Maceo (a Black general affectionately nicknamed “The Bronze Titan” by his fellow Cubans) at their head, would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share of the government of the country....the results being, after years of fighting, another black republic.”

But Churchill need not have worried about the “danger” of Black participation in democracy. Within months of the Black soldiers’ deeds of bravery in the name of Cuban freedom, the U.S. government declared Cuba a “protectorate,” stationed a permanent occupying force of White soldiers on the island and seized its economy for the benefit of U.S. corporations.

Roosevelt, who would probably have been killed if the Black soldiers hadn't saved him, launched the political career that would carry him to the White House by turning on his rescuers and saying they could not carry on a fight once they lost their white officers. This appeal to White American racism was successful, even though the soldiers had made what one Rough Rider called “their great, fearless charges” under the command of Black sergeants after their White officers were killed, a fact Roosevelt knew full well.

The United States not only grabbed Cuba to prevent the Cubans from establishing a democracy and to open new markets for American corporations, but also stole Puerto Rico, Wake Island, Guam and Hawaii.

“The U.S. declared Cuba a ‘protectorate,’ stationed a permanent occupying force of White soldiers on the island and seized its economy for the benefit of U.S. corporations.”

Much of Hawaii’s land had already been taken over by American pineapple plantation owners, and much of its culture trashed and weakened by American missionaries. Hawaii, said U.S. officials, was “a ripe pear waiting to be plucked,” and they plucked it. In 1898, while Black soldiers died and were betrayed in the failed attempt to bring freedom to Cuba, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution annexing Hawaii and assigning the U.S. military to insure this country’s control of the islands.

Spain, seeing the futility of trying to stop the U.S. militarily, sold all its possessions to the United States for $20 million. This also included the Philippines, with Pres. William McKinley clothing the theft in the following words: “...there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all (all of Spain’s possessions) and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died.”

The Filipinos, most of whom had already converted to Christianity in the decades before the Americans arrived, didn’t feel they needed “God’s grace” as defined by White Americans. In February 1899, under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo (who had been brought back to the Philippines from China by U.S. warships, in order to fight against the Spaniards), the Filipinos launched a war for freedom and democracy against the forces of the United States.

Though the war against the Filipinos is largely forgotten or ignored in this country, it was a bloody and brutal conflict that saw American soldiers and disease kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. While Black men, women and children were being tortured and killed in this country, White American soldiers slaughtered the brown-skinned inhabitants of the Philippines so that American businesses could expand into the Pacific.

“We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world,” said Sen. Albert Beveridge in the U.S. Senate, speaking for the economic and political interests of this country. “Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Georgraphy answers the question. China is our natural customer....The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East.”

And so Americans unleashed their indiscriminate brutality in the name of capitalism and democracy.

“Our fighting blood was up,” said one White soldier, “and we all wanted to kill ‘niggers.’....This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces."

In brutality reminiscent of that at Abu Ghraib and throughout Iraq, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger wrote: "Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later...stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one..."

The Black American soldiers were disgusted with the racism they saw their "fellow" soldiers introducing to yet another land, and many of them deserted. One, George Fagan of the all-Black 24th Infantry Regiment, accepted a commission in the rebel army and fought against the White Americans.

Another soldier, William Simms, wrote home (the letters by Simms and 113 other Black soldiers are in Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, by William Gatewood): "I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: 'Why does the American Negro come...to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you...?’"

Approximately 1,000 Black soldiers married Filipino women and U.S. officials were so alarmed at the friendships between Black soldiers and Filipinos, that they ordered the soldiers shipped home early. While the majority of White Americans supported the war against the Filipinos, there were large protests from the Black American community, including many of the soldiers.

"The first thing in the morning is the 'Nigger" and the last thing at night is the 'Nigger,'" wrote Sgt. Patrick Mason of the 24th to a Black newspaper, the Cleveland Gazette about White soldiers' routine use of the word to describe both the Filipinos and Black American soldiers. Another Black infantryman, William Fulbright, wrote the editor of the Black-owned Indianapolis Freeman: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression."

“U.S. officials were so alarmed at the friendships between Black soldiers and Filipinos, that they ordered the soldiers shipped home early.”

But while the majority of White Americans supported the war, there were many exceptions. Speaking of the actions of the United States and other Western nations in stealing land and imposing oppression in the name of democracy and spreading "civilization," author Mark Twain wrote in the New York Herald: "I bring you the stately matron of Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chou, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies."

Between the end of the Spanish-American War and the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929, the United States sent its military into Latin American countries thirty-two times. Haiti alone was occupied from, so that the U.S. could control both its politics and its economy – just as the democratically-elected Bertrand Aristide was deposed by U.S.-supported drug dealers and murderers in 2004 for the same reasons.
(In the months before the coup, Aristide had called for reparations from France for the slavery that had made Haiti France's richest colony. Aristide's demand angered both France and the U.S., as had his attempts to bring jobs and justice to the poor, and helped spur his removal from office. In a recent interview, Haitian folk-singing legend and political activist Annette Auguste, told how she was arrested by U.S. Marines shortly after the coup against Aristide and imprisoned for two years without ever being charged. Her only "crime" apparently was supporting Aristide and his attempts to help the poor. Auguste said that everyone in her house, including a five-year-old girl, were arrested by the Marines and handcuffed.)

U.S. Marines suppressed Haitian revolts, used forced labor, destroyed local democratic institutions, and jailed newspaper editors. Marine Major-Gen. Smedley Butler, who had retired in 1931, said the main purpose of the invasion of Haiti was so the Marines could act as bill collectors for the National City Bank of New York.

National City and other U.S. and Western banks had managed to gain control of Haiti's economy after the Haitians refused to pay Westerners for construction of the National Railway of Haiti. The railroad, which was largely financed by National City, was never completed. Its main terminal for Port-au-Prince, in fact, was built in a swamp two miles outside of town. The U.S. used the alleged default of the Haitian government toward National City and other bankers, to take control of Haiti, including collection of its money from customs and other sources.

When Woodrow Wilson became president, he took time off from introducing racial segregation into federal offices in Washington, D.C., to appoint William Jennings Bryant as Secretary of State. One of Bryant's first concerns was to learn more about Haiti, and when he was told the Haitians spoke French, he exclaimed: "Dear me, think of it! Niggers speaking French."

A 1918 law giving U.S. corporations the right to turn Haiti into a U.S. plantation, was passed by just 5% of the population after Wilson's Marines (led by Smedley Butler) disbanded the Haitian parliament at gunpoint as an essential move in establishing "economic development."

But White American racism was so strong, it destroyed even the pretense that the Marines had occupied Haiti for the good of the Haitian people. At any rate, U.S. officials soon openly admitted that they intended to control Haiti because of its strategic and military importance. They would also open up the island to any American businesses that wanted to invest there, but their main objective was to provide protection to the newly-constructed Panama Canal and the naval base at Guantanamo Bay in American-occupied Cuba. The United States also grabbed control of the deep harbor of Samana Bay in the Dominican Republic in 1916, by launching a military occupation of the island. Control of the bay had been a U.S. objective since the days of Secretary of State William Seward in Abraham Lincoln's cabinet.

Over seventy years later, President Bill Clinton secretly authorized the Texaco Oil Company to illegally ship oil to the Haitian junta that had overthrown Aristide. The next day Clinton once again sent the Marines into Haiti to "restore democracy."

U.S. planners under Clinton well understood (as so many people in so many previous administrations had understood), as writer and social critic Noam Chomsky has said, that "the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated.... The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the U.S.-installed army and paramilitary terrorists."

“Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost poverty."

While the United States has always been determined to destroy any democracy seen interfering with U.S. strategic and economic interests, the words and deeds used to justify that destruction have changed with the times.

In 1970, when the Chilean people elected Socialist Salvador Allende as their president, the U.S. ambassador to Chile said: "Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost poverty..."

So much for respecting the results of a democratic election.

In 1973 (on Sept. 11th, fittingly enough) the U.S. used covert action involving the Central Intelligence Agency and major corporations, to overthrow Allende. His overthrow resulted in an estimated 3,000 deaths and the torture of tens of thousands of ordinary Chileans – all with the whole-hearted support of the United States, which even sent advisers to help with the killings and torture.

The Beat Goes On
The history of the U.S. destruction of democracy would be tragic enough if it had stopped at this country's actions in Haiti and Latin America. Or even if it had stopped with the 1953 coup against the prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, because he had nationalized his country's oil industry and was going to make sure most of the profits went to the Iranian people rather than to multinational oil corporations. His overthrow was engineered by Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, thus continuing the family tradition of subverting democracy and spreading imperialism.

The U.S. destruction of democracy continued with its complicity in the 1961murder of the democratically-elected leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba had declared that he was going to run the country for the Congolese and not for the American and European corporations who were determined to keep raping the wealth of the Congo.

"Everyone has realized that if the Congo dies, all Africa will be plunged into the night of defeat and servitude," Lumumba said in explaining why he had fought for the immediate independence of the Congo from Belgium. "The choice that was offered to us was none other than this alternative: freedom or the prolongation of our enslavement. There can be no compromise between freedom and slavery."

“The Eisenhower administration and the Central Intelligence Agency wholeheartedly backed the murder of Patrice Lumumba.”

And so the United States joined with other Western powers to make sure that Lumumba could not lead his people – and perhaps the rest of Africa – to freedom, rather than to the neo-colonialism that continues to this day in so much of that continent.

The murder of Lumumba was wholeheartedly backed by the Eisenhower administration and the Central Intelligence Agency. And the killers of Lumumba are said to be active in Congolese politics to this day, still subverting democracy and selling the country's riches to the West.

It was natural, then, that the U.S. supported the mass murderer and torturer, Jonas Savimbi, in Angola – where landmines Savimbi was given courtesy of rightwing politicians in the United States, South Africa and Israel, continue to maim and kill men, women and children to this day. Savimbi was seen as the West's best "hope" for stopping Angola from becoming an independent nation in control of its own resources, especially its oil.

The U.S. destruction of democracy also continued in countless other countries, including East Timor in Indonesia. While millions mourn the passing of ex-President Gerald Ford, few remember and the corporate media never mention that the U.S. government – with Ford's approval and the whole-hearted support of then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – gave the go-ahead for the Indonesian government to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Timorese because they wanted democracy. Ninety per cent of the weapons the Indonesians used to murder the Timorese, were supplied by the United States, which knew they would be used for that purpose.

Today the U.S. supports the regime in Nigeria that has spent years helping major oil companies to destroy the land and livelihood – and often the lives – of ordinary Nigerians. In the eyes of this government, and in the eyes of the military men in Nigeria, oil is much more important than the lives of innocent people. And so today the people in the Niger Delta continue to fight to preserve the land and air that has always given them life, against the combined forces of U.S. multinational corporations and the U.S.-supported Nigerian military.

But the most massive destruction of democracy by the United States is being done in the name of spreading democracy in the Middle East: its invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the measures it has taken to control Iraq's oil. One consultant – in referring to the deposits in Iraq's vast Western desert – called them the "Holy Grail" of the oil industry, a view echoed by most big oil executives.

Vice-President Dick Cheney and other neocons had been working for decades to get their hands on that oil, and accelerated their efforts once George W. Bush became president. By the time Bush invaded Iraq, his administration and oil executives had planned exactly what to do.

Just one month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, investigative journalist Greg Palast was given a State Department document that laid out the United States government's plan to seize Iraq, its oil and everything else of value in the country.

The document, called "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Growth," was a dream come true for neocons and their corporate supporters. It called for lowering taxes on big business, quick sales of Iraq's banks, bridges and all other "state enterprises" to foreigners (mainly Americans), allowing foreign corporations to take all of their profits out of Iraq, eliminating tariffs so U.S. imports would not be taxed and even revising Iraq's copyright laws to provide fifty years of retroactive royalty payments to the U.S. recording industry and twenty years of royalties to Microsoft.

“J. Paul Bremer promptly issued 100 orders designed to carry out the goals of big oil and other corporate interests in Iraq.”

But most of all it concentrated on taking the oil industry out of the hands of Iraqis and placing it in the control of Americans and other Westerners. The one law they didn't change was Saddam Hussein's ban on unions. There was no talk about bringing democracy to Iraq, but there was plenty of talk about controlling Iraqi's oil. Executives from Chevron-Texaco, Royal Dutch-Shell and other oil industry representatives, met at the White House and came up with a 300-page addendum to the plan. This addendum called for the complete turnover of Iraq's oil industry to international oil companies. J. Paul Bremer, who had been the managing director of Kissinger Associates, was installed in Saddam Hussein's old palace to run Iraq as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. He promptly issued 100 orders designed to carry out the goals of big oil and other corporate interests. Cargill – the world's biggest grain dealer – was able to dump hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat on the Iraqi market, thanks to the U.S. elimination of taxes and tariffs on imported foreign products. One result of this dumping was the devastation of the livelihoods of Iraqi farmers, who could not compete with the cheaper surpluses that flooded their country (Australian surpluses were also dumped on them).

Although Although U.S. officials from Bush on down like to brag about bringing democracy to Iraq, Bremer cancelled scheduled elections and only allowed them to be held after Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani threatened to bring a million Shi'ites into the streets to protest Bremer's action.

General Jay Garner, who preceded Bremer as head of the CPA but was quickly fired after refusing to carry out the Economy Plan, said he was bitterly opposed to U.S. attempts to seize Iraq's oil, pipelines, refineries and ports.

"That's one fight you don't want to take on," he told Palast.

But the U.S. is taking it on. While the corporate media in this country have virtually ignored those parts of the Iraq Study Group report dealing with Iraq's oil, a simple reading of the report shows that in Chapter 1, Page 1are these words: "It (Iraq) has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The report then goes on to show what the United States can and should do to gain control of Iraq's oil, including privatizing it, opening Iraq to private energy and oil companies, and "helping" the Iraqis draft a new national oil law. This proposed law, which American "advisers" are working on virtually every day, would assure U.S. and Western control of Iraq's oil for decades to come. Under this law, as under the rule of the previous colonial powers, the people of Iraq would have virtually nothing to say about who gets their oil and how much they have to pay for it.

Two of the report's authors, James A. Baker III (the first President Bush's secretary of state) and Lawrence Eagleburger, have spent most of their adult lives representing oil companies. In 1982, when then-President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of companies sponsoring terrorism, Baker and Eagleburger took steps to expand trade with Iraq. The two ultimately helped Saddam Hussein's Iraq receive billions of dollars, which the dictator then used to buy U.S. goods. In 1984, when Baker became treasury secretary and Eagleburger became president of Kissinger Associates, Reagan opened full diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Baker and Eagleburger were especially interested in Iraq's "vast oil reserves," and wasted no time in helping both their oil company clients and their law firms get their hands on Iraqi oil money. It is worth noting that the Iraqi Study Group report was written, not only by these men, but by several other conservatives who have long expressed a desire to control Iraq's oil.

U.S. oil companies have said that passage of a new Iraqi oil law is even more important than security concerns in deciding when they will move into Iraq. Many people, therefore, see the continuing presence of U.S. troops in Iraq as necessary both to pressure Iraqi lawmakers to pass the new law, and to try and guarantee security for the oil companies.

“Most Iraqi lawmakers don't even know details about the law the U.S. is trying to force down their throats.”

When Bremer quickly left Iraq (some would say when he "fled"), he left behind nearly 200 American "experts" to oversee each new Iraqi minister (these ministers also had to be approved beforehand by the U.S. government).

The proposed new law is being worked on feverishly by these American "advisers" and would require Iraqi lawmakers to sign what are called "production sharing agreements" (PSAs). PSAs are usually negotiated with weak governments and typically last for at least 15 to 20 years. Most Iraqi lawmakers don't even know details about the law the U.S. is trying to force down their throats. Iraqi knowledge or consent isn't considered necessary in the taking over of Iraq's oil, though, anymore than it is considered necessary whenever the U.S. decides that controlling another country's resources is more important than helping sustain or establish democracy. Greg Gregg Muttitt, a member of a social and environmental NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) operating in Iraq, said he was recently at a meeting of members of the Iraqi Parliament (MPs) and asked how many "had seen the law. Out of twenty, only one MP had seen it."

The same lack of Iraqi participation was evident when Iraq's constitution was drafted, giving Americans and other Westerners the ability to assume effective control of the country's oil. The U.S. has even locked in its new laws, rules and regulations, so that it will be almost impossible for any future Iraqi government to change them.

Said one Sunni negotiator: "This constitution was cooked up in an American kitchen, not an Iraqi one."

Though the corporate media in this country say virtually nothing about the subject, the U.S. has spent billions of dollars to build permanent military bases in Iraq. This country has also built the biggest embassy with the biggest staff in the world in Iraq: a staff that includes many CIA agents. Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy defense secretary and one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq, is now president of the World Bank, In that position, say many critics, he is pressuring Iraqis to sign the new oil law quickly, before Chinese, Russian and Indian oil firms can move in. To put more pressure on the Iraqis, Wolfowitz recently opened a World Bank office in Baghdad.

A Nation of Locusts
The hypocrisy inherent in the deeds of the U.S. government as opposed to its words, has thus continued unchanged from the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by a few privileged white males intent on protecting their economic, political and social privileges.

John F. Kennedy, who is revered by millions of Americans, including African Americans, directed the overthrow of Bolivia's democratically elected government because he saw it as threatening U.S. corporate control. Kennedy then supported installation of one of the many neo-Nazi governments this country has inflicted on Latin America (Successive U.S. governments, for instance, were perfectly happy with a Cuba riddled by drugs, prostitution, racial discrimination, and lack of health care and schools, as long as the rightwing dictators who controlled Cuba put American interests above the interests of their own poor and largely Black and Brown population).

In 2000, the U.S. hailed the overthrow of the democratically elected Black Indian president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and his replacement by a rightwing publisher who immediately dissolved parliament, the judiciary and other instruments of democracy. Chavez was quickly returned to power by a popular uprising, but not before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other officials praised what they hoped and thought would be another pro-rich regime. Chavez's "crime" consisted mainly of using Venezuela's resources, including its oil, to benefit poor Venezuelans instead of rich Americans. Rightwing individuals and organizations intent on destroying Venezuela's democracy, are still being supported financially and politically by the United States.

“The Pentagon is now training soldiers to destroy teachers, doctors, writers and anyone else in Latin America who tries to bring democracy to that region's largely Indian and Black populations.”

U.S. training of the Latin American military has sharply increased in the last few years. And that training has been shifted from the State Department, which demanded at least minimal supervision and investigation of human rights abuses, to the Pentagon, which asks for none. The new training mission for the Latin American military, as defined by the Pentagon, is now the fighting of "radical populism." In plain English, that means the Pentagon is now training soldiers to destroy teachers, doctors, writers and anyone else in Latin America who tries to bring democracy to that region's largely Indian and Black populations.

And so today in Venezuela, Nigeria, Haiti, Iraq and probably many other countries we're not even aware of, democracy is being destroyed or threatened by the United States, as it has been throughout history when big business wanted it destroyed.

In "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," John Perkins describes how he was often sent by the U.S. government into some Third World country that had something the U.S. wanted: from oil or other natural resources to strategic location. He then tried to persuade the country's leader to agree to a project like building oil pipelines or a power plant or a dam. Anything that would cost a lot of money.

The cost of the project, which would be grossly inflated, would be paid for by loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. All work would be done by American firms, which received huge profits. Inevitably the Third World country would be unable to repay the loan and would then become, in effect, an American puppet doing whatever the U.S. wanted – from giving control of its resources to multinational corporations to voting whatever way the U.S. wanted in the United Nations to allowing the U.S. to build military bases in the country. If the hit man's plan didn't work, Perkins said, then the U.S. government sent in "jackals" from the CIA to try and foment civil disorder. If the leader of the Third World country still resisted, "accidents" happened to them. In the 1980's, Panama's Omar Torrijos, who insisted on retaining control of Panama's resources and helping the poor in his country, and Ecuador's Jaime Roldas, whose goals were the same for his country, were both killed in mysterious plane crashes.

Torrijos had taken land from the rich and given it to peasants, and initiated other economic and social programs that antagonized powerful Panamanian families and their American supporters.

“If the leader of the Third World country still resisted, ‘accidents’ happened to them.”

"Their deaths were not accidental," Perkins said of Torrijos and Roldas in an interview on the radio and television show Democracy Now. "They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldos and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in... It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort (as of 2006, the U.S. maintained 725 military bases in 132 countries, including a huge new base in the nation of Djibouti to help control Africa, its resources and its politics. The CIA Fact Book, in describing Djibouti’s importance to the West, said it has a "strategic location near (the) world's busiest shipping lanes and close to Arabian oilfields..." Djibouti, in fact, can control access to the Red Sea, which is why both France and the U.S. maintain a strong military presence in that small African nation). If Torrijos and Roldas had gone along with U.S. wishes, their nations would have been plunged into widespread poverty, and large American corporations would have taken over their infrastructure, resources and political decision-making.

And so while the military is still used to control other nations and their resources, as we can easily see in Iraq, the economic controls in the so-called Free Trade Agreements the U.S. has forced on much of Latin America, are now increasingly used to steal the riches of other regions. Even the forgiveness of the debt of poor nations that Bush has bragged about, said Perkins, is a "complete sham" that forces the poor nations to allow large American corporations to take over their water, gas, power, telephone and education systems.

The U.S. destruction of democracy can be compared to the actions of locusts. I used to spend every summer on my grandparents' farm in Ohio, and I helped my grandfather plant, repair fences, bring in the hay, whatever needed doing. He was a man who could go hours without saying more than a few dozen words. But he said one thing I've never forgotten, because it applies to so many situations in life, including U.S. history: "When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind."

This nation has acted like a plague of locusts in other lands throughout its history (and as slave-owning, land-stealing locusts within this country, starting with the enslavement of Africans and the slaughtering of Native Americans because Whites wanted their land and labor). While the method of this country's greed-driven destruction has sometimes changed, the goal remains the same as it has always been: to steal in order to make rich Americans richer, even if that means creating generation after generation of locusts swarming around the world, seizing everything they value.

Or, as Marine Major-General Smedley Butler described them when he summed up his career decades ago: creating generation after generation of "gangsters for capitalism."

Clinton L. Cox is a veteran journalist living in upstate New York. He can be reached at clintie@earthlink.net

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/134/1/
^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 04:51 PM

.^^^^^^^^^^^
Listen up Dick Cheney, this is what we haven't the stomach for..... it is your manipulation of the system to benefit the ones who are the war machine's own - yourself and your longtime associates; all at our, and the unfortunate country of Iraq's people. It's at our expense while your stock in Halliburton alone has risen in value for a windfall of over $8,000,000.00. This is throwing it back at you. This is a fact, not a supposition, not an off one's rocker belief as to how the American people think of this war of yours. This is what we don't have the stomach for, and it's not out of fear as you're accusing us of. We're not cowards, not in the least, and we aren't as naive as you would hope.

It's like this: It's not our war, it's your's and your business buddies war and we're not falling for it any longer. You have made enough off of it, and you are still reaping the profits, all the while the injured, maimed, and dead, are increasing at an alarming rate, all of this while our country sinks deeper and deeper into unimaginable debt. No; our blood lust isn't as pronounced as yours. Thank goodness for this fact. We've seen how you enjoy a canned hunt, the numbers of quail and pheasant you enjoyed killing. This tells us about your greed as well as your moral make up, and, it's not a pretty site. It's your actions which we haven't the stomach for. We're not against defending our country against aggression, which you fullwell know, as you've see this side of us over. and over, all from your arm chair; your having avoided the draft for Vietnam with all that was in you. Our bravery and our wanting to protect our country shouldn't be squandered unwisely or brutally as you've seen fit to do; this from your safe spot; one you staked out for yourself years and years ago. SRH
A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States (1)
By
Chalmers Johnson(2)
KEY JUDGMENTS
01/17/07 "Harpers Magazine" -- -- The United States remains, for the moment, the most powerful nation in history, but it faces a violent contradiction between its long republican tradition and its more recent imperial ambitions.

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

Several factors, however, indicate that this course will be a brief one, which most likely will end in economic and political collapse.

Military Keynesianism: The imperial project is expensive. The flow of the nation’s wealth – from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers – has created a form of “military Keynesianism,” in which the domestic economy re¬quires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.

The Unitary Presidency: Sustained military ambition is inherently anti-republican, in that it tends to concentrate power in the executive branch. In the United States, President George W. Bush subscribes to an esoteric interpretation of the Constitution called the theory of the unitary executive, which holds, in effect, that the president has the authority to ignore the separation of powers written into the Constitution, creating a feedback loop in which permanent war and the unitary presidency are mutually reinforcing.

Failed Checks on Executive Ambition: The U.S. legislature and judiciary appear to be incapable of restraining the president and therefore restraining imperial ambition. Direct opposition from the people, in the form of democratic action or violent uprising, is unlikely because the television and print media have by and large found it unprofitable to inform the public about the actions of the country’s leaders. Nor is it likely that the military will attempt to take over the executive branch by way of a coup.

Bankruptcy and Collapse: Confronted by the limits of its own vast but nonetheless finite financial resources and lacking the political check on spending provided by a functioning democracy, the United States will within a very short time face financial or even political collapse at home and a significantly diminished ability to project force abroad.

DISCUSSION
Military Keynesianism
The ongoing U.S. militarization of its foreign affairs has spiked precipitously in recent years, with increasingly expensive commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. These commitments grew from many specific political factors, including the ideological predilections of the current regime, the growing need for material access to the oil-rich regions of the Middle East, and a long-term bipartisan emphasis on hegemony as a basis for national security. The domestic economic basis for these commitments, however, is consistently overlooked. Indeed, America’s hegemonic policy is in many ways most accurately understood as the inevitable result of its decades-long policy of military Keynesianism.

During the Depression that preceded World War II, the English economist John Maynard Keynes, a liberal capitalist, proposed a form of governance that would mitigate the boom-and-bust cycles inherent in capitalist economies. To prevent the economy from contracting, a development typically accompanied by social unrest, Keynes thought the government should take on debt in order to put people back to work. Some of these deficit-financed government jobs might be socially useful, but Keynes was not averse to creating make-work tasks if necessary. During periods of prosperity, the government would cut spending and rebuild the treasury. Such countercyclical planning was called “pump-priming.”

Upon taking office in 1933, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, with the assistance of Congress, put several Keynesian measures into effect, including socialized retirement plans, minimum wages for all workers, and government-financed jobs on massive projects, including the Triborough Bridge in New York City, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, a flood-control and electric-power-generation complex covering seven states. Conservative capitalists feared that this degree of government intervention would delegitimate capitalism – which they understood as an economic system of quasi-natural laws – and shift the balance of power from the capitalist class to the working class and its unions. For these reasons, establishment figures tried to hold back countercyclical spending.

The onset of World War II, however, made possible a significantly modified form of state socialism. The exiled Polish economist Michal Kalecki attributed Germany’s success in overcoming the global Depression to a phenomenon that has come to be known as “military Keynesianism.” Government spending on arms increased manufacturing and also had a multiplier effect on general consumer spending by raising worker incomes. Both of these points are in accordance with general Keynesian doctrine. In addition, the enlargement of standing armies absorbed many workers, often young males with few skills and less education. The military thus becomes an employer of last resort, like Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, but on a much larger scale.

Rather than make bridges and dams, however, workers would make bullets, tanks, and fighter planes. This made all the difference. Although Adolf Hitler did not undertake rearmament for purely economic reasons, the fact that he advocated governmental support for arms production made him acceptable not only to the German industrialists, who might otherwise have opposed his destabilizing expansionist policies, but also to many around the world who celebrated his achievement of a “German economic miracle.”

In the United States, Keynesian policies continued to benefit workers, but, as in Germany, they also increasingly benefited wealthy manufacturers and other capitalists. By the end of the war, the United States had seen a massive shift. Dwight Eisenhower, who helped win that war and later became president, described this shift in his 1961 presidential farewell address:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women ate directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

Eisenhower went on to suggest that such an arrangement, which he called the “military¬-industrial complex,” could be perilous to American ideals. The short-term economic benefits were clear, but the very nature of those benefits – which were all too carefully distributed among workers and owners in “every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government” – tended to short-¬circuit Keynes’s insistence that government spending be cut back in good times. The prosperity of the United States came in¬creasingly to depend upon the construction and continual maintenance of a vast war machine, and so military supremacy and economic security became increasingly intertwined in the minds of voters. No one wanted to turn off the pump.

Between 1940 and 1996, for instance, the United States spent nearly $4.5 trillion on the development, testing, and construction of nuclear weapons alone. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the United States possessed some 32,000 deliverable bombs. None of them was ever used, which illustrates perfectly Keynes’s observation that, in order to create jobs, the government might as well decide to bury money in old mines and “leave them to private enterprise on the well-tried principles of laissez faire to dig them up again.” Nuclear bombs were not just America’s secret weapon; they were also a secret economic weapon.

Such spending helped create economic growth that lasted until the 1973 oil crisis. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan once again brought the tools of military Keynesianism to bear, with a policy of significant tax cuts and massive deficit spending on military projects, allegedly to combat a new threat from Communism. Reagan’s military expenditures accounted for 5.9 percent of the gross domestic product in 1984, which in turn fueled a 7 percent growth rate for the economy as a whole and helped reelect Reagan by a landslide.

During the Clinton years military spending fell to about 3 percent of GDP, but the economy rallied strongly in Clinton’s second term due to the boom in information technologies, weakness in the previously competitive Japanese economy, and - paradoxically – serious efforts to reduce the national debt. (3)With the coming to power of George W. Bush, however, military Keynesianism returned once again. Indeed, after he began his war with Iraq, the once-erratic relationship between defense spending and economic growth became nearly parallel. A spike in defense spending in one quarter would see a spike in GDP, and a drop in defense spending would likewise see a drop in GDP.

To understand the real weight of military Keynesianism in the American economy today, however, one must approach official defense statistics with great care. The “defense” budget of the United States – that is, the reported budget of the Department of Defense – does not include: the Department of Energy’s spending on nuclear weapons ($16.4 billion slated for fiscal 2006), the Department of Homeland Security’s outlays for the actual “defense” of the United States ($41 billion), or the Department of Veterans Affairs’ responsibilities for the lifetime care of the seriously wounded ($68 billion). Nor does it include the billions of dollars the Department of State spends each year to finance foreign arms sales and militarily related development or the Treasury Department’s payments of pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not fully disclosed by official statistics). Still to be added are interest payments by the Treasury to cover past debt-financed defense outlays. The economist Robert Higgs estimates that in 2002 such interest payments amounted to $138.7 billion.

Even when all these things are included, Enron-style accounting makes it hard to obtain an accurate understanding of U.S. dependency on military spending. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that “neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing” or “details on how the appropriated funds are being spent.” Indeed, the GAO found that, lacking a reliable method for tracking military costs, the Army had taken to simply inserting into its accounts figures that matched the available budget. Such actions seem absurd in terms of military logic. But they are perfectly logical responses to the requirements of military Keynesianism, which places its emphasis not on the demand for defense but rather on the available supply of money.

The Unitary Presidency
Military Keynesianism may be economic development by other means, but it does very often lead to real war, or, if not real war, then a significantly warlike political environment. This creates a feedback loop: American presidents know that military Keynesianism tends to concentrate power in the executive branch, and so presidents who seek greater power have a natural inducement to encourage further growth of the military-industrial complex. As the phenomena feed on each other, the usual outcome is a real war, based not on the needs of national defense but rather on the domestic political logic of military Keynesianism. As U.S. Senator Robert La Follette Sr. observed, “In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war.”

George W. Bush has taken this natural political phenomenon to an extreme never before experienced by the American electorate. Every president has sought greater authority, but Bush - whose father lost his position as forty-first president in a fair and open election – appears to believe that increasing presidential authority is both a birthright and a central component of his historical legacy. He is supported in this belief by his vice president and chief adviser, Dick Cheney.

In pursuit of more power, Bush and Cheney have unilaterally authorized preventive war against nations they designate as needing “regime change,” directed American soldiers to torture persons they have seized and imprisoned in various countries, ordered the National Security Agency to carry out illegal “data mining” surveillance of the American people, and done everything they could to prevent Congress from outlawing “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” treatment of people detained by the United States. Each of these actions has been undertaken for specific ideological, tactical, or practical reasons, but also as part of a general campaign of power concentration.

Cheney complained in 2002 that, since he had served as Gerald Ford’s chief of staff, he had seen a significant erosion in executive power as post-Watergate presidents were forced to “cough up and compromise on important principles.” He was referring to such reforms as the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires that the president obtain congressional approval within ninety days of ordering troops into combat; the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was designed to stop Nixon from impounding funds for programs he did not like; the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, which Congress strengthened in 1974; President Ford’s Executive Order 11905 of 1976, which outlawed political assassination; and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, which gave more power to the House and Senate select committees on intelligence. Cheney said that these reforms were “unwise” because they “weaken the presidency and the vice presidency,” and added that he and the president felt an obligation “to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them.”

No president, however, has ever acknowledged the legitimacy of the War Powers Act, and most of these so-called limitations on presidential power had been gutted, ignored, or violated long before Cheney became vice president. Republican Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire said, “The vice president may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has somehow lost power over the last thirty years.”

Bush and Cheney have made it a primary goal of their terms in office, nonetheless, to carve executive power into the law, and the war has been the primary vehicle for such actions. John Yoo, Bush’s deputy assistant attor¬ney general from 2001 to 2003, writes in his book War By Other Means, “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts laws, the President enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.” Bush has claimed that he is “the commander” and “the decider” and that therefore he does not “owe anybody an explanation” for anything. (4)
Similarly, in a September 2006 press conference, White House spokesman Tony Snow engaged in this dialogue:

Q: Isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?

A: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the president is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.

Snow was referring to the president’s habit of signing bills into law accompanied by “state¬ments” that, according to the American Bar Association, “assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress.” All forty-two previous U.S. presidents combined have signed statements exempting themselves from the provisions of 568 new laws, whereas, Bush has, to date, exempted himself from more than 1,000.

Failed Checks on Executive Ambition

The current administration’s perspective on political power is far from unique. Few, if any, presidents have refused the increased executive authority that is the natural byproduct of military Keynesianism. Moreover, the division of power between the president, the Congress, and the judiciary – often described as the bedrock of American democracy – has eroded significantly in recent years. The people, the press, and the military, too, seem anxious to cede power to a “wartime” president, leaving Bush, or those who follow him, almost entirely unobstructed in pursuing the imperial project.

Congress: Corrupt and indifferent, Congress, which the Founders believed would be the lead¬ing branch of government, has already entirely forfeited the power to declare war. More recently, it gave the president the legal right to detain anyone, even American citizens, without warrant, and to detain non-citizens without recourse to habeas corpus, as well as to use a variety of in¬terrogation methods that he could define, at his sole discretion, to be or not be torture.

The Courts: The judicial branch is hardly more effective in restraining presidential ambition. The Supreme Court was active in the installation of the current president, and the lower courts increasingly are packed with judges who believe they should defer to his wishes. In 2006, for instance, U.S. District Judge David Trager dismissed a suit by a thirty-five-year-old Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who in 2002 was seized by U.S. government agents at John F. Kennedy Airport and delivered to Syria, where he was tortured for ten months before be¬ing released. No charges were filed against Arar, and his torturers eventually admitted he had no links to any crime. In explaining his dismissal, Trager noted with approval an earlier Supreme Court finding that such judgment would “threaten ‘our customary policy of deference to the President in matters of foreign affairs.’ ”

The Military: It is possible that the U.S. military could take over the government and declare a dictatorship. (5) That is how the Roman republic ended. For the military voluntarily to move toward direct rule, however, its leaders would have to ignore their ties to civilian society, where the symbolic importance of constitutional legitimacy re¬mains potent. Rebellious officers may well worry about how the American people would react to such a move. Moreover, prosecutions of low level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted ranks that obedience to illegal orders can result in their being punished, whereas officers go free. No one knows whether ordinary American soldiers would obey clearly illegal orders to oust an elected government or whether the officer corps has sufficient confidence to issue such orders. In addition, the present system already offers the military high command so much – in funds, prestige, and future employment via the military-industrial revolving door, that a perilous transition to anything resembling direct military rule would make little sense under reasonably normal conditions.

The People: Could the people themselves restore constitutional government? A grass roots movement to break the hold of the military-iindustrial complex and establish public financing of elections is conceivable. But, given the conglomerate control of the mass media and the difficulties of mobilizing the United States’ large and diffuse population, it is unlikely. Moreover, the people themselves have enjoyed the Keynesian benefits of the U.S. imperial project and – in all but a few cases – have not yet suffered any of its consequences. (6)

Bankruptcy and Collapse
The mor likely check on presidential power, and on U.S. military ambition, will be the economic failure that is the inevitable consequence of military Keynesianism. Traditional Keynesianism is a stable two-part system composed of deficit spending in bad times and debt payment in good times. Military Keynesianism is an unstable one-part system. With no political check, debt accrues until it reaches a crisis point.

In the fiscal 2006 budget, the Congressional Research Service estimates that Pentagon spending on Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom will be about $10 billion per month, or an extra $120.3 billion for the year. As of mid-2006, the overall cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since their inception stood at more than $400 billion. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, and his colleague, Linda Bilmes, have tried to put together an estimate of the real costs of the Iraq war. They calculate that it will cost about $2 trillion by 2015. The conservative American Enterprise Institute suggests a figure at the opposite end of the spectrum – $1 trillion. Both figures are an order of magnitude larger than what the Bush Administration publicly acknowledges.

At the same time, the U.S. trade deficit, the largest component of the current account deficit, soared to an all-time high in 2005 of $782.7 billion, the fourth consecutive year that America’s trade debts set records. The trade deficit with China alone rose to $201.5 billion, the highest imbalance ever recorded with any country. Meanwhile, since mid-2000, the country has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs. To try to cope with these imbalances, on March 16, 2006, Congress raised the national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $9 trillion. This was the fourth time since George W. Bush took office that the limit had to be raised. Had Congress not raised it, the U.S. government would not have been able to borrow more money and would have had to default on its massive debts.

Among the creditors that finance this unprecedented sum, two of the largest are the central banks of China ($854 billion in reserves of dollars and other foreign currencies) and Japan ($850 billion), both of which are the managers of the huge trade surpluses these countries enjoy with the United States. This helps explain why the United States’ debt burden has not yet triggered what standard economic theory would predict, which is a steep decline in the value of the U.S. dollar followed by a severe contraction of the American economy – the Chinese and Japanese governments continue to be willing to be paid in dollars in order to sustain American demand for their exports. For the sake of domestic employment, both countries lend huge amounts to the American treasury, but there is no guarantee how long they will want or be able to do so.

CONFIDENCE IN KEY JUDGMENTS
It is difficult to predict the course of a democracy, and perhaps even more so when that democracy is as corrupt as that of the United States. With a new opposition party in the majority in the House, the country could begin a difficult withdrawal from military Keynesianism. Like the British after World War II, the United States could choose to keep its democracy by giving up its empire. The British did not do a particularly brilliant job of liquidating their empire, and there were several clear cases in which British imperialists defied their nation’s commitment to democracy in order to keep their foreign privileges – Kenya in the 1950s is a particularly savage example – but the people of the British Isles did choose democracy over imperialism, and that nation continues to thrive as a nation, if not as an empire.

It appears for the moment, however, that the people of the United States prefer the Roman approach and so will abet their government in maintaining a facade of constitutional democracy until the nation drifts into bankruptcy.

Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the United States any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2001. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system, or for military rule, revolution, or simply some new development we cannot yet imagine. Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of the current American standard of living, a loss of control over international affairs, a process of adjusting to the rise of other powers, including China and India, and a further dis¬crediting df the notion that the United States is somehow exceptional compared with other nations. The American people will be forced to learn what it means to be a far poorer nation and the attitudes and manners that go with it. (7)
Chalmers Johnson is the author of Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and, most recently, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, which will be published in February by Metropolitan Books. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The War Business: Squeezing a Profit from the Wreckage in Iraq,” appeared in the November 2003 issue.
———
Notes
(1) The CIA’s website defines a National Intelligence Estimate as “the most authoritative written judgment concerning a national security issue prepared by the Director of Central Intelligence.” These forecasts of “future developments” and “their implications for the United States” seldom are made public, but there are exceptions. One was the NIE of September 2002, “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which became notorious because virtually word in it was false. Another, an April 2006 NIE entitled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” was partly declassified by President Bush because its main conclusion – that “activists identifying themselves as jihadists” are “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion” – had already been leaked to the press.

(2) The CIA is prohibited from writing an NIE on the United States, and so I have here attempted to do so myself, using the standard format for such estimates. I have some personal knowledge of NIEs because from 1967 to 1973 I served as an outside consultant to the CIA’s Office of National Estimates.

1 was one of about a dozen so-called experts invited to read draft NIEs in order to provide quality control and prevent bureaucratic logrolling.

(3) Military Keynesianism, it turns out, is not the only way to boost an economy.

(4) In a January 2006 debate, Yoo was asked if any law could stop the president, if he “deems that he’s got to torture somebody,” from, say, “crushing the testicles of the person’s child.” Yoo’s response: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”

(5) Though they undoubtedly would find a more user-friendly name for it.

(6) In 2003, when the Iraq war began, the citizens of the United States could at least claim that it was the work of an administration that had lost the popular vote. But in 2004, Bush won that vote by more than 3 million ballots, making his war ours.

(7) National Intelligence Estimates seldom contain startling new data. To me they always read like magazine articles or well-researched and footnoted graduate seminar papers. When my wife once asked me what was so secret about them, I answered that perhaps it was the fact that this was the best we could do.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16260.htm ^^^^^

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 05:02 PM

.

~~~~~~~

"My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"

Paul Robeson (1898-1976)
from testimony before the
House Un-American Activities Committee,
June 12, 1956

~~~

"The history of mankind is a history of the subjugation and exploitation of a great majority of people by an elite few by what has been appropriately termed the 'ruling class'. The ruling class has many manifestations. It can take the form of a religious orthodoxy, a monarchy, a dictatorship of the proletariat, outright fascism, or, in the case of the United States, corporate statism. In each instance the ruling class relies on academics, scholars and 'experts' to legitimize and provide moral authority for its hegemony over the masses."

Ed Crane

~~~

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power".

Benito Mussolini

~~~

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,"

Franklin D. Roosevelt

~~~

Fascism is capitalism plus murder."

Upton Sinclair
~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 05:21 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
A VIDEO
Scott Ritter - "We're on the edge of the abyss...."

Sunday, 28 January 2007
Audio

Wars against Iraq and Iran are part of a larger US strategy that would eventually include conflict with Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Ritter says. Why? A main reason is that the US wants to dictate the growth of China and India.

Congress has given Bush a green light to strike Iran, "and he is going to do so."

Recorded 01/24/07 - Deerfield, MA Audio Runtime 25 Minutes

Sign Don't Attack Iran Petition

CLICK PLAY TO LISTEN

---
Go on-site to access link and to read comments:

Information Clearing House

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/154/1/
MP3
Replay permitted for non-profit & non-commercial use, with attributions, no changes and notice.
Audio © Traprock Peace Center; all rights reserved
:: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 28th, 2007, 07:05 PM

.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Rumsfeld is still running the War Department

By
Mike Whitney
Sunday, 28 January 2007

Where’s Rummy?
That’s what I’d been wondering ever since the Princeton Warlord resigned his post at the Pentagon last month. In fact, I never really believed that Rumsfeld retired, but that he simply vanished from public view so he could carry out his nefarious plans undercover.

Now, it appears that I was right. A recent article in the Washington Times by Rowan Scarborough, (“Rumsfeld’s transition raises questions” 1-25-07) confirms that Rumsfeld has resurfaced in Arlington, VA and opened a “government-provided transition office with 7 Pentagon-paid staffers working for him”. He is listed as a “nonpaid consultant” so he can continue to “review secret and top-secret documents”.

As Scarborough aptly notes, “Rumsfeld has left the Pentagon but not the Defense Department”. He is accompanied by his top aide, Stephen Cambone.

The question this raises, of course, is whether Rumsfeld is still calling the shots at the Pentagon?

My guess would be; Yes. The Rummy-resignation was just more-of-the-same War Department hocus-pocus (psy-ops) There was never the slightest possibility that Dick Cheney would take congress’ disapproval of Rumsfeld’s performance seriously and throw him overboard. Rummy and Cheney are joined at the hip; you can’t dump one without the other.

Consider Cheney’s comments just last week to fully appreciate his disdain for congress. When he was asked about the senate resolution which rebukes the president for surging more troops into Baghdad, Cheney sneered, “It won’t stop us.”

Of course it “won’t stop him” because he has nothing but contempt for democratic government. So, if that’s his attitude, why do people believe he let Rumsfeld go?

He didn’t. Rummy is still moving the pieces around the global chessboard while using his sock-puppet Gates to conceal his activities. This explains why the policy in Iraq has only intensified since Rumsfeld left, even though the “dovish” Gates claimed that he never supported the invasion and that he wanted to see the Baker group’s (ISG) recommendations carried out. (a phased withdrawal of troops) Now, Gates has thrown his weigh behind a military escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan while eschewing negotiations with the Iraqi resistance. In other words, he is just as unwilling to pursue a political solution as Rumsfeld.

Last week, Gate admonished the senate for their resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq policy. He said that their actions were, “emboldening the enemy.”

“Emboldening the enemy”? Weeks earlier, Gates supported the very same policy the senate is now advocating.

What changed? Or is someone else pulling the strings?

The real proof that Gates is just a powerless shadow-secretary executing the orders of his superiors is the steady naval buildup in the Gulf where 2 carrier groups and, perhaps, 3 nuclear subs are deployed in preparation for a preemptive attack on Iran.

Who in their right mind would argue that this is Gates policy?!?

This obvious provocation has Rumsfeld and Cheney written all over it.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Rumsfeld is still playing a vital role in the US global resource war (aka: the war on terror); a war that now extends from the southern coast of Somalia to the northern tip of Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are playing for keeps and they won’t be deterred by lofty-sounding resolutions or democratic wrangling. Their madcap plan will continue apace until it is derailed by tragedy or the country goes bust. Either way; we lose.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ .......What did everyone expect? Don Rumsfeld is one of the authors of the PNAC, it is his baby and he wasn't being thrown out anymore than his plans were. Hold on everyone, Iran here we come! SRH/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 12:46 AM

.^^^^^^^
Radar Love:
Robbing the Cradle to Pay War Profiteers
By
Chris Floyd
t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent
Saturday 27 January 2007
I. Out of Africa - Into Corporate Coffers
Another day, yet another scandal involving the saintly Tony Blair and highly connected Anglo-American arms peddlers. The British prime minister, who, like George W. Bush, has made his sleeve-worn Christianity a major component of his political persona, is knee-deep in a corruption probe once again, just weeks after peremptorily quashing an official investigation into bribes, kickbacks and influence-peddling allegations involving his government, his corporate cronies and the Saudi royals. (See "War Profits Trump the Rule of Law," Truthout.org, December 22).

The new arms scandal is possibly even more morally egregious than the Saudi deal. While the latter involved backroom baksheesh between two wealthy governments and a fat-cat corporation, the latest imbroglio literally tore desperately needed aid from the hands of some of the world's poorest children. And as with the Saudi bribefest, it was Blair's personal intervention that put the profits of an arms dealer above all other considerations.

Last week, investigators with the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) unearthed new evidence of a $12 million slush fund allegedly used to bribe officials in Tanzania into approving a $50 million purchase of a military air traffic control system from Britain's biggest arms merchant, BAE Systems, in 2002. Tanzania, which has a grand total of eight military airplanes and one of the most crushing loads of national debt in the world, had to borrow even more money to finance the sale. The money came, naturally, from another of Britain's most august and politically wired institutions, Barclays Bank. Tanzania repaid this loan with money that Blair's government had given it, ostensibly to support public education.

In other words, public money earmarked to help lift Tanzania's children out of poverty was instead laundered into the coffers of BAE and Barclays, with Tony Blair acting as bagman. Again, Blair had to override the objections of own cabinet - and protests from the World Bank, which rarely sees a sweetheart deal for Western interests it doesn't like - in order to foist an extravagant, useless white elephant on the people of Tanzania. In that nation, as the Guardian notes, "life expectancy is only 43 years, the poorest third of the population live on less than a dollar a day, and 45 percent of public spending is provided by Western donors."

" insisted on letting this go ahead, when it stank," former cabinet minister Clare Short told the Guardian. "It was always obvious that this useless project was corrupt." Short, who resigned from the cabinet in protest after the invasion of Iraq, said that Chancellor Gordon Brown, who will almost certainly become prime minister this year, had also opposed the sale. But Blair had forced through the license for the deal, she said. When BAE calls, Tony comes running.

And BAE's voice echoes loudly across the ocean as well. As we noted here last month, BAE has become one of the top 10 US military firms as well, through its acquisitions during the ever-profitable "war on terror" - including transactions with the Carlyle Group, the former corporate perch of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush and still the current home of the family fixer, James Baker.

The new SFO evidence comes from the same Swiss banks where they were tracking down almost $2 billion in hush-hush slush funds that BAE had allegedly set aside for Saudi royals to win their continuing approval for a mammoth arms deal called, with cynical irony, "al-Yamanah" (Arabic for "the dove"). This cozy arrangement for fighter planes and other military aircraft and servicing has been going on for 18 years, and has been worth almost $80 billion for BAE so far. But first the Guardian, then SFO investigators, found evidence that BAE had used the secret stash to supply Saudi princes - every bit the equal of Bush and Blair in public piety - with luxury apartments, sumptuous holidays, designer cars (including a gold-plated Rolls-Royce, the Times reports), comely female companionship and other perks to keep them sweet on the deal. When the SFO at last gained entry to the inner sanctums of Swiss bankery, where the high and mighty (not to mention the down and dirty) have hid so many dark secrets for so many years, they also began looking into evidence that top BAE executives might have been dipping into the slush fund for various amenities as well.

Unfortunately, the probe was running parallel with high-wire negotiations for a $12 billion augmentation of al-Yamanah, with a new round of BAE-built fighter jets on the line. The Saudis, tired of the embarrassing revelations, played hardball, threatening to end all cooperation in the terror war or even cut diplomatic ties with Britain if the investigation was not quashed. Dick Cheney also weighed in, reportedly telling Tony that he needed to can all this "enforcement of the law" malarkey from the SFO and keep the Saudis happy. The dutiful PM then had his dutiful attorney general - his lifelong pal Peter Goldsmith, whom Blair had elevated to the House of Lords - make an unprecedented ruling to kill the investigation stone-dead. (Goldsmith, of course, is most famous for telling Blair that an invasion of Iraq would probably be illegal, in several different ways - then suddenly changing his mind after a "consultation" with the boys in the White House not long before the "shock and awe" began. Guess they made him an offer he couldn't refuse.)

Although the stench of the child-robbing Tanzanian deal has long lingered over a Blair government that came into office promising an "ethical foreign policy," it is only now that evidence of actual criminality is emerging. The SFO found that BAE had paid secret "commissions" of $12 million to a pair of Tanzanian middlemen who brokered the deal. The brokers received a more public $400,000 fee for the transaction, which is considered a "legitimate" rake-off in the arms-peddling world. But they deposited the $12 million in a Swiss bank account of one of BAE's many off-shore, tax-dodge front companies, Red Diamond.

One of the Tanzanian agents, Sailesh Vithlani, acknowledged the existence of the fund, but denied that he had used any of it to pay Tanzanian officials. When asked if he'd passed any of the cash to "third parties outside Tanzania" - such as, say, BAE executives or UK government officials - Vithlani chose a prudent silence. "When the UK police traveled to Tanzania ... we answered all their questions," he told the Guardian. BAE's chairman at the time of the deal, Sir Dick Evans, has been questioned by the SFO in the probe, the paper added.

Down in the Tanzanian capital of Dar es Salaam, a "climate of fear" lingers over those with any knowledge of the BAE deal, the Guardian reports:

"One government contractor says: 'Our position here is too vulnerable to be seen talking.' A European from an NGO says: 'They'll throw me out if I go public.' And one knowledgeable journalist claims: 'If I put my name on the radar story, I could be killed.'"

This grubby affair - replete with kickbacks, slush funds, death threats, cronyism and the infliction of needless suffering on defenseless people - is a striking example of the genuine priorities that lay behind the noble rhetoric of the world's most advanced democracies. The care and feeding - or rather, gorging - of the Anglo-American war merchants and their ancillaries trump all other considerations: basic morality, common decency, human rights, even the long-term national security of the states whose leaders feverishly pour weapons into the most volatile regions on the planet, fomenting chaos, corruption, breakdown and the inevitable blowback.

II. A Tale of Two Leaders

Blair, of course, was unbowed by the latest wave of sleaze charges breaking upon his sainted head. (Indeed, just as the new Tanzanian evidence emerged, the house of one of Blair's top aides was raided by police looking for evidence of a Watergate-style cover-up in the ongoing "cash-for-honors" scandal: the allegation that Blair sold royal honors to wealthy Labour Party donors in exchange for campaign funds.) In fact, in one of a series of major speeches he is giving in an attempt to establish his legacy before leaving office later this year, Blair exhorted his successors to carry on his belligerent policies, particularly the use of "hard power."

Blair's speech rang with distinct echoes of the neo-con "national greatness" rhetoric that glories in constant warfare in distant lands - and has been codified as the official "national security doctrine" of the United States government by Bush. Speaking on board the naval assault ship Albion, Blair was brutally honest in his call for Britain to remain a "war-fighting" nation, unlike those other sissy countries, such as Germany and France, who "have, effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to peacekeeping alone."

(And Lord knows, it certainly is a tragedy to have, say, the German armed forces dedicated solely to peacekeeping, isn't it? Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Germans returned to the front lines of warfighting for Western values, as they did with such gusto in the last century? We can only hope they will be inspired by Blair's martial spirit.)

But Blair - who, like almost every acolyte of war in the Bush administration and the neo-con networks and the right-wing media, has never served in the military or spent a single moment under fire - is keen to keep throwing British troops into cauldrons around the world, even if, as he candidly admits, they have no business being there.

"Our armed forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory, in environments and in ways unfamiliar to them," Blair told his military audience. The audience responded somewhat tepidly to the waving of the bloody shirt. "They will usually fight alongside other nations, in alliance with them; notably, but probably not exclusively, with the USA," Blair said.

Ah, but why must Britain's youth be sent to kill and die in exotic, far-flung climes? Because "the frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel," says BAE bagman Blair. "What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan, or Indonesia, or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa, for example, in Sudan or Somalia - the new frontiers for our security are global." Of course, many people around the world - in the Middle East, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Asia and Africa - will doubtless wonder how this enlightened stance differs from the policies pursued by Blair's predecessors when they came calling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In the above passage, Blair quotes almost verbatim from the charter document of the Bush administration: the September 2000 manifesto of the "Project for the New American Century," an empire-and-oil special-interest group whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Scooter Libby and Jeb Bush, among many others. In a report that called for implanting a US military presence in Iraq (regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power there or not), and which acknowledged that its "revolutionary" plans for vastly expanding the military-industrial establishment would be difficult to achieve unless the American people were "catalyzed" by a "new Pearl Harbor," PNAC asserted that America's frontiers now encompassed the entire world. Thus, American troops too would have to be sent into dozens of nations far from home, to serve as "the cavalry" on this new frontier.

A final echo of Bushist militarism came when Blair - calling for a foreign policy that "keeps our American alliance strong and is prepared to project hard as well as soft power" - finally got down to brass tacks: "The covenant between armed forces, government and people has to be renewed." This does not mean, as you might think, that the people should have a say as to when and where their children are to be sent to "the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory." No, the new covenant means "increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our armed forces." It means, in other words, bigger bucks for BAE and the many American war firms, such as Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and others, who have been hard-wired into Britain's military-industrial complex.

This is the mind-set - and the depraved morality - of the leaders of the Anglo-American democracies in the 21st century: More war, more money for war, more money for the merchants of war, no matter who must suffer for it, no matter how badly it skews and perverts national policies.

Contrast this with the words of a former leader in the Anglo-American alliance: a Republican, a general, a conservative, a man who, unlike the prissy tough guys in the White House and 10 Downing Street, had actually known the horrors of war, and the corrosive, corrupting effects of even the most justified "good war." Recall the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower as he left office in 1960 - and weep over the degeneration and brutalization that has afflicted these democracies in the ensuing decades:

"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 not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
[B].......
Chris Floyd is an American journalist. His weekly political column, "Global Eye," ran in the Moscow Times from 1996 to 2006. His work has appeared in print and online in venues all over the world, including The Nation, Counterpunch, Columbia Journalism Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Il Manifesto, the Bergen Record and many others. His story on Pentagon plans to foment terrorism won a Project Censored award in 2003. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium, and is co-founder and editor of the "Empire Burlesque" political blog.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012707D.shtml
^^^^^^^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 01:05 AM

.:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment

By Dennis J. Kucinich
t r u t h o u t | Press Release
Friday 26 January 2007

"The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding."
- Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich:The White House is up to its old tricks; is preparing the United States for an attack on Iran.

Washington - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) accused the White House of mounting a media blitz to prepare the U.S. public for an eventual attack on Iran. Today The Washington Post reported the Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East.

"The White House is up to its old tricks again: Providing information by anonymous sources and portraying Iran as an aggressor in Iraq," Kucinich said.

"The President is mischaracterizing U.S. action vis-à-vis Iran. In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in offensive and provocative acts against Iran. The President's strategy, by portraying our involvement as only being on the defensive, is laying out the groundwork for him to attack Iran and bypass authorization by Congress," Kucinich said.

The Washington Post article stated:

"A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy. 'This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political.' The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there."

Kucinich said, "The White House spin machine is at it again: this time providing justification for a new war - a war against Iran." Kucinich pointed out that while the term 'officials' is mentioned 21 times in the Post article - not once are the officials identified by name.

In his January 10 address to the nation, President Bush asserted that succeeding in Iraq begins with addressing Iran and Syria. "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," Bush said.

"The Washington Post is quoting strategically placed Administration sources who are providing justification for an attack against Iran," Kucinich said. "This new twist on Iran, a country this Administration refuses to have free and open diplomatic talks with, is stating the Administration's case for war."

"The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding," Kucinich said. -------http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012707G.shtml :: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 01:28 AM

. lllllllllllllll
Helen Thomas Takes On Press Sec Concerning Wiretaps
January 29, 2007
Helen Thomas recently won MediaChannel.org's Journalism of Truth and Courage Award. She once again displayed journalism of truth and courage by taking on the White House Press Secretary: "Does the president think he should obey the law? He put his hand on the Bible twice to uphold the Constitution. Wiretapping is not legal under the circumstances without a warrant…. You know what happened to Nixon when he broke the law."

If you can't see the video, click below to
Launch in external player
or
Download Windows Media Player for Mac OS X

AS THE MEDIA WATCH THE WORLD, WE WATCH THE MEDIA.

NOTE: This is a new service and we will be making improvements over the next few weeks. If you are on a Mac computer, please download windows media player here. If you cannot see the video, please send us a note.
Click following URL to access video
http://mediachannel.org/mv11.shtml lllllllllll

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 01:58 PM

.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\America's new Middle East strategy:
containing Iran

By
David Ignatius
Daily Star staff
Saturday, January 27, 2007

What's America's strategy in the Middle East? US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week sketched a new framework based on what she calls the "realignment" of states that want to contain Iran and its radical Muslim proxies.
In an interview Tuesday, Rice summarized the new strategy that has been coming together over the last several months. Although many of its elements have been previewed in recent weeks by commentators such as Columbia University scholar Gary Sick, Rice's comments were the most detailed public explanation of the new American effort to create a de facto alliance between Israel and moderate Arab states against Iranian extremism.

Rice said the new approach reflects the growing Arab concern about Iran's attempt to project power through its proxies: "After the war in Lebanon, the Middle East really did begin to clarify into an extremist element allied with Iran, including Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. On the other side were the targets of this extremism - the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians - and those who want to resist, such as the Saudis, Egypt and Jordan."

America's recent show of force against Iran - seizing Iranian operatives in Iraq and sending additional warships to the Persian Gulf - was part of this broader effort to reassure the Saudis and others that, despite its troubles in Iraq, America remains a reliable ally against a rising Iran. "The US has to demonstrate that it is present in the Gulf, and going to be present in the Gulf," Rice told me.

Realignment is linked with a new US effort to forge peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rice is encouraging both sides to explore so-called "final-status issues" - such as borders, the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to a homeland - rather than remain deadlocked over the so-called "road map."

The effort to contain Iranian-backed pressure took on new urgency this week, as Hizbullah's campaign against the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora spawned a spasm of violence that left at least four dead. America, France and Saudi Arabia quickly organized a $7.6 billion financial rescue package for Siniora, but that hasn't stemmed the rising sectarian tension in Lebanon between Sunnis who back Siniora and Shiite supporters of Hizbullah.

Critics may see Rice's realignment strategy as another high-risk roll of the dice by the Bush administration in a region that is already polarized by the Iraq war and sectarian conflict. These critics may also question the central role of Saudi Arabia, a conservative Islamic monarchy that many Arabs regard as a bastion of the status quo.

"The reception will be very skeptical" among some Arabs, cautioned one prominent official who is normally among the most pro-American in the region. "Increasing the fault line between Sunnis and Shiites is a mistake," he argued. State Department officials would counter that it was Iran that moved the fault line by encouraging Hizbullah's provocative behavior in Lebanon.

The Bush administration's thinking about realignment helps explain why it has resisted engaging Syria and Iran, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group report. As Rice put it, "You have a 'pan' movement, across the region. The war in Lebanon crystallized it for everyone. You can't just leave it there. ... If you concentrate on engaging Syria and Iran, you may lose the chance to do the realignment."

On Syria, Rice said the administration is seeking a change of policy, rather than regime change. Asked about an offer made in an interview with me last month by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to help the United States provide greater security in Iraq, she said: "If the Syrians want to stabilize Iraq, why don't they do it?" As for Israeli interest in exploring the Syrian initiative, she noted recent private peace feelers between Syrians and Israelis and suggested that if the Israelis decide there is something important, they will pursue it.

The administration's tougher stance against Iran arguably has already produced some results. Iran's firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be in political trouble with the ruling mullahs, in part because his reckless talk alienated other Muslims. But the strongest leverage against Iran appears to be the West's unified diplomatic coalition. "The Security Council resolution [condemning Iran's nuclear program and mandating mild sanctions] has had more of an effect than I thought it would," Rice said.

The realignment strategy poses as many questions as it answers - not least the anomaly of supporting Sunni resistance to Iran at the same time the US augments its military support for a Shiite-led government in Iraq. But as with any strategy, Rice's realignment idea has the virtue of offering a basis for discussion and careful thinking about a region perched on the edge of a volcano.

Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.
Copyright (c) 2007 The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=78986# /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 02:10 PM

.
~*~*~*~*~*~

Saudi king warns Iran over alleged attempts to convert Sunnis to Shiism
'We know our role as the state where the message began'
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Monday, January 29, 2007

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has issued a veiled warning to Iran over the weekend to quit what he said were efforts to spread Shiite Islam in the Arab world, adding that the kingdom was keeping an eye on the issue. In an interview with Kuwait's As-Siyassah daily published on Saturday, the king said that Saudi Arabia told an Iranian envoy that Iran was putting the Gulf region in danger, in a reference to Tehran's conflict with Washington over Iraq and nuclear policy.

"We are following this issue [Shiite conversion] and we are aware of the extent of Shiite proselytism and how far it has got," the king said.

"But we don't think it will achieve its goal because the huge majority of Muslims who are Sunnis would not change their faith and sect ... We know our role as the state where the message [of Islam] began," he said.

"[Concerning attempts to] exploit religion and fuel sectarian division between Sunnis and Shiites, we are alert but we don't see it as an danger," the king said. "If we demonstrate the knowledge to deal with this matter, things will be good and there will be no danger. But if we fail ... there could be some dangers hitting here and there. We pray to God this will not happen."

Arabs also fear that Iran, locked in a dispute with the international community over its defiance in pursuing a nuclear program, is using Shiite populations in Iraq and Lebanon for political leverage.

"Saudi leaders and the Saudi state have always known their limits in dealing with nations, east and west. I explained this to [Iranian nuclear negotiator] Ali Larijani and advised him to pass it on to his government and its followers, with regard to foreign dealings," he said. "The dangers it [the Iranian government] could fall into will fall upon all of us."

Saudi sources have said Larijani visited Riyadh this month to seek help with Washington and reassure Saudi Arabia over the nuclear program.

King Abdullah also appeared to accuse Iran of exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for its own ends.

"The Arabs alone should solve the issue of Palestine," he argued. "We don't want anyone to trade in our issues and become stronger through them."

Arab states have had difficulty persuading the United States to restart peace talks leading to a state for the Palestinians.

In the wide-ranging interview, the king also denied talk of rifts within the royal family.

He said a heavily publicized appearance of numerous leading figures of the royal family at the return of a prince from a British hospital aimed to dispel talk of disputes.

"The reception was a response to any talk abroad concerning the cohesion and solidarity of this family and to Internet sites and forums that talk of an alleged rift," he said.

"Our people understand, and this talk will not take their attention ... The whole Saudi family is together ... I advise the media not to listen to the stories of troublemakers."

It was not clear what possible rift the king was referring to. He took steps in October to ensure consensus among a group of Saudi royals, including some younger princes, on who would succeed his half-brother Crown Prince Sultan as king by setting up a new succession committee.

Kings have so far been chosen from among the 44 sons of Abdel-Aziz bin Saud, the founder of the modern Saudi state. There has also been talk among diplomats and influential Saudis of policy disputes among the royals concerning Iraq.

Saudi Arabia fears a resurgent Iran and is concerned about the Shiite state's influence growing when US troops eventually quit Iraq, which like Iran has a Shiite majority.

In December, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, suddenly resigned. That followed comments by a Saudi security adviser suggesting Riyadh could send troops to protect fellow Sunnis in Iraq and lower world oil prices to pressure Iran. Diplomats have also said that recent publicity over a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia that Britain feared losing over an investigation into corruption had been a cause of dispute.

King Abdullah, thought to be in his early 80s, came to power in 2005 promising reforms. He is seen by ordinary Saudis as keen to clean up government, where corruption is believed to be widespread. - Agencies
Copyright (c) 2007 The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=79015# [I]~*~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 02:25 PM

./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
MotherJones.com / News / Update
Silent Skies: The FAA Tries to Fire a Safety Inspector for Speaking to Mother Jones.
Tape excerpts prove that the FAA’s action is baseless—and that the industry's image comes before the flying public’s safety.
Frank Koughan
January 26 , 2007

When Jim Morris and I began writing Waiting to Happen, Mother Jones' July 2006 feature story about the Federal Aviation Administration handing its henhouse keys to the aviation industry foxes, we hoped that our efforts might prod the FAA into taking some sort of action. We didn’t have to wait long. Even before the article was published, FAA had begun trying to fire one of our sources, Safety Inspector Mike Gonzales. If the agency gets its way, Gonzales, who was put on administrative leave last May, will see his ten-year career there come to an end next month.

The FAA has been investigating Gonzales for 15 months, and although the charges against him—made by companies the agency is supposed to be regulating—have been accepted as true, the agency has apparently decided to disregard the testimony of Gonzales’ principal exculpatory witness: me.

Gonzales is being persecuted not because of the information he shared, but rather the methods he allegedly employed in sharing it. In order to show Mother Jones what an Aviation Safety Inspector’s job entails, Gonzales arranged for me to accompany him on unofficial “mock inspections” of two aircraft repair companies. Those companies approved the visits in advance, but now claim that they did not know I was a reporter, and that Gonzales tricked them into believing we were there on official business. As far as they knew, they now say, I was “an individual who was helping the FAA gather data on surveillance methodology.” These claims are, to put it bluntly, absolutely, outrageously false.

In addition to being a safety inspector, Mike Gonzales is a national assistant for the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the safety inspectors’ union. FAA had barred its officials from speaking with Mother Jones for this story, but could not prevent us from speaking with PASS officials as long as it was clear that they were speaking on behalf of PASS, not the FAA. FAA’s letter proposing to fire Gonzales accuses him of helping Mother Jones “in order to further your own personal agenda, and that of the PASS union.” In fact, we turned to Gonzales because most other FAA employees had been gagged by the agency.

In October 2005, Gonzales and I drove to the Phoenix-Goodyear Municipal Airport in Arizona to visit TIMCO, one of the nation’s largest repair stations. We were met by Michael Block, TIMCO’s Director of Quality, who was expecting us and who described Gonzales to me as a “friend.” Gonzales introduced me as a journalist for Mother Jones and himself as the PASS Flight Standards National Assistant. At the time, this struck me as an awkward and somewhat silly way to greet a longtime acquaintance, but it was Gonzales’ way of making clear that he was not there on official business. Block led us to TIMCO’s massive, 250,000 square-foot hangar, then returned to his office, leaving Gonzales free to show me what it is an inspector does.

One thing an FAA inspector does is spot screw-ups that endanger public safety, and it wasn’t long before Gonzales zeroed in on a pair of improperly labeled oxygen canisters—you may remember these as the cause of the 1996 ValuJet crash that killed 110 people. Canisters in hand, Gonzales approached a manager on the hangar on the floor. But before alerting him to the problem, he introduced me: “Roger, this is Frank. He’s a reporter. He’s following me around doing an article on what aviation inspectors do. And look what we found…”(Click here to listen.) Yet FAA continues to insist that Gonzales lied about my identity to TIMCO’s employees.

When confronted with the mislabeled canister, the TIMCO manager promised to take care of it. Yet in the FAA’s official letter proposing to fire him, Gonzales’ manager Kenneth Reilly chastises him for having “noted findings and requested responses for the findings” while at TIMCO—a implicit reference to this incident. It seems that alerting a repair station to a mislabeled oxygen canister is considered a firing offense at FAA these days.

While it takes a skilled and experienced inspector to find something as tiny as a single mislabeled canister in a five acre hangar, even I was able spot the day’s other major malfunction: TIMCO’s workers, while moving an Allegiant Air MD-80 from one hangar to another the day before, had lost control of the aircraft, which then rolled tail-first into the hangar wall. Pieces of MD-80 tail section littered the ground around the damaged aircraft, while the Arizona sun shone through a ten-foot gash in the hangar wall. “Basically, a lot of idiots had their hands in the cookie jar,” a TIMCO mechanic told us.

When we had finished our tour, Gonzales and I went to Michael Block’s office. The three-way conversation was casual and pleasant; Block was exceedingly friendly and helpful, and he was very much aware that I was a reporter. (In addition to Gonzales having introduced me as such, I was carrying a tape recorder and reporter’s notebook, and had given Block my business card, which reads “Frank Koughan, Journalist.”) When I asked Gonzales about some of the things we’d seen on the floor, he quickly responded—in Block’s presence—“As I mentioned, I’m not here as an inspector.” (Click here to listen.)

Later, I asked Block a technical question. While I was jotting down his answer in my notebook, Block interjected (as transcribed from my audiotape):

BLOCK: Don’t use my name in any of this, I’ll get shot! [Laughs]

KOUGHAN: [unintelligible] [General laughter]

GONZALES: You know what? It may be good for your [unintelligible] --

BLOCK: [Overtalk] fuck it! [Much laughter] I think there’s some kind of permission I’m supposed to have to actually talk with the press, but, uh, you’re here with a friend.

GONZALES: [Laughs]

KOUGHAN: Right, right, okay. Yes—I’m just here looking for information. I’m not here to get anyone fired.

GONZALES: [Overtalk] He’s not here to quote or publish your name.(Click here to listen.)

“I’m not here to get anyone fired,” I said, but this conversation helps explain why, 15 months later, Mike Gonzales stands to lose his job. Because when I later called TIMCO headquarters in North Carolina to get a statement about the AllegiantAir incident, the PR person was incredulous: “Excuse me, you were in the repair station?” I think it’s safe to assume that the first call this person made was to Michael Block. Block, having by his own admission invited a reporter into his repair station without getting proper clearances from his superiors—on a day his employees were picking up the pieces of an airplane they had crashed into a wall—was about to “get shot.” He insisted Gonzales and I had misled him, and has stuck to this story ever since.

While Block’s reasons for framing Gonzales are understandable, FAA’s eagerness to play along is simply baffling.

Two weeks after I visited TIMCO, the company’s vice president for regulatory compliance, David Latimer, sent the FAA a letter expressing his “deep concern” over Gonzales’ conduct. “At no time was the observer identified as a member of the media,” he wrote, though this is blatantly untrue. Much of the language in TIMCO’s letter reappears almost verbatim in the official FAA letter proposing to fire Gonzales. Interestingly, the FAA official who received TIMCO’s letter gave it the handwritten notation “CONSUMER COMPLAINT,” lest anyone think that the FAA exists to serve the flying public.

Indeed, reading the investigation file it’s sometimes hard to tell who is the regulator and who is the regulated. TIMCO’s letter informs the FAA that “as a direct result of this situation,” the company was implementing emergency changes to prevent further problems, and would henceforth administer “proper scrutiny of official credentials.” In his letter to Gonzales, the FAA manager frets about “the reputation of the agency.” “[N]o one can predict what far reaching effects your actions will have as TIMCO shares this information within the aviation community, “ he writes.

None of what I am saying here about my dealings with Mike Gonzales will be news to the FAA. I put it all in writing to Gonzales’ manager, Kenneth Reilly, last May. But it wasn’t until August that I was finally interviewed by their internal affairs investigator, who didn't ask me any questions about the information I had provided. When I asked about this, the agent told me that had never been given a copy of my letter to Reilly. When the interview concluded, I was told that I would receive a copy of my testimony for my review and approval within a matter of days. This never happened, and I never heard from the FAA again.

Michael Block, on the other hand, was re-interviewed not long after I was. Responding to the information I had given FAA, Block said that the “I’ll get shot” conversation “did not happen. I have never told them that or anything that resembles that,” and that “I did not tell them [that he would need permission from his managers to talk to the press] and I did not express that in any way.” When informed by the FAA agent that this conversation had been tape recorded, Block said such a tape would prove his story.

On January 18, Reilly again informed Gonzales in writing that he hoped to fire him within 30 days. After the 15-month investigation, the accusations against him remained essentially unchanged: the assertions from TIMCO are accepted as fact, while those of the only person to accompany Gonzales are essentially discarded. Reading Reilly’s letter, one could get the impression that I’d refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Reilly’s latest letter does add some new accusations: if true, Gonzales may have filled out his time cards incorrectly on the days we were together. But Reilly is clearly not referring to paperwork infractions when he writes, “your ten years of service cannot overcome the severity of your conduct.” FAA’s case against Gonzales is built around Block’s statements to the agency and to his own superiors that Gonzales had, unbeknownst to him, snuck a reporter from Mother Jones into TIMCO’s repair station. These statements are provably false, as I have been telling the FAA since last May.

Ironically, one of the main points of the article Jim Morris and I wrote was that FAA, facing serious budget constraints, was shrinking the nation’s inspector workforce to a potentially unsafe level. FAA responded by placing this veteran safety inspector on administrative leave more than eight months ago, during which time the flying public has continued paying his $100,000-a-year salary while receiving nothing in return. But then, the flying public isn’t the FAA’s “consumer.” By firing Mike Gonzales based on statements they know to be false, the FAA will be demonstrating the truth of the old adage: The “consumer” is always right. . . . . . . . . . . . .This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones.
© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/01/FAA_firing_source.html /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 05:42 PM

$$$$$$$$$
Inflation and War Finance
By
Ron Paul
Monday, 29 January 2007

The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called "supplemental" spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.

This is fundamentally dishonest: if we're going to have a war, let's face the costs-- both human and economic-- squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.

As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.

Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.

The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That's why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.

For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today's dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.

The $500 billion we've officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it's really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/189/52/$$$$$$$ .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 05:51 PM

.
X X X X X X X
The Power of One By
Jim Austin
Monday, 29 January 2007
"The authority to kill U.S. citizens is granted under a secret finding signed by the President,,,"
.....This cheery note was included in a newspaper article written by John Lumpkin of the Associated Press. The article goes on to say that the CIA will only kill us if they think we are members of Al Qaeda.

01/29/07 "ICHBlog" -- - Just what the hell is a "secret finding?" Sounds like George was hunting for Easter eggs in the Rose Garden and found an authorization to kill American citizens under a birdbath.

I don't want to be an alarmist but you realize what this means right? It means that you or I or any citizen of this country can be snuffed out like a birthday candle on the say so of the CIA, or the FBI, or I presume anyone who can convince the President that someone is a member of Al Qaeda. Wow, if Nixon had thought of this one his enemies list could have been a lot shorter.

That Canadian bureaucrat who called Bush a moron was wrong. He may talk like a moron but he knows what he wants and he won't let a little thing like our Constitution stand in his way.

Under his gentle guidance a man named Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has been held in a military jail for the past seven months without being allowed to see a lawyer.

The CIA dropped a bomb on the head of an American in Yemen recently. He wasn't the target but he was hanging with a suspected Al Qaeda leader so tough souvlaki for him, I guess.

There is a very famous quotation by a survivor of Nazi prison camps named Reverend Martin Neimueller. He said:

First they arrested the Communists - but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats - but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists - and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and then the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me - and there was no one left to do anything about it.

"They" in this case, are the minions of the Bush administration. They have declared war on an amorphous body of men and women who have neither army nor country. They can be black, white, or any color in between. They can be named Osama or Jose or John Walker. These enemy combatants can be anyone George says. They get no trial, they get no , they get nothing but a bullet or a bomb if George says so.
We, as a people, have been horribly attacked by fanatics suffused with hate and envy. These murdering terrorists were spawned in countries ruled by dictators, royal families, and military strongmen. Democracy to them is as foreign as summary execution is supposed to be to us.

We cannot let George Bush turn us into one of them. We cannot give up our civil rights in hopes that we can catch some terrorists. We certainly cannot let an administration of proven bad faith like Bush and his cronies decide who lives and who dies.

The administration says that capturing and questioning Al Qaeda operatives and their "American" cohorts is preferable and the decision to murder an American can only be made at the highest level. I do not trust the Bush administration to make the "preferable" choice.

I believe that they will make the choice that is expedient or that would save them from embarrassment or that would allow them to profit. I don't think we should turn anyone loose with the power to kill one of us without trial, representation, or, as in the case of Kamal Derwish, compunction.

I hope we won't stand by while fellow citizens are imprisoned without hope of trial or representation or even killed without proof of crime. As the good Reverend says, you never know who might be next.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/192/52/
X X X .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 06:16 PM

.
***********
US Plans To 'Fight The Net' Revealed

By
Adam Brookes
Monday, 29 January 2007

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File]

Bloggers beware.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.

The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.

Propaganda
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

All these are engaged in information operations.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

Credibility problem
Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.

Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.

And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.

But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.

The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.

It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.

It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".

It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

'Fight the net'
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.

The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.

The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

US digital ambition
And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.
.......
This item was first published by the BBC
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/185/52/
We've become complacent in our trust of government and look what's happened to us. Perhaps our not being willing to do a little listening and reading on our own has brought this about, us not learning enough to start the good fight, so we have no desire to make the necessary changes to save ourselves, to save our country. With us staying so complacent, so uninvolved, it will only get worse with this administration. They've shown us this, over and over, and still, there they sit, in positions of power, all the while they're destroying our country.

Why there are no impeachment hearings going on right here and now, is hard to understand. Too many on the hill are in the same pockets it seems. What other explanation is there? I would think that anyone who undertakes such an endeavor will go down in history as someone who saved us from the worst administration to ever be in office. They will be looked upon as hero's in a time when we most needed them. SRH
******* .

Saundra Hummer

January 29th, 2007, 11:09 PM

.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Push to replace new US mercury plan
Mercury's tendency to pollute locally has caused the Bush administration's emissions-trading scheme to be called into question.
By
Peter N. Spotts |
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The nation's new program to regulate mercury may be short-lived.
Several draft bills in Congress – as well as a suit in federal court – are challenging the Bush administration's mercury pollution program, which took effect last year. A key reason, they charge, is that the plan's emissions-trading scheme – which has worked to curb other pollutants that spread far and wide – doesn't work for mercury, which accumulates locally as well as spreading over long distances.

That's why lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing bills that would tackle the toxic pollutant in a more direct manner. They aim to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90 percent, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) target of 70 percent. The bills also would set up a nationwide monitoring network to track airborne mercury and its effects on the environment.

Democrats and Republicans have offered similar bills before. But three major scientific studies published during the past several months have added urgency to their efforts, they say. The upshot of the research: Unlike pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, airborne mercury is far more likely to drop back to earth close to its source, generating "hot spots" of contamination and accumulating in the food chain.

The research also is cited in a lawsuit 16 states and a handful of environmental groups have filed with the US Court of Appeals in Washington. The suit, initiated two years ago, challenges the EPA's regulatory tack on mercury pollution. Within the past two weeks, the plaintiffs filed opening briefs charging that the EPA is misusing the emissions-trading approach. They also argue that to set up the program, the agency illegally dropped power plants from a list of pollution sources that must face the most stringent controls under the Clean Air Act.

Emissions trading has helped the country dramatically reduce sulfur-dioxide pollution from power plants by establishing a market-based approach. Companies can balance out their big polluting plants either by running much cleaner plants elsewhere or buying pollution credits from other, cleaner utilities. As emission limits tighten, the cost of such credits goes up, encouraging companies to close or retrofit their biggest polluters.

But the recent studies provide new data that show why such a scheme should not be allowed for mercury, argues Rep. Tom Allen (D) of Maine, author of a bill to establish a national mercury monitoring network.

The first study, published last September in Environmental Science and Technology, found that over a two-year period, 70 percent of the mercury that rain or snow washed out of the skies over Steubenville, Ohio, came from local or regional sources. This is far higher than previous EPA studies indicated. The team picked Steubenville because 17 coal-fired power-plant boilers operate within 62 miles of the city, and another study had documented adverse health effects to people in the area from air pollution.

Two studies published this month in the journal BioScience discovered five biological hot spots in the northeastern US and southeastern Canada, and uncovered another nine that may be hot spots as well. The intensity of these hot spots varies with the type of coal burned in a boiler at the source and with other factors such as the landscape's chemistry or water levels in reservoirs. As with Steubenville, the researchers also established that at least two hot spots that cover southeastern New Hampshire and northeastern Massachusetts could be traced to local and regional sources and that the mercury was showing up in fish and birds.

One of the two studies carried some good news, notes Charles Driscoll, a Syracuse University scientist who took part in both studies. Between 1997 and 2002, mercury emissions fell by 45 percent in southern New Hampshire, thanks to emissions controls on incinerators. Concentrations found in wild loons in one of the hot spots fell by an average of 30 percent over that period. Mercury levels in yellow perch and in plankton also fell.

The results have led both groups to call for a more effective national system for monitoring the sources and effects of airborne mercury. The sulfur-dioxide program worked, Dr. Driscoll says, because the EPA had comprehensive monitoring network. "Those measurements are not in place for mercury."

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

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p03s03-uspo.htm ^^^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 01:22 PM

.
^^^^^^^^^^^
What Can Possibly Be in Bush's Head on Escalation?
By
Evan Derkacz
Posted on January 30, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/47410/
The following is a guest post from Robert Reich.

Question: Why is Bush willing to risk his party’s future, as well as his own legacy, by putting more troops into Iraq when it’s clear to almost everyone – including top military brass, foreign policy experts, and most analysts and journalists on the ground there – that Iraq is descending so quickly into civil war that more troops won’t make a bit of difference except causing more American deaths and instigating more violence?

(Choose one):

A. It’s a delaying tactic. Bush and Cheney figure the escalation will delay by six to eight months the day when Democrats and newly-anti-war Republican agree to a timetable for withdrawal and for reducing defense appropriations. By that time, Dems and Republicans are in the gravitational pull of the primaries. Dem candidates for president will be squabbling so loudly among themselves about all sorts of things that the party leadership won’t be able to get a consensus about what the timetable for withdrawal should be, Republicans will be split between followers of McCain and other Rep candidates, and the media and the public will be paying more attention to all the squabbling than to Iraq. This allows Bush and Cheney to continue to war until the end of the administration, at which point Bush claims vindication and turns the problem over to the next president.

B. It’s a predicate for extending the war into Iran. With more American troops there, the chances increase of a direct skirmish between them and military "advisors" from Iran. That gives Bush the chance to make the case America is already at war with Iran, and in order to "defend our troops" we have to push the Iranians back. Iran, meanwhile, refuses weapons inspections. We’ve been this route before. Bush preemptively launches a missile into Iran to wipe out its nuclear facilities. The American public forgets the quagmire in Iraq, Sunni Arab nations and Israel rush to defend Bush’s preemptive move, and Bush calls for a regional solution. By this point he claims vindication and turns the even bigger problem over to the next president.

C. Bush is clueless. He doesn’t know how bad the situation is in Iraq because he has surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, the only TV he watches is Fox News, and the only radio is the Rush Limbaugh Show.

[Answer to come]

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/47410/ ^^^^^^^^^ .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 01:43 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::

CBS Refuses to Broadcast Iraq Footage

By
Rory O'Connor and David Olson,
MediaChannel.org.
Posted January 26, 2007.

CBS's chief foreign correspondent notified peers that the network won't broadcast her grisly Baghdad story "that is largely being ignored."

Sometimes it's hard to swim in the mainstream.

There has been much heated debate over the past few years over media coverage of the Iraq War. The Bush administration has repeatedly attacked the 'liberal bias' of the mainstream news industry, claiming that it doesn't report enough of the "good news" from Iraq and focuses instead on the sensational and violent.

Those critical of the war and the occupation say just the opposite; that the mainstream news media has ignored much of the "bad news" coming out of Iraq, leaving Americans with an impression of the war based more on a desire to follow the official White House narrative than facts on the ground. MediaChannel has long been in the latter camp, sponsoring (for example) last year's "Show Us the War" project, which published video pieces showing an Iraq overrun with violence and chaos -- and an administration that seemed more intent on faith and "spin" than reality. We at MediaChannel believe that an informed citizenry is necessary to keep our democracy viable, and we have been strong advocates of the call for all news outlets -- mainstream or independent -- to produce and distribute accurate stories on the situation in Iraq.

Which brings us to Lara Logan.
One would assume that Ms. Logan, as CBS chief foreign correspondent, has a fair amount of influence as to what stories she gets to cover, and that most of her important stories, once produced and delivered, will be broadcast. But when a story comes out of the mean streets of Baghdad that doesn't fit the officially sanctioned narrative of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers working arm in arm to help protect thankful Iraqi citizens, even chief foreign correspondents sometimes need to ask for help in getting it seen. Imagine our surprise recently when -- over the digital transom -- we received a copy of an email from a frustrated Lara Logan (see below).

In it, Logan asks for help in getting attention to what she calls "a story that is largely being ignored even though this is taking place every single day in Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located."

The segment in question -- "Battle for Haifa Street" -- is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that appears only on the CBS News website -- and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the U.S. military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.

"They told us they would bring democracy, they promised life would be better than it was under Saddam," one told Logan. "But they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad."

Several bodies are shown in the two-minute segment, "some with obvious signs of torture," as Logan points out. She also notes that her crew had to flee for their lives when they we were warned of an impending attack. While fleeing, another civilian was killed before their eyes.

Logan's email, with the one-word subject line of "help," was sent to friends and colleagues imploring them to lobby CBS to highlight that people are interested in seeing the piece. In it, Logan argues that the story is "not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore … It should be seen. And people should know about this."

We agree. And we'd like to help Ms. Logan and CBS get the piece seen, although that task would be made immeasurably easier if CBS News chief Sean McManus simply made the decision to broadcast it.

Ms. Logan, who is embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq, was unavailable for comment. But CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told us that the segment in question was not broadcast but only run on the web because "the executive producer of the Evening News thought some of the images in it were a bit strong -- plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news."

Regarding Logan's unusual email plea for "help" from friends and colleagues, Genelius said she and other CBS executives were unaware of its existence until contacted by MediaChannel. About Logan's contention that the segment is "not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore," Genelius said "There are discussions and even disagreements everyday about what goes on air," and noted that "one of the characteristics that makes Lara so special is her passion for her job. Of course she wants her pieces to be broadcast!"

In conclusion, Genelius added that "CBS News has aired countless hours of coverage about Iraq. It is the single most important part of our news coverage, and I hope that people will look at the sum total of what we have put on the air."

On an average night, eight million people watch the broadcast version of the CBS Evening News. CBS company policy prohibits the disclosure of "internal analytics," so no figures are available for the number of viewers Logan's web-only segment has had -- but it is undoubtedly far less.

See for yourself what the controversy is all about. You can watch the video here (RealPlayer required):

And don't forget to let CBS know what you think about this outstanding example of video journalism and help Lara Logan by telling CBS what you think about them keeping those images of the battle for Haifa Street -- no matter how strong, no matter how gruesome -- far from the eyes of their prime-time audience.

Text of the email from Lara Logan:

From: lara logan
Subject: help

The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.

Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.

I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.

If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS -- about the story -- not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested, and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.

Many, many thanks.

Update: Since we posted this piece, MediaChannel has created a little echo chamber of our own. Many bloggers excerpted the piece as if Lara had written them personally. In response to the comment below from "charles," who said he saw the piece on CBS News last night, we contacted CBS and were told on Thursday evening:

that is not correct. this particular piece has not run on the cbs evening news. but there have been many pieces by lara on haifa street (and other areas of baghdad and iraq, of course), so it's possible someone could be confused.

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.
Go on-site to view video, photo, and any links, just click on URL below:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47269/
:: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Dear Saundra R.,

Kofi Annan's tenure as Secretary-General ended with the close of 2006 and the United Nations now has a new leader, Ban Ki-Moon of the Republic of Korea.

Click here now to sign a petition urging the new UN Secretary-General to stay focused on ending the genocide in Darfur.

There is good news -- the new UN Secretary-General recently stated publicly that Darfur will be one of his first top priorities.

However, despite Secretary-General Ban's initial public commitment to Darfur, the UN has many other competing priorities and the Secretary-General will be faced with some very difficult decisions in the coming year.

Ban Ki-Moon must do everything in his power to make Sudanese President Bashir respect his commitments, as well as to mobilize the necessary troops, funding and logistics from UN member states.

Will you help us make sure that Secretary-General Ban stays focused on ending the crisis in Darfur? Click here now to send a letter urging the new UN Secretary-General to make Darfur one of his top priorities.

The situation in Darfur has never been more urgent. Two weeks ago, the Sudanese government breached a hopeful 60-day ceasefire when military planes bombed Darfuri civilians. There were also reports of UN staff being assaulted by Sudanese police the weekend before last.

That is why we need your help to make sure that Secretary-General Ban hears from millions of people around the world with the urgent message to act quickly in Darfur before hundreds of thousands more lives are lost to the violence.

Click here to sign the petition to the new UN Secretary-General:

http://action.savedarfur.org/dia/organizationsORG/darfur/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6455

Once you've signed the petition, please forward this message to your friends and family and ask them to join you in contacting the new Secretary-General.

Thank you again for your commitment.

Best regards,

David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Thousands of Amnesty student and youth activists nationwide will mobilize this spring to stop the killing in Darfur as part of Amnesty International's National Week of Student Action. Help us to make this our most successful youth mobilization on Darfur to date.

During the National Week of Student Action (March 26-30), students and youth can help us take this activism to the next level. Help us top last year's record-setting registration of more than 1,500 groups and individuals who took action in the United States and worldwide. Register today and encourage others to get involved too.

The Save Darfur Coalition is an alliance of over 175 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations whose mission is to raise public awareness about the ongoing genocide in Darfur and to mobilize a unified response to the atrocities that threaten the lives of more than two million people in the Darfur region. To learn more, please visit http://www.SaveDarfur.org.

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 03:11 PM

.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Specter: Bush not sole 'decision-maker'

By
LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

The question of whether to use its power over the government's purse strings to force an end to the war in Iraq, and under what conditions, is among the issues faced by the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress, and even some of the president's political allies as well.

No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop a war by canceling its funding. In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Congress to back up its objections to Bush's plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

Underlying Cheney's gambit is the consensus understanding that such a drastic move is doubtful because it would be fraught with political peril.

But there are other legislative options to force the war's end, say majority Democrats and some of Bush's traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off funding for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who presided over a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers. He also is pushing legislation to end the war by eventually prohibiting funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

His proposal, like many others designed to force an end to U.S. involvement in the bloody conflict, is far from having enough support even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Closer to that threshold is a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is "not in the national interest." The Senate could take up that measure early next month.

But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are forwarding tougher bills.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) of California, for example, is a sponsor of a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

But presidents also can veto legislation and Bush likely has enough support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override attempts.

Seeking input, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., and Specter, asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the White House's views on Congress' war powers.

Boxer and Feingold are in effect proposing putting conditions on troop funding and deployment in an effort to end the war in some way other than zeroing out the budget. But some lawmakers and scholars insist war management is the president's job.

"In an ongoing operation, you've got to defer to the commander in chief," said Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But the veteran senator and former Navy secretary said he understands the debate over Congress' ability to check the executive branch.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers.

John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer helped write the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, called that document a political one designed only to bring Democrats on board and spread accountability for the conflict.

The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the then-GOP-run House and 77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but it was not considered a declaration of war.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com/ /\/\/\/\/\
.

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 03:25 PM

.
lllllllllllllll
Eiffel Tower to go dark ahead of report
By
ANGELA CHARLTON
Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago

The Eiffel Tower's 20,000 flashing lights will go dark for five minutes Thursday evening, hours before scientists and officials unveil a long-awaited report on global warming.

The darkening of the landmark in the City of Light comes at the urging of environmental activists and is timed to coincide with Friday's release of the major report warning that Earth will keep getting warmer and presenting new evidence of humanity's role in climate change.

Ahead of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pressure is building on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to convene an emergency summit of world leaders aimed at breaking a deadlock over cutting greenhouse gases.

U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Achim Steiner recommended the summit take place later this year, an official close to the talks said Tuesday in Nairobi, Kenya, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions were not made public.

Earlier this month, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, had said he would ask Ban to organize a conference.

Ban has not decided if he will push for a summit, said his spokeswoman, Michele Montas, in New York. The secretary-general was sympathetic to the idea, according to the official in Kenya.

"Climate change is one of the most important and urgent agendas that the international community has to address before 2012," Ban said in Nairobi.

Momentum for such a gathering is building after President Bush's acknowledgment in his Jan. 24 State of the Union speech that climate change needs to be dealt with, and the EU's Jan. 10 proposals for a new European energy policy that stresses the need to slash carbon emissions blamed for global warming, U.N. Environment Program spokesman Nick Nuttall said.

"We have a window of opportunity," Nuttall said, adding that a summit could be held between July and December.

The second day of the Paris talks wound down Tuesday evening more or less on schedule, according to officials at UNESCO, the conference's host.

There was little sign of the late-night wrangling among countries that marked previous reports. The report must be unanimously approved by bureaucrats from more than 100 governments who can challenge the scientists' wording.

"The government people determine how things are said, but we (the scientists) determine what is said," said Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the report and director of climate analysis at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

The end result is a cautious document, many scientists say.

One Russian participant said the discussions he observed were more procedural than political.

Another observer who has taken part in several such conferences, Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace, said, "So far we're running on timetable. But who knows, we've got two more days. If there's any panic, it will be Wednesday night when they realize they've only got a few hours left."

An early draft of the report being released in Paris suggests it will contain stronger evidence of the human role in climate change and more specific predictions of rising temperatures and sea levels this century.

The report "won't change our scientific basis, but it will make our jobs easier," said Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace. "It is an important and powerful new tool in public debate and policy debate."

Environmental groups have long urged governments and consumers to rely more on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power instead of greenhouse gas-emitting ones like coal and oil. Greenhouse gases are considered a key culprit of rising global temperatures.
.......
Associated Press Writers Jenny Barchfield in Paris, Seth Borenstien in Washington, and Tom Maliti in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_he_me/france_climate_change&printer=1;_ylt=An09_4k6qhfYhVc91DfG4aJa24cA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- lllllll .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 03:52 PM

.This is from an add to sell a magnet, and the sentiment holds so true - a dual impeachment is in order:

"Impeach the Bastards"
Fridge Magnet

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
Would you turn the keys to your car over to a psycopath?

Then why do we continue to allow Dr. Evil and Dr. Demented to run our nation?

They are good at five things, we admit: Lying, Failing, Causing Chaos, Causing Death, and Destroying the Constitution.

That's a record for impeachment, not staying in office.

You may believe that impeachment is not realizable at this point. You may be right. But doesn't any sane interpretation of events and a desire for survival as a nation compel it?

And we need a twin impeachment.

Since Bush, the supposed Commander-in-Chief, couldn't speak to the 9/11 Commission in private without Cheney holding his hand, they should be impeached together.

The most basic question is simple: are the lunatics going to continue to control the asylum.

It's time for law, order and sanity.
This magnet says it best.

Because the world needs our shining legacy of democracy, not two incompetent, egomaniacal, disturbed individuals who are trashing our laws, nation and the world.

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 04:25 PM

.
.............
Seeing the Full Cheney:
America Held Hostage - Year Six
By BuzzFlash
Created 01/30/2007 - 8:16am

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Published on BuzzFlash: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles
January 20, 2007, marked the sixth year of America being held hostage by a rogue government.

The latest in a daily series of symbols of this betrayal is how our GIs continue to be pawns in the chess game of death being played out by Cheney and Bush – and Bush and Cheney are as suited to playing chess as Britney Spears is to singing opera.

Not long ago, as we noted in another BuzzFlash editorial, [0] Nancy Pelosi warned that the White House was speeding up the escalation of troops (labeled for PR purposes with the Frank Luntz focus-group-tested term: "surge") in order to insulate the move from criticism. The administration claimed that sane people who opposed them were putting the troops "in harm’s way." A White House spokesperson called Pelosi’s accurate analysis "poisonous," declaring that Pelosi was questioning the motives of Bush, as if this were akin to criticizing Jesus.

Last week, Cheney -- in one of his now infamous interviews -- dared Congress to pass a resolution condemning the escalation in troops or capping funds for the war in Iraq because it would put the troops in harm’s way. The new Cheney mini-me at the Department of Defense (Gates) let slip the other day that he suddenly needs to "speed" up the increase of troops to Iraq.

Are you getting the picture here?

The GIs, the Iraqis, American citizens -– we are all pawns in a chess game played by guys who, if they lose a move, they try and swipe all of the other player’s pieces off the board, because they don’t have an inkling of how to play by the rules. All they know is thuggish force –- and believing that they’ve got bigger "ones" than the multi-pronged and ever-evolving "enemy" out of Orwell’s 1984.

This is playing by caveman rules. The winner is the person who batters anyone who doesn’t give them what they want. It’s really that simple.

The first step in America being held hostage to a rogue executive branch began with the still unexplained choice of Dick Cheney as Bush’s vice-presidential candidate. Here was a washed-up D.C. insider with a critical heart problem who played the "senior statesman" role of heading up the search committee for a Bush running-mate for the 2000 election.

Then, inexplicably, for reasons and stratagems still unknown to this day, Cheney mysteriously ended up as the announced candidate himself. It was one of the most curious moments in American presidential history. As usual, the corporate press let it pass with hardly a raised eyebrow or exploratory analysis. But it was the beginning of the erosion of democracy and a national posture of war that Cheney declared last week might last through several administrations.

We could speculate all we want on the decisive moment when Junior’s mind was manipulated into choosing Cheney -– who, if last week’s series of arrogant, defiant, and calculatedly preposterous interviews made clear anything, it is that Cheney is the behind-the-scenes president for foreign policy. One could go with the theory that Cheney played the artful royal courtier and manipulated Junior like a marionette into choosing him as VP, with the fawning words of praise and empowerment that he never heard from Bush I, his actual father.

But it really doesn’t matter how this oddest of vice-presidential "selections" occurred; at this point, it’s the utterly ruinous impact on our Constitution, democracy and our foreign relations that resulted from it that is the matter at hand.

As we noted recently on BuzzFlash, [0] an administration that can steal an election –- as this one did in 2000 -– is emboldened to steal the whole government, and such has been the case.

Cheney’s astonishing emergence from the shadows last week in a series of defiant, arrogant interviews that evidenced a disdain for democracy, contempt for anything that doesn’t go his way, lack of concern for human life, and Nero-esque proclamations that revealed the big Nero behind Junior (who just gets to pretend he’s Nero) ... well, it was a performance of such unilateral imperial assertion that it would have left our founding patriots scurrying off with their muskets to seize back democracy from the Red Coats now ensconced in the White House.

The sensationally Royalist Cheney interviews came -– and perhaps not coincidentally -– at a time when the Libby perjury trial [0] is revealing much more than "Scooter’s" lying to federal prosecutors. Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecutorial tour de force is providing evidence to the public that Cheney orchestrated the outing of an operative who specialized in tracking the illicit sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction (and thereby Cheney endangered the national security of the United States of America), authorized the leaking of classified information, and manipulated the corporate press as if it were a hand puppet.

Trying to figure out what is really going on in this secretive, Kremlinesque Bush-Cheney regime is often like trying to figure out what is going on in the old Soviet Politburo by seeing where leaders stood in officially released group photographs –- or whether they were in them at all.

But BuzzFlash will venture to speculate that Cheney sees a rapidly deteriorating political crisis at hand and that Junior isn’t up to "pushing back" the media and public, so Dick decided to take the crowbar out himself and start pummeling opponents of the regime. Sometimes the Godfather has to go public as the chief enforcer, because the front man isn’t up to the job. That’s what Cheney is doing.

Cheney basically told the American people last week: "F**k Off! I am the government. Live with it."

And so, in the absence of divine intervention on an assertion of sanity on Capitol Hill –- or a restoration of the American Revolutionary Militia -– he’ll have his way with us.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Go on-site to access links within this article:

Source URL: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/editorials/123 ....... .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 04:43 PM

.~~~~~~~
Iraq: The Genocide Option
By
Edward Herman
January 24, 2007

It was claimed early in 2005 that the United States was considering resort to what has been called the "Salvadoran Option" in Iraq, in which, as had been done in El Salvador in the 1980s, U.S. Special Forces would train paramilitary squads to hunt down and assassinate rebel leaders and their supporters. [1] A year earlier, it was reported that a sizable fund had been appropriated for the creation of an exile-based paramilitary unit for Iraq, and that the money would more broadly "support U.S. efforts to create a lethal, and revengeful Iraqi security force." It was expected that this would lead to "a wave of extrajudicial killings" of armed rebels, but also of "nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists." [2]

The rise of the death rate in Iraq, and the evidence of large-scale assassinations and slaughters frequently carried out by uniformed men, suggests that the Salvadoran option was put in place and that it has done its work well even if failing to bring victory to the Shiite leaders and militias and their sponsors.

However, along with the Salvadoran option the U.S. military had also stepped up its own activities in one of a series of "surges," among them the assault on Fallujah in November 2004, and using the Fallujah model, with the application of massive firepower in Sunni-dominated areas, much of it from the air, moving from town to town, in an effort to kill Sunni resistance fighters and render their home bases unusable. Because of the lavish use of firepower and limited concern with Iraqi civilian casualties, this process is very costly to civilians in the area of attack. Civilians also suffer from the fact that the invading troops not only don't speak their language, but become extra hostile as they suffer casualties from a resistance that lives among the local population. This results in greater ruthlessness and increasing numbers of cases of literal direct mass murder as in Haditha. [3]

This is reminiscent of U.S. policy during the Vietnam war, where torture and multiple Haditha-type massacres, enormous firepower, napalm, B-52 bombing raids, and chemical warfare applied to jungles and peasant farms, ravaged the country, leaving much of it a wasteland, killing several million civilians, and leaving a heritage of traumatized, injured and chemically damaged people as well.

It is important to understand that the most violent warfare, including My Lai and its many many look-alikes, as well as the use of napalm and dioxin-based herbicides, was applied in the southern part of the country, which the United States was allegedly "protecting" from an invasion from the north. The methods of warfare themselves demonstrated that the alleged protection and "saving" was a lie, but it should be recognized that the reason these horrors could be applied more lavishly in the south rather than the north is that the south was controlled by the U.S. occupation and its puppet government, so that, unlike North Vietnam, the terrible violence wrought against the southern peasantry could be relatively hidden and kept from public and international scrutiny.

The U.S. attack on Vietnam may be termed the "Genocide Option," as the killing and destruction went far beyond anything that took place in El Salvador, and threatened the survival of the southern population. Southern Vietnam had its U.S.-organized death squads, with Operation Phoenix famously accounting for possibly 40,000 assassinations of NLF cadres and unknown other victims of this murder program.

El Salvador also had impressive death squads, but couldn't match the scope and intensity of the violence wrought by the United States on the distant peasant society, which brought into play all weapons in the U.S. high-tech arsenal short of the nuclear-many being tested against live experimental victims--used in enormous volume, without moral restraint (and with minimal protest from the "international community").

By 1967 the level of violence had reached a point where Vietnam scholar Bernard Fall warned that "Vietnam as a cultural and historic entity…is threatened with extinction..[as]…the countryside literally dies under the blows of the largest military machine ever unleashed on an area of this size." [4] In the south, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, along with some 25 million acres of farmland and 12 million acres of forests. One and a half million cattle were killed, and the war left a million widows and 800,000 orphans. The chemical defoliation operations were vast and their effects could take many generations to reverse, and they resulted in a further generation of malformed children (500,000 in one 1997 estimate). [5]

This was a truly genocidal attack, both in volume and threat to viability and with its demand that the resistance surrender as the condition for termination of the assault. (In a marvel of transference, the oft-expressed U.S. position was that the refusal to surrender demonstrated a low Vietnamese valuation of Vietnamese life! In a further marvel of Western impudence, the Krstic decision by the NATO-organized Yugoslavia tribunal found that "genocide" had been committed by a NATO target group because killings--which explicitly spared women and children--might have ended the viability of a single small town in Bosnia.)

Another feature of the Vietnam War of relevance today is that all through its murderous course it was argued in the United States that it must go on in order to avoid a post-occupation "bloodbath"! The huge ongoing and genocidal bloodbath was needed to prevent a hypothetical one that never did materialize. [6]

The genocide option threatens Iraq, where the United States is engaged in direct military action against another virtually defenceless population-in contrast with El Salvador where proxies did the dirty work. Military technology has advanced further, and the complete amorality of the Deciders and their willingness to kill without limit to achieve their goals or save face is clear. It is important for the Deciders that not too many U.S. service personnel be killed, as this has a definite negative effect on the national willingness to move forward to "victory" (or at least temporarily fending off acknowledging defeat). If U.S. casualties can be reduced by more intensive firepower, at the expense of greater Iraqi civilian casualties, that has been and will continue to be the route taken. Furthermore, U.S. pacification violence applied to Sunni-dominated towns is implemented out of sight of the mainstream media (although not completely hidden given the bravery of some non-imbedded Western journalists and Al Jazeera).

The Bush "surge" is a desperation maneuver, and in a context of ever-stronger political objections to more U.S. personnel in Iraq and sensitivity to U.S. casualties, there is good reason to believe that the Bush answer will be even more intensive firepower in Baghdad and other cities and villages in which the insurgents mingle easily with the civilian population. Bush even warns U.S. citizens of more blood and gore "even if our new strategy works exactly as planned." Furthermore, partly via the use of the Salvadoran Option and partly by U.S. manipulation of sectarian conflict, [7] the invasion-occupation has produced a deadly civil war in which the Sunnis and Shiites engage in large-scale communal ethnic cleansing and killing, adding to the toll.

There can be little doubt that the rate of civilian killing in Iraq is about to rise from something like the recent Lancet estimate of 655,000 to a larger figure. If "genocide" was committed in Bosnia, where recent establishment analysts concluded--embarrassingly, given the earlier institutionalized total of 250,000-- that approximately 100,000 people died on all sides, including military personnel, [8] surely we have a case of genocide in Iraq just during the period 2003-2006. And Bush is about to give us more, with the Democrats and UN looking on but doing nothing to restrain the killing machine.

Wouldn't it be nice if democracy worked and a popular antiwar vote had some effect? And if the global double standard now in force was not so gross and the perpetrators responsible for this genocidal outburst could be brought before a real tribunal in the interest of real global justice before their next surge?

[B]Endnotes:

1. Michael Hirsh and John Barry, "'The Salvadoran Option'," Newsweek, January 14, 2005.

2. Quoted in Craig Murrary, "Civil War in Iraq: The Salvadoran Option and US/UK Policy," http://www.uruknet.org.uk/?s1=1&p=27587&s2=20.

3. Tom Engelhardt, "Collateral Damage: the 'Incident' at Haditha" http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_060806O.shtml; Chris Floyd, "Lesson Plan" http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/06/02/120.html; Linda Heard, "Media and Tal Afar": http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/63044; Ghalil Hassan, "Iraq: A Criminal Process," Global Research, Nov. 27, 2005.

4. Bernard Fall, Last Reflections on a War (New York: Doubleday, 1967).

5. Peter Waldman, "Body Counts: In Vietnam, the Agony of Birth Defects Calls an Old War to Mind," Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1970.

6. Gareth Porter, "The Bloodbath We Created," http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1214-32.htm

7. Ibid.

8. See Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, "War-related Deaths in the 1992-1995 Armed Conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous Estimates and Recent Results," European Journal of Population, Vol. 21, No. 2-3, June, 2005, pp. 187-215, www.yugofile.co.uk/onlynow/EJP_all.zip . Also see the ongoing work of Mirsad Tokaca et al. at the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, which produces month-by-month updates of the latest estimates for deaths attributable to the war on the webpage "The Status of Database by the Centers," http://www.idc.org.ba/aboutus/Overview_of_jobs_according_to_%20centers.htmFear of Shia death squads, perhaps secretly controlled by the Badr Brigade, the leading Shia militia, frightens the Sunni. The patience of the Shia is wearing very thin. But their leaders want them to consolidate their strength within the government after their election victory in January.
Go on-site for links:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-01/24herman.cfm ~~~~~ .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 04:59 PM

. *
We Love You Molly
by
Harvey Wasserman
Published on:
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
by CommonDreams.org

Our beloved sister Molly Ivins is fighting for her life against cancer, and all we can do is try to send her even a fraction of the brillliance, joy and love she has given us for so many incomparable years.

(I've been missing her so much and had my own worries about her as her columns were not as frequent, or they weren't there at all.

Molly, you have long had my admiration, now you have my best wishes as well as my prayers. Come'on Molly, we miss you something fierce! SRH)

This genuis daughter of Texas turmoil has stood alone for so long as a voice of clarity, wit, common sense and plain-spoken conscience that it’s hard to know even where to start.

Perhaps most important to remember is that she has not been just a writer. From her modest but gracious home in the heart of Austin, she has done anything but sit back and snipe with that unique penetrating wit of hers. She could have done it. She could have just gone to that keyboard every day, blown them all away, and built her national reputation from the sheer genius of an insulated ivory tower.

But Molly has always been a firm believer in hands-on non-violent combat, which in hands like hers is the ultimate weapon. She puts her heart and soul where her convictions are. She’s fought tooth and nail for The Texas Observer and whatever other worthwhile publications there are that can muster an audience in the Lone Star State. She’s worked with the great Jim Hightower in his climb to elected office. She supports candidates. She goes out of her way. She works hard. She makes her presence felt wherever she thinks it’ll do some good, no matter what the personal cost.

All the while being our very premier writer/humorist. If Mark Twain has a female counterpart on today’s political and journalistic scene, it is Molly Ivins. She has that miraculous ability to slice and dice an entire raft of political horse-dung with a single simple sentence, laced with wry, seeded with sweetness, and so often utterly cleansing and clarifying.

We can all be thankful that our lucky stars have placed her—where else but—in Austin. Throughout the entire horrific nightmare of George W. Bush, whom she has somehow known personally for decades, it has been Molly and only Molly who’s been on the spot to say exactly what needs to be said in exactly the right Texas tone with precisely the right down home balance of horror, outrage and utterly human wit. Nobody else could be doing it as she does, from the inside out, from the high ground lifting up the low. Could we ever INVENT anyone better suited, with a sharper wit and better sense of the jugular?

Except with Molly, it’s the spiritual center that’s the bullseye. With that wry, beautiful smile of hers and that insanely musical Texas twang, she never fails to aim for higher ground. When her eyes roll at the latest unbelievable insanity from this ghastly crew, she still manages to twinkle with that huge, heavenly light that’s only Molly’s.

In her personal life Molly has always been every bit as gracious as you can tell she is from her writing. Last time she carted me around Austin, it was in her obligatory pickup. The thing seemed a bit naked without a gun rack. But Molly behind the wheel was armed aplenty, always willing to drive the few extra blocks, even if you are willing to walk. Her southern grace just won’t think of it, no matter how many better things she has to do. And we know there are plenty.

To hear her speak is to be dazzled by the music of a true national treasure. To see her heart is to be warmed by a truly magnificent woman who embodies all this country can and should be. That she has been on the job for so long, with such persistence and valor, is something for which we can all be joyously thankful.

Molly, we are with you, and we need you, and we love you, as we have needed you and loved you now for so many years now. Get well soon!

In Molly’s honor, some of us are sending contributions to the Molly Ivins Fund for Investigative Reporting at the Texas Observer; 307 West Seventh Street; Austin, TX 78701
###
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0130-24.htm * .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 06:12 PM

.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The Five Pillars of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex

by
Rodrigue Tremblay

Over-grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

George Washington (1732-1799),
1st US President[/INDENT]

"[The] conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. ...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969),
34th US President, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961

"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 artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."

General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951
.......

In the 1920’s, President Calvin Coolidge said, "the business of America is business." Nowadays, it can be said that the Arms industry and permanent war have become a big part of American business, as the offshoot of a well-entrenched military-industrial complex. This is a development that previous American men of vision, men like President George Washington and President Dwight Eisenhower have warned against as being intrinsically inimical to democracy and liberty. However, the current Bush-Cheney administration is not afraid of such a development; its principal members are part of it and are instead very busy promoting it.

Wars, especially modern electronic wars, are very murderous, but they are also synonymous with big cost-plus contracts, big profits and big employment for those who produce the required military gear. Wars are the paradise of profiteers. —Wars are also a way for mediocre politicians to monopolize both the news and the media in their partisan favor by whipping up patriotic fervor and by pushing for narrow-minded nationalism. Indeed, to inflame patriotism and nationalism is an old demagogic trick used to dominate a nation. When that happens, there is a clear danger that democracy and freedom will be eroded, and even disappear, if that development leads to an exacerbated concentration of power and political corruption.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a bonanza for the American military-industrial complex. This was an event, a "New Pearl Harbor", that some had openly been hoping for. The reason? These attacks gave the perfect pretext to keep military expenses, which had been expected to fall after the demise of the old Soviet Empire, at a high level. Instead, they provided the rationale for dramatically increasing them, by substituting a “War on Terror” and a "War against Islamists" as a replacement for the “War against Communism,” and the "Cold War against the Soviet Union". In this new perspective, the gates of military spending could be open and flowing again. The development of ever more sophisticated armaments could go forward and thousands of corporations and hundreds of political districts could continue to reap the benefits. The costs would be born by the taxpayers, by young men and women who die in combat and by remote populations who happen to lie under the rain of bombs about to fall upon them and their homes.

Indeed, in September 2000, when the Pentagon issued its famous strategy document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the belief was expressed that the kind of military transformation the planners were considering required "some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”, to make it possible to sell the plan to the American public. They were either prescient or lucky, because one year later, they had the "New Pearl Harbor" they had been hoping for.

The military-industrial complex needs wars, many and successive wars, to prosper. Old military equipment has to be repaired and replaced each time there is a hot war. But to justify the enormous costs of developing ever more deadly weapons, there needs to be a constant climate of fear and vulnerability. For example, there are many reports, originating from medical and international observers, that the Israeli attacks against Lebanon and Gaza during the summer of 2006, allowed for the use of 'new American-made weapons'. Such weapons are reported to include depleted uranium (DU) bombs, 'direct energy' weapons and new chemical and biological weapons. These weapons not only make the act of homicide easier but they also contaminate the environment with radioactive DU particles for decades to come.

But, to build a compact strong enough to steer a democratic country on the path of a permanent war economy takes an alliance of interests between militarists, industrialists, politicians, sycophants and propagandists. These are the five pillars of the military-industrial complex, as can be found in the United States.

1. The U. S. military establishment
In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. defense budget was $298.9 billion. In 2006, that budget had increased to $447.4 billion, and this does not include the $100 billion-plus spent in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is estimated that American military expenditures represent, at a very minimum, close to half of total world military outlays (48 per cent of the world total in 2005, according to official figures), while the U.S. accounts for less than 5 per cent of world population and about 25 per cent of world total output. —As a percentage, the U.S. military expenses gobble up a minimum of 21 per cent of the total American federal budget (2006=$ 2,144.3 billion). Such a military budget is larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of some countries, such as Belgium or Sweden. —It is sort of a government within a government.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense employed 2,143,000 people, while it estimates that private defense contractors employ 3,600,000 workers, for a grand total of 5,743,000 defense-related American jobs, or 3.8% of the total labor force. In addition, there are close to 25 million veterans in the United States. Therefore, it is safe to say that more than 30 million Americans receive checks which originate directly or indirectly from the U. S. military budget. Assuming conservatively only two voting-age people per household, this translates into a block of some 60 million American voters who have a financial stake in the American military establishment. Thus the clear danger of a militarized society perpetuating itself politically.

2. The private defense contractors

The five largest American Defense contractors are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. They are followed by Honeywell, Halliburton, BAE Systems and thousands of smaller defense companies and subcontractors. Some, like Lockheed Martin in Bethesda (Maryland) and Raytheon in Waltham (Massachusetts) draw close to 100 per cent of their business from defense contracts. Some others, like Honeywell in Morristown (New Jersey), have important consumer goods divisions. All, however, stand to profit when expenditures on weapons procurements increase. In fact, U.S. defense contractors have been enjoying big Pentagon budgets since March 2003, i.e. since the onset of the Iraq war. —As a result, they have posted sizable increases in total shareholder returns, ranging from 68 % (Northrop Grumman) to 164 % (General Dynamics), from March '03 to September '06.

It also has to be pointed out that private defense contractors play another social role: they are big employers of former generals and former admirals from the U.S. military establishment.

3. The political establishment

In the U.S., president George W. Bush, a former oil-man, and Vice President Dick Cheney, as former chairman and C.E.O of the large oil service company Halliburton in Houston (Texas), epitomize the image of politicians devoted to the growth and development of the military-industrial complex. Their administration has expanded the military establishment and they have adopted a militarist foreign policy on a scale not seen since the end of the Cold War and even since the end of World War II. Indeed, under the Bush-Cheney administration, the arms industry has become very profitable. Multi billion-dollar contracts to sell planes and tanks to various countries in an increasingly lawless world are going full swing. Close to two-thirds of all arms exports in the world originate from North America.

Congress, for its part, is indebted to defense corporations that operate military plants in each congressman's district or senator's state, besides owing some gratitude to the lobbies that provide funds and media support in election times.

4. The "think tanks" establishment

The brain-trust and the sycophants behind the war-oriented economy form an interlocking network of Washington-based so-called 'think tanks' that are financed by the rich tax-exempt foundations which have billions of dollars of assets, such as, for example, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation or the Coors Foundation, etc. —Among the most influential and representative think tanks, whose mission is to orient American foreign policy, one finds the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Middle East Media Research Institute, the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, the Center for Security Policy,

the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Hudson Institute. —Such think tanks serve a double purpose: they provide government officials with policy papers on various topics, usually on the very conservative side; and, they serve as incubators for government departments, supplying them with already trained personnel and providing employment for public officials who are out of office.

The same revolving door that exists between the military establishment and defense contractors is also observed to exist between the Washington-based think tanks and U.S. government departments.

5. The "propaganda" establishment

The pro-war economy propagandists are to be found in the fundamentally right-wing American media industry. This is because the selling of war-oriented policies requires the expertise that only a well-oiled propaganda machine can provide. The most potent propaganda tool is television. And there, Rupert Murdock's Fox News Network is unbeatable. There is no American media outlet more openly devoted to the neocon ideology and more committed to supporting new American wars than Fox News. CNN or MSNBC may sometimes try to emulate it, but their professionalism prevents them from even coming close to Fox News in being biased toward war and in unabashedly promoting U.S. global domination. Fox's propaganda efforts are closely coordinated with other Murdoch-owned print media, such as the Weekly Standard and the New York Post. The Washington Times, which is controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, the neoconservative New York Sun, and other neocon publications such as the National Review, the New Republic, The American Spectator, the Wall Street Journal, complete the main pro-war propaganda infrastructure.

In conclusion, it is the conjunction of these five pro-war machines, i.e. the bloated military establishment, the large American arms industry, the Neocon pro-war administration with Congress being strongly under the influence of militarist lobbies, the pro-war think tanks network and the pro-war media propagandists that constitutes the framework of the military-industrial complex, of which President Dwight Eisenhower wisely feared the corrosive influence on American society, forty-five years ago, in 1961. .......
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com.

He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'.

Visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Author's Website:www.thenewamericanempire.com/
............. .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 06:42 PM

.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Drums of War and Orchestrated Hysteria about Iran

by
Rodrigue Tremblay
January 29, 2007

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."

George McGovern
Former US senator and presidential candidate

"Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other."

Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826)
3rd US President

"The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."

Harold Pinter
2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature, acceptance speech

And he hadn't even heard the latest from Cheney, Bush and Gonzales! Whew! In two years time it has escalated like no one can believe. It's much worse! SRH

I have believed for quite some time now that once the Bush-Cheney tandem reached a dead-end in Iraq, as was amply predictable, they would try to save face and camouflage their failure by raising the ante and launching a new war of aggression against Iran, all the while wrapping themselves in the flag. For that, see my article of April 16, 2006, where I wrote (after the disaster in Iraq): "Bush may thus be tempted to raise the ante and go after Iran to reclaim his 'Commander-in-Chief' mantle." I would add now that the Bush-Cheney duo want to complete what they started in Iraq during the few years they have left before them. Most military experts believe that Iran can be contained militarily. But, make no mistake about it; the main rationale behind the pressures being exercised upon Iran at this time has little to do with concerns about weapons of mass destruction, but a lot to do (as in 1953 when Mossadegh was overthrown) with this country's oil reserves and how it uses them. Regime change in Tehran; that's what the Bush-Cheney administration is after.

As to war preparations, the current situation resembles what prevailed during the fall of 2002, when lies and misinformation were used all over the place (by the administration and by the neocon press) to stir up passions against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Today, the objectives are the same and the tactics used are also the same. Indeed, the same forces are at work in the same two countries—the U.S. and Israel—to exaggerate the military threats posed by Iran and to attempt to link Iran to the al-Qaida terrorist network in order to justify an attack. There is something very pathetic about the rage with which the pro-war lobby is beating the drum for military action against Iran, and the Bush-Cheney administration's musings about using nuclear weapons of mass destruction.. It is political madness in action. But why is such madness occurring seemingly only in these two countries?

The first thing to be understood is that all these wars in the Middle East have been planned for more than ten years by a small group of Washington Neocons who penned a document, in 1996, calling for such wars, in order to balkanize the Middle East for Israel's sake and to allow American companies to take control of the enormous oil reserves present in that part of the world. In 1996, in a report on strategy prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (a think-tank created by AIPAC) and titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," future advisors to the Bush-Cheney administration (Perle, Feith, Wurmser, etc.) proposed "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," and then to go on "engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran."

The Clinton administration refused to embrace fully this incendiary strategy, but large campaign contributions behind the scheme and promises of an oil bonanza persuaded oil-men Bush II and Cheney that American military power could be used profitably to implement the neocon plan. That is why, after 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration requested a blanket approval Resolution from the American Congress to take control militarily and reorganize politically the entire Middle East. The senators reduced this mandate to Iraq, but the Bush-Cheney intentions were crystal clear: Total domination of the entire Middle East

The second overlooked reality is the tight grip the pro-Israel neocon establishment holds over the Bush-Cheney White House, both sides of Congress and the American corporate media. For years now, not only the American Neocons but also the Israeli government itself has demanded that the U.S. attack Iran. Its Lobby has spearheaded the campaign. In Colin Powell's words, the 'JINSA crowd' at the Defense Department, which is full of transferees from the neocon Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), has been most active and effective. What's more, we have been warned: Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said it: "2007 (will be) the decisive year,” to deal with Iran. —He might be proven right. He made this comment just after he talked, on January 21, (2007) with visiting U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. Besides, the Israeli government has usually gotten what it wanted from the Bush-Cheney administration, even if it meant committing the United States to a disastrous policy.

Just as for the Iraq war, the coming Iran war will be orchestrated by the same Neocons, and will also be a product of a campaign led by the Israeli government and its all powerful fifth column in America. On November 15, 2006, for example, Israel's outgoing U.S. ambassador Danny Ayalon seemed to have been privy to Bush's intentions: "U.S. President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program." — On January 21 (2007), chief Neocon and former director of the U.S. Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, made it very clear when he said: "If all options were exhausted in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, President George Bush would give the green light for the operation."

American politicians of both major political parties also seem to trip over each other in their rush to go to Israel and declare that their country, the USA, should attack Iran. In the last two months, a host of presidential candidates did just that, from John McCain, to Hillary Clinton, to Mitt Romney, to John Edwards, all pledging allegiance to a pre-emptive defense of Israel with a war of aggression against Iran. The last in line is former Senator John Edwards a Democratic presidential candidate who, in a mid-January trip to Israel, also established his own credentials for becoming president by declaring: "Americans can be educated (sic) to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." And, to be sure he is well understood, he added: "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

And third, less we forget, a war against Iran has also been promoted by Bush's Christian fundamentalist supporters. The latter meet frequently in the White House to discuss foreign policy, and some are openly praying for a coming Armageddon that they see happening soon.

And that is where we stand today, after the disastrous 2003 American-led war against Iraq, the murderous, American-supported Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006, and now, with the table being set for an American-initiated war of aggression against Iran, possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons. This is all part of a grand Middle East neocon plan that we see slowly unfolding under our very eyes.

We may ask, who is happy with all these successive illegal and immoral wars of aggression? Answer: the Israeli government, its sycophants in the U.S., the arms industry and certain big oil interests who have already mapped their foray in the region, plus George Bush's wild-eyed fundamentalist supporters, for whom an attack on Iran is just what God has ordered.

Who is unhappy? The young Americans who are sent half way around the world to die or be maimed, and their families left behind; the people in the Middle East, who are bombed and massacred and who see their countries destroyed and their resources stolen; the American taxpayers, who are footing the obscene bill for these whimsical and imperialistic wars; and the entire world population who look on, unbelievingly, to this return to calculated barbarism and lawlessness, and who witness, powerless, the destruction of the United Nations.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Go on-site to view links. Also visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com

Go on-site for the NUMEROUS links within this article.
:: :: :: .

Saundra Hummer

January 30th, 2007, 07:46 PM

.lllllllllllllll
The politico-religious Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Why it is never resolved (Part I)

By
Rodrigue
Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer
Jan 1, 2007, 02:11

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

"For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant and contrary voices."

Former President Jimmy Carter

"When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups like AIPAC that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics."

Henry Siegman,
Former head of the
American Jewish Congress

After tremendous attempts to bury the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under the rubble of Baghdad, this intractable and open-sore conflict is now back on the agenda since the December 6, 2006, Baker-Hamilton commission report stated the obvious, i.e., that settling the precarious fate of the Palestinians in the hands of Israel is crucial in stabilizing the entire Middle East and even the entire Muslim world: "The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and regional instability."

Indeed, there are strong links between the on-going Iraq war and the long lasting Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it relates to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, in the West Bank and in Gaza. Most observers agree that the center of discord, resentment and conflicts in the Middle East is the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a festering sore in the body of international geopolitics. As the president of Lebanon,Emile Lahoud, reminded the U.N. General Assembly on September 21, 2006, "peace and stability in Lebanon will be attained only when the Israel-Arab conflict will be settled in a just and permanent way."

Such is the case also for most Middle Eastern countries. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pretty much said the same thing on September 26, 2006, stressing that the world should urgently address the Palestinian issue, because it is this issue that lies at the root of all conflicts between the West and the Muslim world. We have an indication how immoral and dangerous the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is when a recent headline announced that the Israeli Supreme Court upheld a policy of the Israeli government to kill Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin. Therefore, it would seem to be logical that if you address the root cause of grievances and resentment in Palestine, this would reduce the violent reaction that many people in the Middle East have against Israel and its mentor, the United States.

On November 13, 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a similar appeal in favor of a “whole Middle East strategy” centered around a fresh focus on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an assessment that is nearly unanimous, with the notable exception of the unconditional advocates of Israel within and outside the United States. The latter is the all-powerful pro-Israel Lobby, and, in the past, it has defeated all the plans to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, always succeeding in placing Israel's interests ahead of the interests of the United States.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a politico-religious conflict, and that iswhy it is so difficult to solve. It has lasted for nearly 90 years, that is to say since the British minority government of Lloyd George decided to open the ancient Ottoman province of Palestine to Jewish settlement. It is a conflict that pits three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) against each other and which involves the political and economic interests of Jewish Zionists, Arab fundamentalists and Western Christian politicians.

Indeed, when the government of Lloyd George issued its Balfour declaration in 1917, expressing its support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" it probably did not realize it was opening a Pandora's Box that would spew out its disturbing consequences for a century to come. Indeed, after the War World I collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories that were placed under the administration of Great Britain, under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations. Ultimately, all but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States. The exception is Palestine, which is still an occupied colony of Israel.

Palestinian demands for independence have been frustrated for more than half a century. To its credit, the government of Great Britain did try to implement various formulas to bring independence to Palestine, but could not succeed because of the endemic terrorism and violence that has been a hallmark of this land since its removal from the Ottoman Empire. That is why, in 1947, Great Britain turned the problem over to the United Nations, and the General Assembly quickly passed its Resolution 181 (II)on November 29, 1947. In it, the United Nations affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.

However, Israel unilaterally severed its ties from Great Britain, and became independent on May 14, 1948. Nearly 60 years later, Arab Palestine is still not independent. Worse, a large part of Arab Palestine was, over the years, appropriated by Israel, leaving Palestine with an uneconomic base to survive and prosper. Therein lies the problem that has festered in the Middle East for so long.

The politico-religious Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Why it is never resolved
(Part II)
By
Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer
Jan 8, 2007, 00:12
Analysis Last Updated:
Jan 8th, 2007 - 00:24:46

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews. . . . I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in the country."

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
February 1957

" . . . the American leadership is presently shaped by dangerous right-wing Southern extremists, who seek to use Israel as an offensive tool to destabilize the whole Middle East area."

Alain Joxe (CIRPES)

"I cannot imagine a presidential candidate saying, 'I'm going to take a balanced position toward the Israelis and the Palestinians', and getting reelected . . . It's inconceivable. AIPAC is smart enough to penetrate any sort of circumlocutions."

Former President Jimmy Carter

TheIsraeli-Palestinian conflict is a political-religious conflict that has lasted for nearly 90 years, that is to say since the British minority government of Lloyd George, in its 1917 Balfour declaration, decided to open the ancient Ottoman province of Palestine to Jewish settlement. It is a conflict that pits three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) against each other and which involves the political and economic interests of Jewish Zionists, Arab fundamentalists and Western Christian politicians.

Presently, there is a lot of pessimism regarding the possibility of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and little hope that it will ever be settled in a civilized way, even though polls indicate that the populations of Israel and of Palestine would like to put an end to their more than half-century long war of attrition and would be ready to accept a settlement that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Nevertheless, the politicians on either side and those who reign in Washington, D.C., seem to have little inclination to find a solution to this conflict.

The last serious and nearly successful attempt to resolve the conflict, and to put an end the Israeli occupation of Palestine that began in 1967, goes back to the Oslo Accords of 1993. As for the so-called present day "peace process," it is close to being completely comatose. Indeed, the peace process in Palestine has been pretty much stalled since the collapse of the Oslo Accords, notwithstanding the efforts made by the so-called diplomatic Quartet, which is comprised of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia. Indeed, before the onset of the 2003 Iraq War, it was thought that a roadmap for a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be followed with some hope of success. The U.N. Security Council even adopted Resolution 1515,which put its stamp on the quartet roadmap for peace between Palestinians and Israel. The resolution would have legalized a permanent agreement between Israel and Palestine. But this also failed.

The world is, therefore, entitled to know why this conflict, which has been active since the 1967 war, is never resolved.

There is a lot of blame to be laid down on both sides of this conflict, but two main reasons stand out as explanations for the stalemate.

First religion.

The first reason why there is so much intransigence on both sides, and why moderate voices have so much trouble being heard, is because the conflict has religious overtones. In the past, when responsible and pragmatic political leaders, such as Israeli Prime MinisterItzhak Rabin or Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, attempted to resolve this rotten political-religious conflict, they both were assassinated by religious fanatics; President Sadat in October 1981, and Prime Minister Rabin in September 1993.

On the Israeli side, ultra-nationalist religious and political leaders reject out of hand any compromise with the Palestinians because they have a mystical reading of history. They believe, for example, that the Israeli military victory during the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, was of divine origin. Right-wing rabbis and their political allies are the most intransigent voices against any political settlement of this old conflict, going so far as to forbid Israeli students (through a December 2006 Halakhic decree, for example) from using schoolbooks that feature the pre-1967 Israeli borders. They go back to biblical times, thousands of years ago, to find self-serving passages in the Bible (Genesis, chap. 15 or Deuteronomy, chap. 43) which mention that a Jewish tribe lived in certain areas, and that such areas must be part of contemporary Israel, no matter who has owned and occupied these territories for hundreds of years.

On the Palestinian side, suspicion, fanaticism and intolerance are no less rampant. While some Palestinian organizations accept the right of Israel to exist and are open to a permanent agreement guaranteeing the political coexistence of Palestine with Israel, (the Fatah, for example, which is the movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas), other radical and Islamic militant organizations or parties, such as the Hamas(Islamic Resistance Movement), presently the majority party, denounce Israel's right to exist and vow to never accept any settlement that encompasses any mutual recognition. The opponents to any political settlement with Israel go back to the time of Mohammed, in 7th century Arabia, to find historical-religious precedents when accords were signed between tribes, with the clear intention of not respecting them and using violence instead to attain their objectives.

The second reason behind the stalemate is related to politics outside the region, especially to domestic politics in the United States.

Since it is obvious that the two conflicting parties harbor too much rancor and hostility towards each other to reach a compromise on their own, a realistic solution has to be the result of some outside arbitration. But the only credible conflict resolution mechanism that the world has at present is the United Nations. And that is where domestic American politics weighs in. The country that has the most influence within the 15-member U.N. Security Council is the United States. Over the years, however, the American government has used its veto power dozens of times to prevent the U.N. from imposing sanctions on the belligerents, thus de facto paralyzing the United Nations.

Why is this so? It is essentially because very rich Zionist political contributorshave an undue influence on both major American political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, when it comes to American foreign policy in the Middle East. Therefore, no matter who occupies the White House, this powerfullobbyis always in a position to call the shots at the U.N., because the American government of the day follows its general orientation in its approaches to the Middle East.

The Bush-Cheney administration has pushed this servility to a higher level than any other previous administration. It has thus contributed more than any other to discrediting the United Nations and prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, under Bush II, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been close to being Israel's foreign policy. It is a dual foreign policy, which is designed by the same neocon advisors.In gratitude, a group in Israel is building a center named after George W. Bush. And, the same political forces are presently pushing for a U.S.-led war against Iran. Nobody should bet against them succeeding.

In conclusion, even though some may quarrel with details, the two main factors preventing a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are political-religious extremism in Israel and in Palestine, and the bias in American politics in favor of one side in the conflict. As long as politico-religious fanatics on both sides, within Israel and within Palestine, are in control, and as long as the formal and informal pro-Israel Lobby in the United States is behind American foreign policy in the Middle East, there will not be a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the world will pay a price for it.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'. Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Go on-site to reach author and to access the numerous links to this article.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1608.shtml lllllllll .