LeighmDotNet

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - 'Stability first': Newspeak for rape of Iraq

2006-10-28T16:42:00.000-07:00

THE ROVING EYE 'Stability First': Newspeak for rape of Iraq By Pepe Escobar

"Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done. And that's ... we're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq." - George W Bush, October 11

Iraq is not simply a US electoral issue. It's a human tragedy of biblical proportions. Hence the urge at this point to situate the tragedy in a historical context. In AD 750 the Abbasid Dynasty "de-Bedouinized" Islam by defeating the Ummayad Dynasty based in Damascus. The culture of the Abbasid court ceased being Arab-only and started to include Persia and the Turks. Islam turned into a universal religion, no more constrained by geography. "Baldach" - that's what European travelers called Baghdad up to the late 18th century - was catapulted to the center of the world. From AD 786-809, under fabled Haroon al-Rashid - who established relations with Tang Dynasty China and the "illiterate emperor" Charlemagne - Baghdad gave the world astronomy, alchemy, hydraulics, diplomacy, fiscal administration and the postal service. Up to the early 12th century it remained the most important intellectual center in the world. Baghdad had been under siege by the Assyrians and later by Cyrus the Great from Persia. But it was only in 1258 that Baghdad was sacked for the first time by what was then the equivalent of Desert Storm - the Mongols riding their lightning-quick horses under the command of Hulagu, Genghis Khan's grandson. Legend has it that he erected a pyramid of 700,000 skulls out of his victims. In 1401, another foreign invader, the Turco-Mongol Tamerlan ("Timur the Lame"), devastated Baghdad yet again. In 2003, after the devastation of "shock and awe", came the Christian armies of President George W Bush. From the beginning the comparisons with Hulagu and Tamerlan were vivid in the popular imagination. Over time, Baghdadis - Sunni or Shi'ite - were saying, we will dictate our rhythm and impose ourselves over the occupiers. This is already happening. Quagmire Iraq is not a 21st-century video game of Arabs playing extras in a slow-motion Armageddon. This is a wrenching story with rivers of real blood and a terrible accumulation of real corpses. The story was engineered in Washington - and the plot would not be advancing were it not for the United States. The US bears all the moral and legal responsibility for the destruction of the fabled former capital of the caliphate and the de facto Western flank of the Arab nation. It is in this context that the current avalanche of Iraq-related newspeak in the US should be placed. The recent bloody holy month of Ramadan in Iraq has reflected the hellish mechanism unleashed by the invasion and occupation - the daily, gruesome banquet of death provoked by state-sponsored terror, counterinsurgency, stoked by sectarian hatred or the total collapse of the social contract. This logic of extermination of a society and culture was inbuilt in the process since March 2003. In fact, the systematic annihilation of 2-3% of the entire Iraqi population, according to a study by The Lancet, not to mention the 1 million people displaced since March 2003, follow the more than 500,000 children who died during the 1990s as victims of United Nations sanctions. Iraq has been systematically destroyed for more than 15 years, non-stop. And it gets worse, because for the Bush administration all this death and destruction is just a minor detail in the "big picture". In a perverse replay of what happened in the Vietnamese jungles, the Pentagon lost the asymmetric guerrilla war raging in the Sunni belt. Sunni Arabs are totally alienated. Seventy percent are in favor of attacking the occupiers, no holds barred. No wonder Saddam Hussein is still popular. This month, about 500 Sunni Arab tribal chiefs and former Ba'ath Party officials in the police, army and intelligence got together in al-Hindiya, 25 kilometers west of Kirkuk, to pledge allegiance to Saddam, qualified as "supreme combatant and legitimate president". It's true that Saddam's regime had already started to disintegrate from the inside after the Gulf War of 1991 - a process coupled with the devastating effects of UN sanctions. The resulting loss of civic spirit accelerated the re-tribalization of Iraq. Even as tribal affiliation nowadays is the only way to solve any problem in Iraq, for the silent majority what really matters is security: nobody is troubled by perceived (by the West) Sunni and Shi'ite divisions; and most Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen share plenty of social, cultural and commercial interests. Contrary to Western-propagated myth, Iraqi civil society as a whole - apart from a few factions - abhors civil war. The coalition of the drilling World public opinion must switch to red alert. The real, not virtual, future of Iraq will be decided in December. The whole point is a new oil law - which is in fact a debt-for-oil program concocted and imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is the point of the US invasion - a return on investment on the hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money spent. It's not war as politics by other means; it's war as free-market opening by other means - full US access to the epicenter of the energy wars and the perfect geostrategic location for "taming", in the near future, both Russia and China. Very few observers have detailed what's at stake. In US corporate media the silence is stratospheric. US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman duly landed in Baghdad this past summer, insisting that Iraqis must "pass a hydrocarbon law under which foreign companies can invest". Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani was convinced, and said the law would be passed by the end of 2006, as promised to the IMF. No wonder: the Green Zone US Embassy colossus has always made sure that the US controls - via well-paid Iraqi servants - the Petroleum Ministry, as well as all key management posts in key Iraqi ministries. The draft hydrocarbon law was reviewed by the IMF, reviewed by Bodman and reviewed by Big Oil executives. It was not and it will not be reviewed by Iraqi civil society: that was left to the fractious Iraqi parliament - which can be largely bought for a fistful of dinars. The Bush administration needs somebody to sign the law. The nation of Iraq as it emerged out of British imperial design is an artificial construct that can only be "tamed" by a hardcore strongman a la Saddam. It has to be "our" strongman, of course: when Saddam started to act independently he was smashed. Insistent rumors of a US-engineered coup to replace the hapless current premier Nuri al-Maliki have surfaced of late. Poor Maliki, if he clings to a minimum of integrity, can't possibly sign the oil law. Enter the Washington/Green Zone-backed strongman a la Saddam: a likely candidate is former interim premier Iyad Allawi, who ordered the destruction of Fallujah in late 2004. No matter what happens in the US mid-term elections next month, this is the post-December scenario: Iraq enslaved by the IMF; Big Oil signing mega-lucrative production sharing agreements (PSAs); "partial" troop withdrawal; relentless guerrilla warfare; further disintegration; open road to partition. Vast swaths of the US electorate have now understood how the whole Iraqi adventure has been built on lies: lies about the causes of war, lies about the methodology of war, lies about the terrible consequences of war. Inevitably, the current media-targeted avalanche of Iraq-related newspeak had to be also meaningless. This includes "phased withdrawal", "empowering" the Iraqi government, "putting security ahead of democracy" and "partitioning Iraq". Surrealism in international relations would reach new highs (or lows) with the US ordering by decree that a sovereign nation must dismember itself. Compared with it, the current carnage in Baghdad - which is already divided anyway - would be a Disney flick. There's more: the Shakespearean despair over "Redeploy and Contain" or "Stability First" - newspeak coined by Bush family consegliere James Baker's Iraq Study Group, staffed with plenty of pro-war neo-conservatives. A notorious casualty of the newspeak war seems to be "stay the course" - replaced, according to Press Secretary Tony Snow, by "a study in constant motion". Anyway, the winner - after the mid-term elections - will be "Stability First", which is basically a remix, with a horn section, of "stay the course". How can Americans - and world public opinion - be engaged in serious, meaningful debate when the Iraq tragedy is reduced to a mere catch phrase? This incoherent whirlwind, this "study in constant motion", is the travesty that passes for Iraqi policy debate among educated elites. Another reading is more ominous. It spells the Bush administration and its attached elites losing control - of everything. And that's how they can become even more dangerous. On October 19, Vice President Dick Cheney once again stated that the only way out in Iraq was "total victory". A recent historical parallel is nothing but gloomy. When the US was confronted with defeat in Vietnam, it did not "Redeploy and Contain": on the contrary, death and destruction were extended to Laos and Cambodia. Baker's "Stability First" might contain undisclosed subtexts. "Total victory", in Cheney's world view, means that the Bush administration was not, is not and will never be interested in Iraqi, or Middle Eastern, "democracy". What matters is control of the lightest, sweetest, most profitable crude oil on the planet, 112 billion barrels of it in proven reserves plus 220 billion barrels still to be exploited, at a cost as low as US$1 a barrel; a cluster of sprawling military bases; the largest embassy/fortress-by-the-Tigris in the world; and the indispensable client regime. In sum: a "Coalition of the Drilling" secured by the Pentagon's Long War apparatus. It's up to ancient and proud Baghdad to spoil the party. Baghdad survived and buried Hulagu. Baghdad survived and buried Tamerlan. Baghdad may as well survive and bury George W Bush.

--30--

[April 21 2006] Travus T. Hipp Commentary: Sino-American Relations Redux: Dinner With The 'Enemy' - The Chutzpah Award Goes To George W. Bush And PNAC

2006-04-21T07:53:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: Sino-American Relations, PNAC, Neocons, Louisiana, New Orleans, Mayoral elections, Ray Nagin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Immigration reform, California, Levees, Iraq, al-Jafari, Nepal, Kathmandu, Maoists, India Mayoral elections in New Orleans, Ray Nagin Vs 'Old Line' Louisiana interests... at stake: control of contracting agreements for rebuilding New Orleans. GWB in the Bay area with Arnold Schwarzenegger will have talks about California immigration problems Governor Schwarzenegger will be likely to ask for funds to ameliorate levee deterioration in the San Joaquin valley and elsewhere. Iraq: PM al-Jafari of Iraq will step aside Nepal: Kathmandu, third week of demonstrations against king continue. Maoist guerilla control approximately 80% of the Nepalese countryside. [April 21 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Sino-American Relations Redux: Dinner With The 'Enemy' - The Chutzpah Award Goes To George W. Bush... And PNAC) Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 9:10 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 20 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Chinese President Hu Comes To Visit And All We Got Was A World View (From A Different World)

2006-04-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: 420, Waco, Branch Davidians, China, Sino-American Relations, Karl Rove, Nepal, Kathmandu, India, Iraq, Baghdad, al-Jafari

What 420 means to the youth of America: It's the anniversary of... Waco (Remember the Branch Davidians? The survivors will be released shortly.), the Columbine HS shootings (It's closed today, and High Schools around the country are on high alert), and... It's Adolph Hitler's Birthday. Pick one.

China's president meets with President Bush for national relations/common interests discussion, according to PNAC, which is responsible for much of the GWB administration's foreign policies, there probably AREN'T any 'common interests'... The discussions will be polite, but probably not friendly. (More on the topic in today's commentary)

The White House Shuffle continues: Karl Rove falls back... to political strategist for RNC candidates, and all around political hack for the Republican party.

Nepal: Kathmandu engulfed in strikes & Demonstrations to remove the king. India is talking to movement leaders.

Iraq: Parliment is up and running (barely), more meetings this saturday in regard to replacing al-Jafari. Attacks in downtown Baghdad, no American troops injured. [April 20 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Sino-American Relations: Chinese President Hu Comes To Visit And All We Got Was A Different World View (From A Different World..) Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:04 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 19 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: College 'Party Towns' - The "Duke Rape Case", Race & Class

2006-04-19T08:33:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: China, Hu Jintao, Bill Gates, Boeing, George W. Bush, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, Guantanamo, abu Ghraib, Military dog handler, Ecuador, Free Trade Talks, Russia, Iran, Sanctions, Hamas, Palestine, Palestinian China's President Hu Jintao meets with Bill Gates, will order 80 Boeing jets and confer with George W. Bush about currency and trade. Scott McClellan bows out, will go back to Texas, Tony Snow of FoxNews is the likely successor, Snow worked for Bush 41 Guantanamo commanding officer, a General, is ordered to testify in trial of military dog handler who worked at abu Ghraib. Did the methods used in Iraq originate at Guantanamo? Ecuador asks U.S. to re-open Free Trade Talks... Underlying threat of Ecuador joining the 'Bolivarian Revolution' with Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay... Russian six nation meeting on Iran stalled, Russia and China firmly against sanctions, EU and U.S. unlikely to get UN Security Council resolution Russia will give 10 million dollars to Hamas Palestinian government [April 19 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: College 'Party Towns' - An Aging Outlaw Returns To His Birthplace and reports to Travus on the "Duke University Rape Case" Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:04 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 18 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: The 100th Anniversary Of The Great San Francisco Earthquake - What Changed?

2006-04-18T11:10:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: Iraq, Ramadi, Afghanistan, Kunar province, World Bank, Chad, Chadian Oil, Zacarias Moussaoui, Josh Bolton, Rob Portman, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, California, San Francisco, 1906 Earthquake, San Juan Bautista [April 18 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: The 100th Anniversary Of The Great San Francisco Earthquake - What Changed? Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 7:32 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 17 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Mad As A March Hare In April: On The Silliness That Is Easter 2006

2006-04-17T10:25:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: April 15th, Income Tax, Russia, Hamas, Palestinian, Palestine, Tony Blair, Iran, Iraq, al-Jafari, al-Anbar, Afghanistan, War, Easter April 15th on the 17th, "Silly Day" for tax payers Russia will send aid to Hamas in the Palestinian territories Tony Blair Says UK will NOT support military action against Iran Iraq parliment meetings will be canceled after 10 day recess, al-Jafari still under fire (sic) 4 Marines killed in al-Anbar province... Casualties so far in war on Iraq 2376 dead Afghan "Coalition of the Unwilling"... Spring offensive continues [April 17 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Mad As A March Hare In April: On The Silliness That Is Easter 2006 Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:26 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Kucinich to Bush: ...So, tell us about those troops already in Iran?

2006-04-16T16:05:00.000-07:00

Kucinich Demands Answers From Administration About US Troops In Iran 4-15-6 WASHINGTON - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, sent the following letter to President George W. Bush today about the presence of US troops in Iran: Dear President Bush: Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress. The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration. It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran. Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress Related Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Iran, Azerbaijan, Baluchistan, Kurdistan, House Government Reform Subcommittee, Military Operations in Iran, U.S. troops in Iran, American Forces in Iran, Seymour Hersh

Unsaved Children Nearly Egged To Death In Annual Easter Bunny Slaughter

2006-04-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

Or as someone on the Daily Koz put it: I can tell you what Jesus would say... He'd say, "Eggs?! You're looking for eggs?! What the fuck is up with that? How we did get from my resurrection to an egg hunt? And wait a minute... You painted them too? Are (you) guys high or something?" by Zackpunk on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:25:56 AM PDT

The annual Easter bunny egging was established in 1991 to discourage families from succumbing to Satan’s secular bunny temptations and to teach children at a very early age of the evils of pagan traditions. “It was Christians’ turn to mock devil-lovers for a change,” noted Pastor. Students spend the Wednesday before Easter in school hard-boiling dozens of eggs. “The longer the egg boils and the harder it gets, the better,” observed Mrs. Pilate. Once the eggs have cooled, the children dye them with food coloring, the most popular color being blood red. The following day, each student carries an oversized basket of eggs to the park.

Landover Baptist Church Press Release April 17 2006 Unsaved Children Nearly Egged To Death In Annual Easter Bunny Slaughter Landover Baptist's annual Easter Bunny Slaughter For Stew turned deadly earlier this week when two unsaved children were nearly egged to death. "It was their own fault. They had no business on visiting a park near our church, especially dressed like that. The Bible says you reap what you sew!" Those were the comments to reporters from a noticeably shaken Mrs. Ina Mae Pilate, third grade teacher at Landover Elementary School, after Freehold police had completed their interrogation. Mrs. Pilate was referring to an incident earlier in the day in which six children were injured and two remain in critical condition after suffering severe blows to the head.

The incident occurred during the annual field trip the third grade takes the day before the Easter holiday. As always, the field trip ended at Freehold Central Park near the west side of the church perimeter. Once at the park, the children participated in the annual Easter bunny egging. “All True Christians know the Easter Bunny is no different than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, witches and the like,” noted Pastor Deacon Fred at a hastily convened news conference. “It is a symbol of pagan worship. The rabbit represents extreme fertility which we all know is just a cover for rampant sexual depravity. Pagans and other Satanists have corrupted Christianity for too long by encouraging families to substitute the worship of Christ with the worship of gift-giving Santas or candy-giving rabbits. Sadly, all Christians who give up their faith for pleasures as trivial as egg hunts or baskets filled with candy will descend to Hell for eternity. We vowed 10 years ago to save as many families as we possibly can from this disastrous fate by stamping out such idolatry!”

The annual Easter bunny egging was established in 1991 to discourage families from succumbing to Satan’s secular bunny temptations and to teach children at a very early age of the evils of pagan traditions. “It was Christians’ turn to mock devil-lovers for a change,” noted Pastor. Students spend the Wednesday before Easter in school hard-boiling dozens of eggs. “The longer the egg boils and the harder it gets, the better,” observed Mrs. Pilate. Once the eggs have cooled, the children dye them with food coloring, the most popular color being blood red. The following day, each student carries an oversized basket of eggs to the park.

Shortly before the students arrive, 50 young bunny rabbits grown at Old Man Tucker’s ranch are released into the park. After the children are lined up, the teacher blows the whistle, and each student chases down bunnies, hurling eggs directly at the heads. The goal is to execute as many symbols of the devil as possible. “This obviously isn’t a full-blown Old Testament-style stoning,” noted Mrs. Pilate. “We use eggs instead of rocks and bunnies instead of people. These are children, after all. The eggs are malleable enough that the rabbits survive quite a few hits, thereby giving all the children, including the smaller ones, a shot at an animal.” When all the rabbits are finally killed, the carcasses are gathered and boiled, and the meat is used to make a large stew. The students who killed the first and second most rabbits then present the stew to the group at the local synagogue for their Passover feast as part of Landover’s outreach to the unsaved. “For years, we’ve had the kids tell those Hebrews that it’s beef stew,” noted Pastor. “And they’ve responded that it’s the most flavorful beef stew they’ve ever eaten. This makes the whole event fun for our adults as well as the children!”

About halfway into this year’s egging, Mrs. Pilate became concerned when she heard soft groans coming from one area of bushes where a large congregation of egg-throwing third graders had congregated. There, she found several toddlers in bunny costumes writhing on the grass. Apparently, the preschool center at Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrow had brought a dozen of its youngsters, dressed as Easter Bunnies, to the park to hide eggs for the remaining children to find later in the afternoon. The third graders had mistaken the three- and four-year olds for actual rabbits. “I screamed at the students to stop the egging, but they were oblivious,” noted Mrs. Pilate. “They had this glazed look in their eyes and kept throwing. We had been reading the Book of Leviticus earlier that week and I suppose they were just in a frenzy of righteousness. Fortunately, this happened late in the day, so they soon ran out of eggs.”

The identities of the wounded Catholic youngsters have been withheld because of their ages. However, police report that three suffered only mild concussions and herniated discs and should be released from the hospital in just a few weeks. Two, however, remain in critical condition due to multiple closed head injuries. One student is in fair condition after being treated for fractures of the hip and pelvis. He was apparently the victim of throws by young Bob Nosam, the class dyslexic. The Catholic group’s teacher, Mrs. Edna St. James (divorced), is in fair condition but still unconscious as she was struck repeatedly while attempting to rescue her students. Hospital officials earlier stated Mrs. St. James was pregnant, immediately causing great concern among all -- primarily regarding the identity of the father. However, officials have retracted the earlier claim, saying the blood samples they tested from Mrs. St. James’ skin and clothes turned out to belong to a cottontail.

Brother Harry Hardwick of the Landover board of deacons was quick to defend the children when flagged down by reporters as he left the news conference. “I know there are some in the liberal media who will actually blame our children for this incident. But the injured juveniles were the spawn of unsaved idol worshipers who should have known our children use that park every Easter week. Our students had just been lectured about God’s commands that homosexuals, witches, adulterers and idolaters be stoned until they are dead. Nevertheless, our children managed to stop before anyone was killed, thereby showing even more restraint than God commands, even at their tender ages. I also think it is beyond coincidence and beyond irony that the kids they encountered just happen to be among those people God says must die. The Lord does work in mysterious ways.” Tags: Religion, Easter, Landover Baptist Church, Bunnies, Bunny Rabbits, Slaughter

[April 14 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: On The Demand For Rummy's Resignation, and The Hesitation By The Administration To Execute

2006-04-14T11:31:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: Media Landscape, Christian Right, South Park, Cuba, Cuban Sugar Industry, Iran, Russia, Nuclear Enrichment, Zacharias Moussaoui, French Labor Law Reform [April 14 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: On The Demand For Rummy's Resignation, and The Hesitation By The Administration To Execute - Would His Retirement Signal The American Public That A Generation Of Bad Decision-makers Is Passing? Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 7:06 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 13 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Spring Has Arrived, And Old Men's Fancies Turn To Thoughts Of War... In Waziristan...

2006-04-13T13:26:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." In The News: Waziristan, Canada, Smuggling Ring, UNHRC, U.N.H.R.C., U.N. Human Rights Committee, F.B.I., White Collar Crime, Immigration, Immigration Reform, Sensenbrenner, Mayday, International Latino Boycott, LULAC, War [April 13 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Spring Has Arrived, And Old Men's Fancies Turn To Thoughts Of War... In Waziristan, The New Afghan Offensive Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:48 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

[April 12 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: About The Region We've Invaded - In The Middle East, It Is NOT OK To Pick On Persians

2006-04-12T11:48:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 12 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: A Little Information About The Region We've Invaded - In The Middle East, It Is NOT OK To Pick On The Persians Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 10:25 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33# Related Tags In The News: Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfeld, Iran, Enriched Uranium, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, John Bolton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Halliburton, Iraq, Contaminated Water, California, Flooding, Persian History

[April 11 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Living In California At The Onset Of Global Warming... Will It Be Just Like The 'Old Days'?

2006-04-11T10:22:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 11 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Living In California At The Onset Of Global Warming... Will It Be Just Like The 'Old Days'? Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 11:00 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33# Related Tags In The News: Immigration, Immigration Reform, Nationwide Demonstrations, George W. Bush, White House Denial, Seymour Hersh, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, al-Jaafari, Arab Foreign Ministers, California, California Flooding, California Levees, California Resevoirs, Levees, Flooding, Resevoirs, WAR

[April 10 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Can The News Media Count? Immigration Reform Demonstration Crowd Counts Would Indicate Not..

2006-04-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

I've always assumed that most journalists can count. After all, in this day and age, you probably couldn't get a job in the mainstream media without a bachelor's degree, and to work at any major newspaper, don't even apply unless you are fresh out of Grad school. However, I could be mistaken in my belief that mathematics is a subject studied as a core curriculum at journalism school. Travus T. Hipp expounds on the subject in his audio commentary today. ...and in the news segment, such topics as Democracy in France works... the unpopular new labor law reform is scrapped (but will it's current government survive, The U.S. Budget Deficit is more than double the amount the U.S. Treasury claims if calculated according to GAAP, Massive Immigration Reform demonstrations expected today around the U.S. ... It's Easter break in Washington, D.C., will the demonstrators take it to their representative's offices, or will our Senators and Congressmen hide in the bunker under the Capitol building?, U.S. Ambassador has fruit & vegetables thrown at him in Venezuela by ghetto residents... More...

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now."

[April 10 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Can The News Media Count? Immigration Reform Demonstration Crowd Counts Would Indicate Not... Or...

Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:59 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours

Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net

Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here Related Tags In The News: Politics News Media Landscape France Labor Reform Democracy Immigration Reform Venezuela Iran Bunker Busters Nuclear War Iraq U.S. Treasury GAAP U.S. Budget Deficit

Consider The Possibilities: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran - AFP Via Yahoo! News

2006-04-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah. “

If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET

The New Yorker Article is [HERE]

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

“That’s the name they’re using,” the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that “this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as “enormous,” “hectic” and “operational,” Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government,” The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

“There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

“If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

Just In Case You Were Wondering: The NEXT Time We'll 'Give Rebuilding Lower Priority' - The NY Times

2006-04-08T07:58:00.000-07:00

April 8, 2006

Give Rebuilding Lower Priority in Future Wars

By JOEL BRINKLEY

WASHINGTON, April 7 — As factions in the Bush administration continue their bitter infighting over the reconstruction program in Iraq, the State Department has produced a draft planning document saying that after any future conflicts, the United States should not immediately begin a major rebuilding program.

Instead, it says, the first priorities should be to establish a secure, stable environment and begin political reconciliation. Otherwise, officials said, Washington and any local government that is formed are likely to suffer major political repercussions by making promises that cannot be kept.

In Iraq, "We set it up to fail," said Andrew S. Natsios, who was director of the United States Agency for International Development until January. He and some White House and State Department officials say they argued early on that a large-scale reconstruction program could never succeed in a hostile environment.

"We certainly have not done as much as we originally had hoped for," acknowledged James Jeffrey, who is the State Department's senior coordinator for Iraq. Some senior officials say they fear that the failures of the reconstruction program will pose a serious threat for officials of the new Iraqi government, once it is formed. "They will be vulnerable to complaints and hostility for their inability to provide electricity or clean water," one senior official said.

Carlos Pascual, who until recently headed the Office for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State Department, which prepared the draft plan, said this problem "was in part self-generated — we came in and said we would restore the country, make it whole."

Under the new plan, the United States would first establish public security and order, and then encourage small-scale economic activity while promoting political reconciliation. "If that is not done, then the society will unravel at some point," Mr. Pascual said.

After that, banks, political parties and other institutions would be established, followed by news media, private aid organizations and civilian advocacy groups. Physical reconstruction would begin "only when it seems to fit into the other priorities," said Mr. Pascual, who is now a vice president of the Brookings Institution. "But the ability to build large-scale infrastructure before you have established order and stability is nil because it will be blown up."

The draft plan reads like a refutation of almost everything the United States has done in Iraq. It also reads like another chapter in the prolonged and bitter debate between the State Department and Pentagon that began during the months before the invasion of Iraq more than three years ago.

The Iraq Working Group at the State Department spent more than a year preparing a detailed study on how to manage the country once Saddam Hussein was driven from power. It anticipated many of the problems that developed, including the widespread violence and looting that American forces faced after the invasion and the badly deteriorated state of the country's electrical and water systems.

But the Pentagon won control of reconstruction, over the objections of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, and Pentagon officials refused to use the study, saying it was too superficial. The Pentagon also blocked the appointment of Tom Warrick, the State Department official in charge of the study, to a position in the military's reconstruction office.

State Department officials say the Pentagon was consulted in the drafting of the new plan. But the document has a clear diplomatic stamp, and seems like a pre-emptive move by the State Department to reassert its authority in any future reconstruction efforts.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that no one would argue with the notion that reconstruction was easier in a stable environment, but that "we can't look at this too simplistically. It is hard to establish a robust political environment if the people do not have electricity or clean drinking water. These are parallel lines of operation that complement each other."

Marcia Wong, deputy director of the reconstruction and stabilization office, said the draft plan should not be viewed as an immutable template because "a lot of it will be driven by events on the ground." Officials will have to go in with "Plan B, Plan C and Plan D" as well, she added.

No project since the Marshall Plan after World War II even approached the scope and ambition of the American reconstruction effort in Iraq. Over three years the United States spent more than $20 billion in taxpayer money and roughly $40 billion in Iraqi money to rebuild electrical power plants, water and sewer systems and energy infrastructure. Scores of smaller projects were intended to improve education, health care, agriculture, governance and criminal justice. Many of those did produce important and positive results.

But stymied by a vicious insurgency and surprised by the Iraqis' inability to operate the sophisticated new equipment, the United States has scrapped scores of projects and now intends to reduce the program's budget drastically. A withering assessment by government auditors last month found that by almost every measure, Iraqi utility services, the central focus of the reconstruction aid, are now worse than before the United States invaded.

Late last year, as the administration was devising its 2007 budget, officials said they initially planned to request money to finish some of the projects that were not completed or ever begun. But by then, the administration had given up on the large-scale construction projects and intended instead to spend money on agriculture, education and good-governance projects, among others, several officials said.

"We decided to draw the line and start focusing on traditional forms of aid," Mr. Jeffrey said. Asked in an interview what lesson he had learned from the reconstruction effort, Mr. Jeffrey said, "Certainly, that doing massive reconstruction in the midst of an insurgency drives up costs and diverts funds."

Mr. Natsios, who was still in office throughout the budget debate, said, "They realized they made a mistake."

Mr. Pascual and others noted that Congress made it clear that it would not support additional large-scale financing for reconstruction or rehabilitation programs in Iraq. As a result, starting with the proposed 2007 budget, which is to take effect on Oct. 1, the administration is asking for only about $771 million, and has reduced its new construction aspirations to little more than refurbishing fruit stands and shoe stores.

Mr. Natsios and others said they argued at the start against the large-scale building projects, in part because their experience in other countries over 50 years had shown that it was not the most useful way to spend money. Officials still in the government confirmed that he had made that case.

James R. Kunder, an assistant administrator at the Agency for International Development, said in an interview that the most important priority was "to build Iraq's capacity to run its own affairs." An important example, Mr. Natsios said, was strong support for farming and agriculture, which was Iraq's second-largest employment sector.

"If the rural economy collapses, the young men will be the first to leave for the city and join the insurgency, and that's what happened," Mr. Natsios said. The American aid package provided some money for agricultural assistance, but when money was taken from the budget for other purposes, primarily security, that was one of the first programs cut.

[April 07 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Fish Need Water... So Do Farmers: NO FISHING - On The Decimation Of The Klamath River Salmon

2006-04-07T11:25:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 07 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Fish Need Water... And So Do Farmers: NO FISHING - On The Decimation Of The Klamath River Salmon Population Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 9:49 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

[April 06 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Iraq: Is It Like The Savings And Loan Business, With A Penalty For Early Withdrawl?

2006-04-06T11:06:00.000-07:00

In The News, Related Links: News, Politics, Iraqi Government, Iraq Reconstruction, Iraq, Police Corruption In Venezuela, Venezuela, Soft Drinks and Benzine, Benzine, Cynthia McKinney, Capitol Police "All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 06 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Iraq: Is It Like The Savings And Loan Business, With A Penalty For Early Withdrawl? Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 8:24 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp

Fighting words for Bush: Founding Member Of Delta Force On The Current State Of The War In Iraq

2006-04-05T16:13:00.000-07:00

For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

'Unit's' Military expert has fighting words for Bush By David Kronke, TV Critic U-Entertainment Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings. Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us. We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit." Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq? A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward. We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies. Q: What is the cost to our country? A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on. Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela. The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing. Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ... A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does. I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away. Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ... A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do. THE UNIT What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit. Where: CBS (Channel 2). When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays. --- David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com Related Tags: Eric Haney, Delta Force, The Unit, War On Iraq, Iraq, Utter Debacle, Internecine War, Third World War

[April 05 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Global Warming: We've Been Living The Equivalent Of A Spring Day Since WWI, Summer's Coming

2006-04-05T11:05:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 05 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Global Warming 411: We've Been Living In The Equivalent Of A Balmy Spring Day Since WWI, And Now Comes Summer Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 128Kbps 10:26 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Related Tags: California, California Levees, Levees, Global Warming, Environment, Pedophilia, Senator Mary Landrieu, Immigration, Immigration Reform, Somalia, Pirates, War On Iraq, War

[April 04 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Ask "Who Said So?" - On The Potential Deportation Of 12 Million People

2006-04-04T11:39:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 04 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: A Good Way To Determine What's Really Happening Is To Ask "Who Said So?" - On The Potential Deportation Of 12 Million People Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 10:14 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News Immigration

[April 03 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Comedians Appear The Way Cicadas Happen... Every So Often In A Naturally Occurring Cycle

2006-04-03T15:22:00.000-07:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [April 03 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Comedians Appear In Society The Way Cicadas Happen... Every So Many Years In A Naturally Occurring Cycle Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 8:16 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

The Foxes Eye the Henhouse: Wolfowitz looks at opening World Bank Iraq office - Reuters

2006-04-02T20:00:00.000-07:00

Wolfowitz looks at opening World Bank Iraq office Sun Apr 2, 2006 6:56 PM ET By Lesley Wroughton WASHINGTON (Reuters) - World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is considering expanding bank operations in Iraq, which would put his agency at the center of rebuilding from a war he helped plan as the Pentagon's former No. 2 official. Senior bank officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no final decision had been made, said key donor countries including Britain, Japan, Germany and Denmark are pressuring Wolfowitz to establish a Baghdad office. The development agency has not had a Iraq office since an August 19, 2003, bombing at U.N. headquarters in Iraq killed a bank employee. A consultant, with a staff of seven Iraqis, is paid by the World Bank looks after its affairs in Iraq. No World Bank staff would be forced to accept an Iraq assignment, the officials said. In recent weeks, Wolfowitz sent a fact-finding mission to Iraq, and he was now examining security matters and several reconstruction-related issues, officials said. The possibility of a new World Bank office revives attention to Wolfowitz's role as an architect of the Iraq war. Many critics have accused the Bush administration and the Pentagon in particular of failing to plan for a post-invasion Iraq, as violence rages three years after Saddam Hussein's ouster. Michael O'Hanlon, a reconstruction expert at Washington's Brookings Institute, said Wolfowitz's history with Iraq "complicates everything." "He is a very smart man," O'Hanlon said, "but he is also obviously very controversial in his basic support of the Iraq invasion." Wolfowitz's predecessor as World Bank president, Jim Wolfensohn, resisted pressure from U.S. lawmakers to return bank reconstruction experts to Iraq after the 2003 bombing. Since the attack, the World Bank has operated from an office in neighboring Amman, Jordan. However, Iraqi officials have complained about the burden of traveling to Amman to consult with the World Bank. In December, Barham Salah, a Kurdish leader, wrote to Wolfowitz urging the bank's full engagement in rebuilding. "Reconstruction is an important part of the World Bank's mission -- from Bosnia and Afghanistan to Liberia and Iraq," a senior World Bank official told Reuters. "The objectivity the World Bank brings is greatly valued by donors from around the world, as well as host governments." DONOR PRESSURE U.N. representatives recently met Wolfowitz and urged the bank to help with Iraq's major problems of financial management and civil-service reform. "There has been a need for the bank to be in Iraq," said James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at Rand Corp.. He said, however, the violence in Iraq could limit bank activities. Other analysts note that the U.S. State Department is winding down its $20 billion Iraq reconstruction program, which focused on large electricity and water projects that have failed to deliver desired results. O'Hanlon said the bank could offer a "fresh set of eyes," act as an independent broker and generate much-needed employment for Iraqis. Experts estimate the cost of resuming an expatriate mission in Baghdad at around $1 million a year. "It's not too soon to go into Iraq, but the security issue is extremely serious," a bank official working on reconstruction projects noted. Others note that if the World Bank expands its presence in Iraq, more international agencies and donor countries would be encouraged to follow. Related Tags: Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank, Iraq Economics, War On Iraq, Jim Wolfensohn, Barham Salah, Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institute, International Security and Defense Policy Center, Iraq Reconstruction

News from Airstrip-1 (Orwell, 1984): British Government in secret talks about strike against Iran - telegraph.co.uk

2006-04-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

Click to enlarge

Government in secret talks about strike against Iran By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 02/04/2006)

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options - including the use of force - remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.

Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran's air defence systems at the nuclear installations.

That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

It is understood that any direct British involvement in an attack would be limited but may extend to the use of the RAF's highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.

At the centre of the crisis is Washington's fear that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region, such as the American air base at Incirlik in Turkey.

The UN also believes that the production of a bomb could also lead to further destabilisation in the Middle East, which would result in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia all developing nuclear weapons programmes.

A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.

"Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked."

The source said that the Israeli attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 proved that a limited operation was the best military option.

The Israeli air force launched raids against the plant, which intelligence suggested was being used to develop a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.

Military chiefs also plan tomorrow to discuss fears that an attack within Iran will "unhinge" southern Iraq - where British troops are based - an area mainly populated by Shia Muslims who have strong political and religious links to Iran.

They are concerned that this could delay any withdrawal of troops this year or next. There could also be consequences for British and US troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.

The MoD meeting will address the economic issues that could arise if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president - who became the subject of international condemnation last year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - cuts off oil supplies to the West in reprisal.

There are thought to be at least eight known sites within Iran involved in the production of nuclear materials, although it is generally accepted that there are many more secret installations.

Iran has successfully tested a Fajr-3 missile that can reach Israel, avoiding radar and hitting several targets using multiple warheads, its military has confirmed.

21 March 2006: Bush warns Iran: don't touch our ally Israel

14 March 2006: Bush ready to initiate 'regime change' for the mullahs

Vietnam All Over Again -Hartford (Connecticut USA) Advocate

2006-04-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

As was reported worldwide, but very poorly here, Griffin was an exemplary soldier with eight years experience with the Parachute Regiment and the SAS, having served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Macedonia. The 28-year-old told a military review board that he refused to go back to Iraq and fight because U.S. troops treated all Iraqis as ¨untermenschen,¨ the term that Nazis used to describe the races they thought were inferior. Griffin went on to say that the American military´s ¨gung-ho and trigger-happy mentality¨ meant that it was impossible for the coalition forces to ever win the trust of Iraqis. ¨I did not join the British army to conduct American foreign policy,¨ he said.

Observer: Vietnam All Over Again The news from Iraq of U.S.-led atrocities, body counts and claims of progress have an all-too familiar ring by Alistair Highet - March 30, 2006 The British army´s Special Air Service, better known as the SAS, is not full of cowards. It was founded in 1941 during World War II to drive around in the desert and blow up things German, and its members have been parachuting into danger ever since. The SAS was almost unheard of until 1980, when Prime Minister Thatcher ordered an assault on the Iranian embassy in London, where six Iranian terrorists had taken 24 hostages. Few of us have seen anything quite like it -- troopers in black, swinging in the windows on ropes with guns blazing, all live on the BBC. The hostage-takers were killed or captured with the loss of only one hostage, and the prestige of the SAS has been high ever since. My point is that these guys are the toughest soldiers produced by perhaps the most professional of modern armies, and so it is worth taking special note of an underreported story of recent weeks the refusal of SAS soldier Ben Griffin to fight in Iraq, and more astonishingly, the fact that his superiors have accepted his explanation that he shouldn´t have to fight because he has witnessed ¨dozens of illegal acts¨ by U.S. troops during his time in Iraq. As was reported worldwide, but very poorly here, Griffin was an exemplary soldier with eight years experience with the Parachute Regiment and the SAS, having served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Macedonia. The 28-year-old told a military review board that he refused to go back to Iraq and fight because U.S. troops treated all Iraqis as ¨untermenschen,¨ the term that Nazis used to describe the races they thought were inferior. Griffin went on to say that the American military´s ¨gung-ho and trigger-happy mentality¨ meant that it was impossible for the coalition forces to ever win the trust of Iraqis. ¨I did not join the British army to conduct American foreign policy,¨ he said. Apparently, Griffin expected to be court-martialed. Instead, he was discharged from the army, and described by the tribunal hearing his case as a ¨balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions.¨ Let me spell out what this means explicitly. This means that the British army is basically saying, ¨We agree with this guy, this war is being conducted badly, and we shouldn´t have to fight it alongside the Americans.¨ Though it is unclear what ¨illegal¨ acts Griffin is referring to, there are have been several recent reports of atrocities committed by U.S. troops. I refer you to the full account of one in Time magazine´s article, ¨One Morning in Haditha,¨ filed on March 19, in which eyewitnesses claim that U.S. Marines, upset after a colleague was killed by a roadside bomb, ran into a series of houses killing 23 people, 15 of whom were clearly civilians, including women. Nine-year-old Eman Waleed told Time that the Marines entered her living room while her family was still in their nightclothes. ¨I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest then in the head. Then they killed my granny.¨ Initially, the U.S. military claimed the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb until confronted with Time ´s information, which included testimony from doctors who saw the bodies in the hospital and confirmed that the civilians were ¨shot in the chest and the head from close range.¨ This should be ringing a bell. My Lai anyone? Young men in wartime, heavily armed and frightened, do terrible things. That was one of the lessons of Vietnam that we thought we had learned. Rent the documentary Winter Soldier , a recently re-released series of interviews with young vets from 1971 if you want to be reminded civilians thrown out of helicopters, women and children killed by confused 19-year-olds looking for payback. Even the jokes from Vietnam seems to be making a comeback. When soldiers in Vietnam were asked how could they tell if someone they killed was VC, they replied, ¨Because he´s dead.¨ When I read Time's account of the action in Haditha, I felt a chill when I learned that five of those killed by the marines are classified as ¨enemy fighters.¨ Are they enemy fighters because they´re dead? More pressing questions need to be raised about the way this country is conducting the war in Iraq, and those questions shouldn´t have to come from Britain. Send comments to: editor@hartfordadvocate.com Related Tags: War On Iraq, Vietnam, SAS, Genocide, Government Disinformation, Ben Griffin, "One Morning in Haditha", Haditha

A New Definition Of The Term 'Sick Fuck': Askimet Spam Control Flags Comment Posting To 'Activist Releases Song/Rachel Corrie'

2006-04-01T17:02:00.000-08:00

My blogging on Billy Bragg/Rachel Corrie: [HERE]

A new definition of the phrase “Sick Fuck”.

This was caught by askimet spam control and I’m posting it as a object lesson in the kind of blind and unmitigated hatred that exists in the world today.

Name: Why Palestinians Get It Wrong | E-mail: palestiniansgetitwrong@yahoo.com | URI: http://whypalestiniansgetitwrong.blogspot.com/ | IP: 69.22.238.4 | Date: March 30, 2006

Rachel Pancake Corrie lived and died a terrorist. Shame she chose death by bulldozer.

#33#

Feel free to email & post to this person’s blog with your opinions.

Comment by Leigh 04.01.06 @ 4:29 pm

BMOC (Big Man On Campus): Taliban Man at Yale - Opinion Journal, WSJ.com

2006-04-01T16:02:00.000-08:00

Wiseguy!

The day after the New York Times profile appeared, Haym Benaroya, a professor at Rutgers, wrote to Mr. Shaw expressing disbelief that Mr. Hashemi, who has a fourth-grade education and a high school equivalency certificate, could be at Yale. Mr. Shaw replied that he indeed had “non-traditional roots [and] very little formal education but personal accomplishments that had significant impact.”

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL Taliban Man at Yale The story thus far. Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last month Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard; today Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi will speak by video to a conference at Columbia University that his regime is cosponsoring. (Columbia won't answer questions about how much funding it got from Libya or what implied strings were attached.) Then there's Yale, which for three weeks has refused to make any comment or defense beyond a vague 144-word statement about its decision to admit Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi--a former ambassador-at-large of the murderous Afghan Taliban--as a special student. The three backers of the foundation that, along with Yale, is subsidizing Mr. Hashemi's tuition have told the Yale Daily News that they are withdrawing their support. But the university remains mute and paralyzed. "The intelligentsia haven't told Yalies what to think yet, because even they haven't made up their minds," says Daniel Gelernter, a Yale freshman whose father is a Yale professor. He clearly has: He calls the Taliban "an evil and macabre terrorist group. . . . The fact that Hashemi didn't do actual killing does not absolve him. Goebbels didn't shoot anyone either." Universities are places where free inquiry, debate and information sharing are supposed to be guiding lights. In reality, the ivory towers too often now resemble dark castles, which raise their drawbridges at the first hint of criticism or scrutiny. Never has the moat separating elite universities from the rest of America been wider than in the case of Yale's Taliban Man. In justifying its grant of a place to Mr. Hashemi, Yale has cited his approval by the State Department. And Yale's sole official statement says it hopes "his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts that led to the creation of the Taliban and to its fall. . . . Universities are places that must strive to increase understanding." That justification is unsettling to two women who will join voices at Yale tonight. Natalie Healy lost her Navy SEAL son Dan in Afghanistan last year when a Taliban rocket hit his helicopter. Ms. Healy, who notes that her son had four children of his own, is appalled at Yale's new student. "Lots of people could benefit from a Yale education, so why reward this man who was part of the group that killed Dan?" she told me. "I want to tell [Yale President] Richard Levin that his not allowing ROTC on campus is one thing, but welcoming a former member of the Taliban is deeply insulting to families who have children fighting them right now." Ten days ago Ms. Healy met Malalai Joya, a member of Afghanistan's parliament, when she spoke near her home in Exeter, N.H. Tonight, Ms. Joya will speak at Yale on behalf of the Afghan Women's Mission. She is appalled that many people have forgotten the crimes of the Taliban, and was surprised to hear that Mr. Hashemi, who, like her, is 27 years old, is attending Yale. "He should apologize to my people and expose what he and others did under the Taliban," she told me. "He knew very well what criminal acts they committed; he was not too young to know. It would be better if he faced a court of justice than be a student at Yale University." Mr. Hashemi probably won't be attending Ms. Joya's lecture tonight. He has dodged reporters for three weeks, ever since his presence at Yale was revealed in a cover story in the New York Times Magazine. Some claim he has fully repented his Taliban past, but in his sole recent interview--with the Times of London--he acknowledged he'd done poorly in his class "Terrorism: Past, Present and Future," attributing that to his disgust with the textbooks: "They would say the Taliban were the same as al Qaeda." At the same time, Mr. Hashemi won't explain an essay he wrote late last year in which he called Israel "an American al Qaeda" aimed at the Arab world. When asked about the Taliban's public executions in Kabul's soccer stadium, he quipped: "There were also executions happening in Texas." Given his record as a Taliban apologist, Mr. Hashemi has told friends he is stunned Yale didn't look more closely into his curriculum vitae. "I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay," he told the New York Times. So how did he end up in the Ivy League? Questions start at the State Department's door. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's border security panel, has asked the State Department and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to explain exactly how Mr. Hashemi got an F-1 student visa. Yale's decision tree is clearer. Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions until he took the same post at Stanford last year, told the New York Times that Yale had another foreigner of Mr. Hashemi's caliber apply but "we lost him to Harvard" and "I didn't want that to happen again." Mr. Shaw won't return phone calls now, but emails he's exchanged with others offer insights into his thinking. The day after the New York Times profile appeared, Haym Benaroya, a professor at Rutgers, wrote to Mr. Shaw expressing disbelief that Mr. Hashemi, who has a fourth-grade education and a high school equivalency certificate, could be at Yale. Mr. Shaw replied that he indeed had "non-traditional roots [and] very little formal education but personal accomplishments that had significant impact." Mr. Benaroya was stupefied; did Mr. Shaw mean accomplishments that had a "positive impact, not terroristic and totalitarian impact"? Mr. Shaw responded: "Correct, and potential to make a positive difference in seeking ways towards peace and democracy. An education is a way toward understanding the complex nuances of world politics." Back in the early 1990s, when he was dean of Yale College, Yale history professor Don Kagan warned about what he called the university's "mutual massage" between value-neutral professors and soft-minded students. He is even more critical now: "The range of debate on campus is more narrow than ever today, and the Taliban incident is a wake-up call that moral relativism is totally unexamined here. The ability of students to even think clearly about patriotism and values is being undermined by faculty members who believe that at heart every problem has a U.S. origin." Mr. Kagan isn't optimistic that Yale will respond to outside pressure. "They have a $15 billion endowment, and I know Yale's governing board is handpicked to lick the boots of the president," he told me. "The only way Yale officials can be embarrassed is if a major donor publicly declares he is no longer giving to them. Otherwise, they simply don't care what the outside world thinks." But there may be one other source of worry for Yale. Mr. Hashemi told the New York Times that he will apply next month for sophomore status in Yale's full-degree program starting next fall. An admissions official told me Yale's plan all along was to do just that if his grades were acceptable. But next week, Yale will mail out 19,300 rejection letters to those who applied to be in its class of 2010. "I can't imagine it'll be easy for Yale to convince those it rejects that the Taliban student isn't taking a place they could have had," a former Yale administrator told me. Former Yale president Benno Schmidt says admitting Mr. Hashemi is an exercise in "amorality and cynicism." He told me that "diversity simply cannot be allowed to trump all moral considerations." It's not as if Yale can't muster moral indignation. Yale is divesting from Sudan, responding to pressure from student activists and labor unions. But when it comes to a former Taliban official, there is a desire to move on. A case in point is Amy Aaland, executive director of Yale's Slifka Center for Jewish Life, where Mr. Hashemi takes his meals (Kosher complies with Islamic dietary laws). When I asked her if any of the revelations about his past disturb her, she noted that he was "very, very young" when he had been a Taliban official, and that "it's not like the Taliban attacked this country." I asked about the Taliban's decree in May 2001 that all non-Muslims--chiefly Hindus--had to wear yellow badges. The order, reminiscent of the Nazis, was met with global censure. A reporter then in Kabul recalls Mr. Hashemi had no trouble defending the decree as a protection for minorities against punishment by the religious police "until I pointed out it also required non-Muslims to move out of housing they shared with Muslims within three days; he didn't have a coherent response to that." Ms. Aaland absorbed all that I told her, and replied: "I don't expect learning to happen overnight." She still thought that "just living here, [Mr. Hashemi] can learn values and ideals from our society." There is a line beyond which tolerance and political correctness become willful blindness. Eli Muller, a reporter for the Yale Daily News, was stunned back in 2000 when the lies of another Taliban spokesman who visited Yale "went nearly unchallenged." He concluded that the "moral overconfidence of Yale students makes them subject to manipulation by people who are genuinely evil." Today, you can say that about more than just some naïve students. You can add the administrators who abdicated their moral responsibility and admitted Mr. Hashemi. Related Tags: Taliban, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, Yale, Malalai Joya, Terrorism, Afghanistan, War On Terror, War On Afghanistan, al Qaeda

Noam Chomsky on Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy - DemocracyNow!

2006-04-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

Audio & Video available onsite Friday, March 31st, 2006 EXCLUSIVE...Noam Chomsky on Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: In this first broadcast interview upon publication of his book, Professor Noam Chomsky joins us today from Boston for the hour. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Noam. NOAM CHOMSKY: Glad to be with you again. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Failed States, what do you mean? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, over the years there have been a series of concepts developed to justify the use of force in international affairs for a long period. It was possible to justify it on the pretext, which usually turned out to have very little substance, that the U.S. was defending itself against the communist menace. By the 1980s, that was wearing pretty thin. The Reagan administration concocted a new category: terrorist states. They declared a war on terror as soon as they entered office in the early 1980s, 1981. ‘We have to defend ourselves from the plague of the modern age, return to barbarism, the evil scourge of terrorism,’ and so on, and particularly state-directed international terrorism. A few years later -- this is Clinton -- Clinton devised the concept of rogue states. ‘It’s 1994, we have to defend ourselves from rogue states.’ Then, later on came the failed states, which either threaten our security, like Iraq, or require our intervention in order to save them, like Haiti, often devastating them in the process. In each case, the terms have been pretty hard to sustain, because it's been difficult to overlook the fact that under any, even the most conservative characterization of these notions -- let's say U.S. law -- the United States fits fairly well into the category, as has often been recognized. By now, for example, the category -- even in the Clinton years, leading scholars, Samuel Huntington and others, observed that -- in the major journals, Foreign Affairs -- that in most of the world, much of the world, the United States is regarded as the leading rogue state and the greatest threat to their existence. By now, a couple of years later, Bush years, same journals’ leading specialists don't even report international opinion. They just describe it as a fact that the United States has become a leading rogue state. Surely, it's a terrorist state under its own definition of international terrorism, not only carrying out violent terrorist acts and supporting them, but even radically violating the so-called "Bush Doctrine," that a state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state. Undoubtedly, the U.S. harbors leading international terrorists, people described by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department as leading terrorists, like Orlando Bosch, now Posada Carriles, not to speak of those who actually implement state terrorism. And I think the same is true of the category “failed states.” The U.S. increasingly has taken on the characteristics of what we describe as failed states. In the respects that one mentioned, and also, another critical respect, namely the -- what is sometimes called a democratic deficit, that is, a substantial gap between public policy and public opinion. So those suggestions that you just read off, Amy, those are actually not mine. Those are pretty conservative suggestions. They are the opinion of the majority of the American population, in fact, an overwhelming majority. And to propose those suggestions is to simply take democracy seriously. It's interesting that on these examples that you've read and many others, there is an enormous gap between public policy and public opinion. The proposals, the general attitudes of the public, which are pretty well studied, are -- both political parties are, on most of these issues, well to the right of the population. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Professor Chomsky, in the early parts of the book, especially on the issue of the one characteristic of a failed state, which is its increasing failure to protect its own citizens, you lay out a pretty comprehensive look at what the, especially in the Bush years, the war on terrorism has meant in terms of protecting the American people. And you lay out clearly, especially since the war, the invasion of Iraq, that terrorist, major terrorist action and activity around the world has increased substantially. And also, you talk about the dangers of a possible nuclear -- nuclear weapons being used against the United States. Could you expand on that a little bit? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there has been a very serious threat of nuclear war. It's not -- unfortunately, it's not much discussed among the public. But if you look at the literature of strategic analysts and so on, they're extremely concerned. And they describe particularly the Bush administration aggressive militarism as carrying an “appreciable risk of ultimate doom,” to quote one, “apocalypse soon,” to quote Robert McNamara and many others. And there's good reasons for it, I mean, which could explain, and they explain. That's been expanded by the Bush administration consciously, not because they want nuclear war, but it's just not a high priority. So the rapid expansion of offensive U.S. military capacity, including the militarization of space, which is the U.S.'s pursuit alone. The world has been trying very hard to block it. 95% of the expenditures now are from the U.S., and they're expanding. [MORE] Related Tags: Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, Failed States, International Affairs, Terrorist States, Terrorism, International Terrorists, U.S. Foreign Policy, Nuclear War, Nuclear Proliferation

Wesley Clark KNOWS... Terror: Clark: U.S. Needs New Plan on Terror War - ABC News

2006-04-01T13:30:00.000-08:00

After all, and for all intents and purposes, Wesley Clark WAS Osama bin Laden's Commanding officer when Clark was the head of NATO ops in the former Yugoslavia, and UBL was recruiting soldiers for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which fought side by side with NATO forces. Hence Wesley Clark's SECRET testimony in the war crime "show trials that followed. Wouldn't want that little factoid spread too widely during a U.S. election year! Leigh

Domestically, he cited several challenges, including: "...illegal immigration" ABC News Clark: U.S. Needs New Plan on Terror War Clark Accuses Bush Admin. of Misguided Moves on Security, Says New Plan Needed on Terror War By DONNA CASSATA The Associated Press WASHINGTON - Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark accused the Bush administration Saturday of taking the nation on a "path to nowhere" with misguided moves on national security. The retired Army general and NATO military commander argued in the Democrats' weekly radio address that the United States needs a new plan to win the war on terror after failing to find Sept. 11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq and stumbling in halting weapons proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Clark coupled his criticism of President Bush's policies with a renewed call for the Democratic plan on national security that party leaders unveiled this week. Portrayed by opponents as weak on national security, Democrats contend that they've cut into the Republican advantage in this midterm-election year based on White House missteps on Iraq and ports security. "This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast. A candidate in 2004 for the Democratic nomination, Clark has been mentioned as a possible contender again in 2008. The administration "has shown tragic incompetence in everything from nation building in Iraq to disaster relief in Louisiana," he said. "Let's face it: We're not going to win the war on terror unless we start making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and we're not going to be able to protect the American people without a new strategy." Clark joined House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday in calling for a strategy that would provide U.S. agents with the resources to pursue bin Laden, redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, better equipment for the military and improved screening of containers and inbound cargo. They amount to many of the proposals that Democrats have offered previously. "Security is the first promise of any government, and Democrats mean to help deliver it," Clark said. He argued that the nation "is in danger from the administration's mistaken policies and priorities." Clark offered a litany of missteps, from the failure to get bin Laden to the more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the thousands wounded. Domestically, he cited several challenges, including rising gasoline prices, illegal immigration and the impact of global warming. Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration, Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden, Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, Wesley Clark's SECRET testimony, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia, Terror War, Terrorism, NATO, N.A.T.O.,

Bush told repeatedly that aluminum tubes were not for building a nuclear weapon - Mother Jones

2006-03-31T13:44:00.000-08:00

Mother Jones:

Bush told repeatedly that aluminum tubes were not for building a nuclear weapon

In October of 2002, a National Security Estimate summary called a President's Summary, was written specifically for George W. Bush. In that document, Bush was told that despite the buzz that Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

This memo, however, did not stop Bush from announcing, three months later, in the State of the Union speech, that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes in order to build a nuclear weapon. Later that year, when then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley did a review of documents, and discovered the President's Summary, Karl Rove gathered White House aides together and explained that it would look bad if the American people knew that Bush had been advised that the aluminum tubes were probably harmless.

Hadley was reviewing classified records because of statements made by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson that Bush's claims about the uranium were not true. George Tenet, who was CIA director at the time, took the blame for the gaffe in the State of the Union address, saying his staff had failed to warn Bush that the uranium claims might not be true. However, two weeks before Bush was given the President's Summary, Tenet had already told him that both the Department of State and the Department of Energy had doubts about the tubes, and that the CIA was also doubtful. In addition, Bush was advised that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts about the aluminum tubes, also.

Bush clearly knew he was not being accurate when he implied that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon. The State Department knew he was not being accurate. The Department of Energy knew he was not being accurate. The CIA knew he was not being accurate. They all made a circle around him, but eventually, there could not be enough protection for so great an instance of misleading the American people.

For a detailed looked at the history of the memo and everything surrounding it, you may read the complete report in National Journal.

Posted by Diane E. Dees on 03/30/06 at 08:24 PM Technorati Tags: High Strength Aluminum Tubes, National Security Estimate, Stephen Hadley, Government Disinformation, Joseph C. Wilson, George Tenet,

Surveillance in the sky: Homeland Security wants aerial drones with cameras - PoliTech

2006-03-31T12:55:00.000-08:00

"According to the Congressional Research Service, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been referred to in many ways: remotely piloted vehicle, drone, robot plane, and pilotless aircraft are a few such names. UAVs, which may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or be as small as a radio-controlled model airplane,"

POLITECH DIGEST Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh http://www.mccullagh.org/ Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:42:00 -0800 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: [Politech] Surveillance in the sky: Homeland Security wants aerial drones with cameras [priv] To: Politech Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have long been used over Iraq and Afghanistan. Now local police and Homeland Security want to use them in the U.S. for aerial surveillance. This raises two interesting issues: privacy and safety. The privacy one is familiar to Politech readers. If you have a fleet of UAVs overhead on a clear day, they could track when your car leaves your driveway, where you go, who you visit, how long you stay, how fast you drive, and add all that data to a massive information store that could be available to any Fed for the asking. (Networked terrestrial cameras and facecams raise essentially the same issue.) The safety issue involves sharing airspace with pilots carrying passengers. News coverage: http://news.com.com/Drone+aircraft+may+prowl+U.S.+skies/2100-11746_3-6055658.html Photos of UAVs: http://news.com.com/2300-11397_3-6055507.html The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's writeup of a North Carolina county's use of an UAV for monitoring its citizens: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060215uav.html Summary of a House hearing on this today is below. -Declan --- http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html PURPOSE The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Unmanned Aerial Systems in the National Airspace System (NAS) and the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide safety oversight and air traffic control over these systems in the NAS. BACKGROUND According to the Congressional Research Service, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been referred to in many ways: remotely piloted vehicle, drone, robot plane, and pilotless aircraft are a few such names. UAVs, which may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or be as small as a radio-controlled model airplane, are defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as powered, aerial vehicles that * do not carry a human operator, * use aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, * can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, * can be expendable or recoverable, and * can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. There are two different types of UAVs: drones and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs). Both drones and RPVs are pilotless, but drones are programmed for autonomous flight. RPVs are actively flown — remotely — by a ground control operator. While historically UASs have been used primarily by the DOD in military settings outside of U.S. borders to enhance warfighting capabilities, there is growing demand to operate UAVs in the integrated NAS. In fact, Congress has repeatedly called for and funded programs to study and eventually mandate the use of UAVs in support of homeland security missions and for other purposes. Federal agencies, such as the Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and State and Local law enforcement agencies are interested in utilizing UAVs in the NAS. Public uses include border security, port security, surveillance, drug interdiction, search and rescue, fire fighting, and other law enforcement and homeland security initiatives. Some of these activities are taking place today; for instance, the CBP conducts UAV surveillance operations along the Nation’s southern border; a NASA-sponsored program has produced civilian UAVs to monitor pollution and measure ozone levels; and the Department of Energy is looking at UAVs outfitted with radiation sensors to detect potential nuclear reactor accidents. UAVs are also an emerging segment of the commercial aviation industry and commercial entities would like to be able to operate UAVs in the NAS. There are many possible commercial uses of UAVs. In fact, the FAA acknowledges that manufacturers and operators are conducting research on, or are designing, aircraft that could fill niche markets unimagined just a decade ago. According to the FAA, some of the research and development activities the commercial aviation industry already performs include supporting law enforcement, homeland security, firefighting, weather prediction and tracking activities. ROLE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION The FAA has sole authority over the safe and efficient use of the NAS. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of the civil airspace, including operations by the military, government, private pilots and commercial entities. To this end, the FAA must take appropriate actions to ensure the safety of the public, which includes the flying public, as well as people and property on the ground. Public Uses of the Civil Airspace - Certificate of Waiver or Authorization According to the FAA, when the military or a government agency wants to fly a UAV in civil airspace (outside of Special Use Airspace or Military Operation Areas which are “no fly” areas and therefore not integrated with other operators), the FAA examines the request and issues a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), generally based on the following principles: * The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace for a specified time (up to one year, in some cases) and includes special provisions unique to each operation. For instance, a COA may include a requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). * Most, if not all, COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic control facility and require the UAV to have a transponder able to operate in standard air traffic control mode with automatic altitude reporting. * To make sure the UAV will not interfere with other aircraft, a ground observer or an accompanying “chase” aircraft must maintain visual contact with the UAV. The COA process has made possible research and development efforts and provided a means to introduce UAVs into the air traffic system. This process has aided the FAA, other government agencies, and the UAV manufacturers in identifying potential safety issues. Identified issues, such as the ability to “detect, see and avoid” other traffic, need to be addressed through further technological advancements and additional research and development efforts. Currently, the COA process is not available to commercial entities. Public Uses of the Civil Airspace – Temporary Flight Restrictions In order to address a request by the CBP to conduct UAV operations along the southern border, the FAA established a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico. The approximately 300 nm-long, 17-nm wide in most places, corridor is to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Patrol UAV aircraft from colliding with other civilian aircraft. The TFR is in effect from 12,000 to 14,000 feet and is active from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. The TFR is scheduled to be in effect until December 31, 2006, and may be renewed next year. Commercial Uses of the Civil Airspace To address the increasing needs of the civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UAVs in the NAS, the FAA has set up a UAV office and is developing new policies, procedures and approval processes. The FAA anticipates having draft UAV guidance in two years. The approach is to have the appropriate level of oversight without being overly restrictive in the early stages. More immediately, the FAA is reviewing certification requests from several UAV manufacturers. The first airworthiness certificates in the “Experimental” category (for research and development, crew training, or market survey) were issued in 2005. RELATED ISSUES There are a number of other issues facing the FAA related to the emerging commercial UAV industry, including: Safety oversight: The FAA has identified two primary UAV safety issues that must be addressed for them to operate safely in the integrated civil airspace. * The need for proven UAV command and control redundancies should there be a disruption in communication or should the operator lose contact with the vehicle; and * The need for reliable “detect and avoid” capability so that UAVs can sense and avoid other aircraft. Short term: The use of COAs, experimental certificates and TFRs are intended to be temporary fixes. As it stands today, the lack of UAV standards, operational procedures and regulations is problematic. The demand for UAV operations is growing, and the short-term safety processes put in place, while allowing the FAA to gather important operational data, are not feasible in the long-term. Permission to fly UAVs in the NAS typically takes 60-90 days and permission is often accompanied by operational restrictions. In addition, FAA regions are not always interpreting the existing regulations the same way, leading to inconsistent regulation and enforcement. The FAA, other government agencies, UAV manufacturers, and commercial aviation stakeholders must continue to look for innovative solutions to address the safety issues related to UAVs in the NAS. Long term: The FAA has asked RTCA, Inc., a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based recommendations for the agency on technical issues, to help develop UAV standards. RTCA will answer two key questions: How will UAVs handle command and control, and how will they detect and avoid other aircraft? Both of these questions are dependent upon the development of technology and operational procedures. In the long term, it must be demonstrated to the FAA that UAVs can operate at the equivalent level of safety as a manned aircraft. This process will take time. All the stakeholders, the FAA, DOD, DHS, other Government agencies, the NAS users, and the UAV industry must work together to achieve this safety goal. Research and Development Programs and ACCESS 5: Until recently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) sponsored a government-industry project called ACCESS 5. The project brought together NASA, the FAA, the DOD, the DHS and the UAV National Industry Team (UNITE) to integrate UAVs or Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) into the national civil airspace via a four-step process. The first two steps of that process were funded by NASA in the High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Remotely Operated Aircraft in the National Airspace System (HALE ROA in the NAS) project. The HALE ROA in the NAS project was established in 2004 to develop policies, procedures and technical standards to enable remotely or autonomously operated aircraft to fly reliably and routinely in civil airspace with an equivalent level of safety as planes flown by on-board pilots. The last two steps in Access 5 were not part of NASA's HALE ROA in the NAS project, and funding them was left dependent upon the success achieved in the first two steps. The HALE ROA in the NAS project was funded primarily by NASA's Aeronautics Mission Directorate, with a planned budget for steps one and two of about $103 million through fiscal year 2009, or about 75 percent of the project's estimated cost over that five-year period. Industry members of the Access 5 project were contributing funding, with roughly 75 percent of the project's funding from NASA and 25 percent from industry. Unfortunately for UAV research and development efforts, NASA has recently announced a comprehensive restructuring of its research programs. As such, Access 5 has been defunded and important UAV research and development work has stopped. To date, no other agency or entity has taken on, or agreed to, fund the project. International cooperation: The use of UAVs in the civil airspace is a global issue. The FAA and other Government agencies continue to work closely with their international counterparts to harmonize standards, policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Recreational Model Aircraft Appropriate oversight of model aircraft operations must be considered as the FAA and interested parties develop standards and regulations for the use of UAVs in the NAS. The term “model aircraft” is defined by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as a non-human-carrying device capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, not exceeding the limitations established in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, exclusively for recreation, sport, and/or competition activities. The AMA has been in existence since 1936, and is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote the development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity. The AMA coordinates with the FAA and self-polices the operation of model aircraft in AMA sanctioned events. Some of the operational requirements for AMA sanctioned activities include: * A maximum takeoff weight of a model aircraft, including fuel, is 55 pounds, except for those flown under the AMA Experimental Aircraft Rules; * Operations shall not take place higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator; * Yielding the right-of-way and avoiding flying in the proximity of full-scale aircraft and utilizing a spotter when appropriate; * Operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight; and * No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight. The AMA’s position is that model aircraft should not be included in the standards and regulations for UAVs, and that in establishing the definition of UAV, the focus should be on the purpose of the vehicle operation as opposed to the size or ability of the vehicle. Technorati Tags: Aerial Surveillance, Domestic Surveillance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, Homeland Security, Aerial Drones, National Airspace System, NAS, FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, remotely piloted vehicle, drone, robot plane, pilotless aircraft

Posada “a danger to the national security of the United States,” - Office of Immigration and Customs - Gramma/EFE

2006-03-31T12:29:00.000-08:00

Granma Posada “a danger to the national security of the United States,” states Office of Immigration and Customs MIAMI (U.S.A.), March 30 (EFE)—The United States is maintaining terrorist Luis Posada Carriles in jail because his release would represent a danger “to both the community and the national security of the United States,” according to an official document. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security explained to Posada Carriles in a letter – to which EFE had access today – the reasons for keeping him in custody in its detention center in El Paso, Texas. “Because of your long history of criminal activity and violence in which innocent civilians were killed, your release from detention would pose a danger to both the community and the national security of the United States,” the ICE noted in the letter. Last week, that same government agency informed the media that the extremist, accused of terrorism by Cuba and Venezuela, would continue to be detained, without specifying any reasons, and confirmed that it would continue to seek a third country for his deportation. Eduardo Soto, Posada Carriles’s lawyer, told EFE today it must be proven that his client is a “threat to the population of the United States.” Soto is to file a lawsuit in a Texas federal court for his client’s release. In the letter, the ICE says that Posada Carriles has a history of participation in criminal activities and of associating with individuals involved in that type of situation. He is also accused of “participating in violent actions that indicate contempt for public security and has a propensity to be associated with activities that represent a risk for the national security of the United States.” The ICE added that public information and “his own statements link him to the planning and coordination” of a series of bomb attacks on restaurants and hotels in Cuba. Likewise, it says that Posada Carriles, a native of Cuba with Venezuelan citizenship, was tried in Panama for crimes against the national security of that country, and was sentenced to prison, and that he escaped from a Venezuelan jail after an acquittal of charges against him was overturned in an appeal. “Your expertise in assuming false identities, your disregard of U.S. immigration laws, your history of escape and the presence of your pending extradition request demonstrate that you pose a significant risk of fleeing if released from custody,” the ICE letter said, according to an AFP cable likewise published on March 31. “Further, you have shown a cavalier attitude toward the impact your actions have had on the safety and well-being of persons and property,” the AFP quotes the letter as saying. Technorati Tags: Luis Posada Carriles, Terrorism, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Cuba, Venezuela

French Labor Law Reform Not Supported By Economic Evidence - CEPR

2006-03-31T11:34:00.000-08:00

See Also: Kick it Over! – The Rise of Post-Autistic Economics Sacramento Bee - March 31, 2006 The State News (MI) - March 31, 2006 CEPR French Labor Law Reform Not Supported By Economic Evidence By Mark Weisbrot Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC More than a million people in France have taken to the streets against their conservative government’s attempts to change the country’s labor law. Here in the United States, these strikes and protests are generally seen as another example of France’s inability to come to grips with the reality of “the global economy.” According to the conventional wisdom here, “Old Europe” is in need of serious economic reform. But will the reforms currently on the European political agenda actually help most Europeans? One of the recommended reforms is more “labor market flexibility.” This is an economist’s way of saying it should be easier to fire employees and there should be less generous public pensions and unemployment compensation, and lower payroll taxes. Lower wages and benefits attached to employment, as well as a reduced influence of unions also fall into this category. The French government has proposed to allow employers to fire employees under 26 years of age without having to show cause. To Americans this may seem strange, since employers under U.S. law are generally permitted to fire anyone without having to give a reason. But this is not the case in most other high-income countries, and even in many developing countries. The government claims that employers will hire more people if it is easier to get rid of them, and that therefore unemployment (especially among younger workers) will be reduced. But the available economic research provides little or no evidence for this argument.* For example, there is no relationship between the amount of employment protection in different countries and their unemployment rate. This is true generally for measures often portrayed as having a negative impact on employment: for example, unemployment compensation, national collective bargaining, or the percentage of union members. While it is true that France’s unemployment rate is relatively high (9.2 percent), there are a number of countries with high levels of labor market protections and low levels of unemployment: Austria (5.2 percent), Denmark (4.4 percent), Ireland (4.3 percent), the Netherlands (4.6 percent), and Norway (4.5 percent). This makes sense if we think about it in economic terms. First, it is not as though employers can’t fire people in France or elsewhere in Europe – they just have to show cause. They may prefer the American system, but if there are profitable opportunities for expansion, they will hire more workers. A country’s level of employment (and unemployment) generally has much more to do with the overall demand for the goods and services that its businesses produce, rather than the rules or benefits that affect individual employers. Why then is Europe’s unemployment currently higher (8.4 percent for the high-income countries of Europe) than that of the United States (4.8 percent)? One possibility is that the European Central Bank (ECB) has kept interest rates higher than it should have in recent years. As the U.S. economy slowed in 2001, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates aggressively (to one percent in 2003) and kept them low for three years into our current economic expansion. The ECB was slower to cut interest rates and has been raising them this year, despite relatively sluggish growth and inflation of only 2.3 percent. The idea that labor protections are the cause of European unemployment is part of an overall myth that Europeans would benefit from a more American-style economy. The U.S. economy is said to be more competitive, yet we are running a record trade deficit of more than 6 percent of GDP, and the European Union is running a trade surplus. The U.S. economy is supposedly more dynamic, but French productivity is actually higher than ours. Their public pensions, free tuition at universities, longer vacations (4-5 weeks as compared with 2 weeks here), state-sponsored day care, and other benefits are said to be unaffordable in a “global economy.” But since these were affordable in years past, there is no economic logic that would make them less so today, with productivity having grown – no matter what happens in India or China. French students and workers seem to have a better understanding of these economic issues than their political leaders. Hopefully, the wisdom of the crowd will prevail. *See “Unemployment and Labor Market Institutions” by Dean Baker, Andrew Glyn, David Howell, and John Schmitt. (2004). Center for Economic Policy Analysis. Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net Technorati Tags: French Students, French Labor Law Reform, French Labor, French Protest, French government, Europe’s Unemployment,

Western media: Shaping susceptible minds 24 7 365 - US Media Bias: Covering Israel/Palestine -Worldpress.org

2006-03-31T10:56:00.000-08:00

"Ticking bombs" are characterized as individuals that are an imminent physical threat to the state of Israel or people holding information that imminently threaten the security of the state of Israel. In most cases, such individuals are referred to as would-be suicide bombers or those holding valuable information on persons planning on carrying out a suicide bombing. Israel used this scenario in the past as an excuse to torture Palestinians with impunity. In a 1998 study on the "ticking bomb" scenario, B'Tselem found Israel's claim that it is necessary to use torture against "ticking bombs" was in most cases "totally unsubstantiated." The recent findings of Haaretz and B'Tselem profoundly call into question Israel's reliability on affairs in the Occupied Territories and reaffirm the notion that using only Israeli sources is careless and unacceptable.

Worldpress.org Commentary US Media Bias: Covering Israel/Palestine Remi Kanazi, New York, NY, March 30, 2006 On July 18, 2005, fourteen year old Ragheb al-Masri sat in the back of a taxi with his parents at the Abo Holi checkpoint. An Israeli bullet penetrated his back and cracked open his chest. His mother screamed as his body lay lifeless. Have you heard his name? I wouldn't expect that you have because CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post didn't report the killing online. If they had quoted his parents, their readers would have been able to feel their tears and envision the heartbreak. Ultimately, no Israeli soldier was arrested or even reprimanded. Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media. Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3,800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew — an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — conducted a study and reported 808 Palestinian conflict deaths and 107 Israelis conflict deaths. The study, however, found that The Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles — meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths — 334 of 808 — in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The Times is considered the quintessential "liberal" newspaper in the US. When Palestinian deaths occur, especially militant deaths, the Israeli government's version of the story is taken as fact in the mainstream US media. In most cases, articles covering Palestinian deaths only include Israeli quotes, without citing Palestinian witnesses and other credible non-governmental organization sources. This continues to be the case even after human rights groups have released reports stating Israel has indiscriminately shot at civilians, even using them as human shields. In as early as 2001, Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated, "At least 470 Palestinians have been killed, most of them unlawfully by Israeli security forces when their lives [Israeli Security Forces] and the lives of others were not in danger." Since the AI/HRW report, more than 3,350 Palestinians have been killed. It is remarkable how so many can accept the Israeli government as the sole, objective source when it forcibly occupies the Palestinian territories. On Aug. 25 the headline on CNN.com read, "Israel: Five Militants Shot in Raid." The article claims the militants were suspected of being involved with a suicide bombing; they were armed and exchanged fire with the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), and five Palestinians were shot. The report also mentioned the town, Netanya, where the suicide bombing referenced in the article took place, was a frequent site for suicide bombings. No Palestinian quote, no witnesses giving an alternative perspective, and no mention that three of the victims shot were under the age of 18. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, covered the same event including Palestinian quotes and some Palestinian claims. The paper reported that the IOF killed five Palestinians on Aug. 25, three of whom Palestinian sources claim to be between the ages of 14 and 17 with no known links to militant organizations. Four of the victims died at the scene, while one of the young victims died later that night. A number of Palestinian reporters cited witnesses claiming all five Palestinians were unarmed, including the two militants killed. This was the first fatal attack since the "disengagement" of the Gaza Strip. The contrast in coverage between CNN and Haaretz is staggering. The CNN headline was written in absolutes: "5 militants shot in raid." Their article continues by stating only the Israeli claim that five militants were killed, making the headline biased and misleading. The Haaretz headline read: "U.S. urges restraint after IDF raid that killed 5 Palestinians." This headline refers to the people who were shot as Palestinians and not solely as "militants." The Haaretz article covers conflicting Israeli and Palestinian claims, which made it impossible to determine whether or not all five killed were militants or civilians. On Sept. 7 the findings of a probe, conducted by Haaretz and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, found that three of the five Palestinians killed in the assault on Aug. 25 were under the age of 18 and did not have any links to known terrorist organizations. Their investigation also found that the two militants killed were low ranking operatives who were not armed at the time. This repudiates the Israeli claim that IOF soldiers were in the area involved in an operation against militant leaders and a "ticking bomb" with connection to suicide bombings in Israel. "Ticking bombs" are characterized as individuals that are an imminent physical threat to the state of Israel or people holding information that imminently threaten the security of the state of Israel. In most cases, such individuals are referred to as would-be suicide bombers or those holding valuable information on persons planning on carrying out a suicide bombing. Israel used this scenario in the past as an excuse to torture Palestinians with impunity. In a 1998 study on the "ticking bomb" scenario, B'Tselem found Israel's claim that it is necessary to use torture against "ticking bombs" was in most cases "totally unsubstantiated." The recent findings of Haaretz and B'Tselem profoundly call into question Israel's reliability on affairs in the Occupied Territories and reaffirm the notion that using only Israeli sources is careless and unacceptable. Israel professes it doesn't have the death penalty, but it has in the past and "maintains the right" in the future, to carry out extrajudicial assassinations of "wanted" Palestinians. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz admitted on Aug. 26 that Israel invaded and fired first in the incident that killed five Palestinians, while maintaining the notion that the militants — meaning all five killed — were armed. Again, Israel, the occupying force, reserves the "right" to play God with the lives of the Palestinian people. There are many examples of unarmed children and disabled Palestinians being injured or killed by Israeli forces. More than 875 women and children have died since the start of the conflict under the guise of security. Nearly 25 percent of the children killed were under the age of 12. Coincidence or Collusion? Why are "left wing" media outlets such as The New York Times and CNN not reporting the Palestinian side of the story? Well, the simple answer is The Times and CNN are not liberal, nor honest. They cover injustices only when there is no risk of backlash from readers and advertisers. The media moguls are only "aware" and objective when it pays them to be. CNN and The Times must vet their content, so as not to be viewed as "pro-Palestinian," in fear that advertisers will pull their ads or commercials, leading to a loss in revenue. Israel solidified itself as the strategic ally of the US in the Middle East after its victory in the Six Day War (1967 Arab/Israeli War). Israel was taken under the wing of the US, which saw its potential as a strategic, military, and political force. The rise of religious Zionism after 1967 and the subsequent call for the preservation of the Jewish homeland became relevant in America with the Jewish elite as well with Christian conservatives. Jewish historian, Norman Finkelstein, recalls in his book The Holocaust Industry, "Accordingly, American Jewish elites suddenly discovered Israel. After the 1967 war, Israel's military élan could be celebrated because its guns point in the right direction — against America's enemies." Finkelstein continued, "Now they [The Jewish elite] could pose as the natural interlocutors for America's newest strategic asset. From bit players, they could advance to top billing in the Cold War drama. Thus for American Jewry, as well as the United States, Israel became a strategic asset." As the years progressed, Israel claimed victory in the 1973 Ramadan War (Yom Kippur War) with the defining help of America. The mounting support for Israel as a war victor, a "democracy," and a capitalistic society settled well with Americans. 38 years after the Six-Day war, America sees an even stronger military and political ally in Israel, and the pro-Israeli lobby has made sure that the sense of Jewish victimization has never faltered. Finkelstein commented, "Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel and its own morally indefensible policies." The effectiveness of the pro-Israeli lobby hinges on the willingness of the US government to support Israel. According to the strongly pro-Israeli Web site, the Jewish Virtual Library, the US has given Israel nearly 50 billion dollars in aid from 1974 to 1997. If the US government didn't have significant interests in backing Israel, the pro-Israeli lobby would be less of a factor — much like the Palestinian lobby. Interestingly, the Jewish Lobby only supported Israel when it was in their interests to do so. Finkelstein noted, "The Holocaust industry sprung up only after Israel's overwhelming display of military dominance and flourished amid extreme Israeli triumphalism." The convergence of American and Israeli support found success in de-legitimizing the Palestinian cause. This consequently washed Israel's hands clean in US eyes of the atrocities committed throughout the Middle East — i.e. the invasion and indiscriminate bombing of Beirut in 1982 — and more directly to the Palestinian people through dispossession and occupation. Strikingly, the American media refuses to differentiate between the past suffering of the Jewish people and the suffering Israelis endure due to inept Israeli policy which has besieged the Palestinian people for 58 years. Consider the backlash professors at Colombia received because they were accused of promoting anti-Semitism. In reality Joseph Massad, one of the accused professors, and others simply critiqued the Israeli government. As a result, pro-Israeli groups like the David Project and Campus Watch tried to silence their right to free speech. Just as questioning the war in Iraq is "un-American," the idea of questioning Israeli actions is "anti-Semitic." Ridiculous assertions such as equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a way in which the pro-Israeli lobby restricts the media from criticizing Israel or fairly reporting matters. In a post-9/11 world, it has been much easier to side with mostly European Israelis, who look more like Americans, who love capitalism like Americans, and who are fighting "Arab terror" like Americans. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the media doesn't like to diverge from mainstream political correctness. If objectivity was the top priority of the media, they would not have dropped the ball in the coverage leading up to the war in Iraq. Even Bob Woodward of the "liberal" Washington Post admitted, "We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder." The media are corporate sponsored outlets that feed into the majority support at a time when the Palestinian lobby is virtually non-existent in America. The "biblical rights" of Jews and their suffering the Holocaust are exploited to reassert the status of victimization. Pro-Israeli advocates incorporate the notion that the Arabs are trying to "drive the Jews to the sea." But who would really push the American/Israeli agenda, besides those fearing backlash? The neoconservatives and Christian coalitions support Israel. The Pat Robertsons and the Billy Grahams. Neoconservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Best selling authors Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Friedman. Lobbying groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), and attack dogs such as Daniel Pipes and his cronies in Campus Watch. Fortune 500 companies such as Caterpillar, McDonalds, Disney and Starbucks, to name a few. But most damningly, it's the "liberals," that complete the majority support. Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, the honest broker himself — Bill Clinton, the heads of The Times, CNN and the rest of the "left wing" media that won't stand up for what's morally right. These people are too selfish or too weak to do what's right, and its "off with the heads" of those who do. The dilemma of the "free press" in America is that it isn't free. The media hinges on the support of the people, newspaper subscriptions, television viewership, advertisements, and the bottom line of their companies. We live in a capitalistic society run by corporate profits and essential year over year growth. I understand why The New York Times and CNN report the way they do. They are media hacks run by the corporate dollar. Injustice is injustice. Murder is murder. While Palestinian suffering goes on unreported, children like Ragheb Al-Masri remain dead and forgotten, and the American press remains biased. Technorati Tags: Media Bias, The Israel Lobby, Israel, Palestine, Suicide Bombing, Amnesty International, Haaretz, CNN, New York Times

The Economic Cost Of The Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After - Linda Bilmes (Harvard) & Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia)

2006-03-31T10:23:00.000-08:00

Consider, as an example, accounting for the value of the more than two thousand American soldiers who have died since the beginning of the war, and the more than sixteen thousand who have been wounded. The military may quantify the value of a life lost as the amount it pays in death benefits and life insurance to survivors œ which has recently been increased from $12,240 to $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $500,000 (life insurance). But in other areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the government values a life of a prime age male at around $6 million, so that the cost of the American soldiers who have already lost their lives adds up to around $12 billion
THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR: AN APPRAISAL THREE YEARS AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT Linda Bilmes Kennedy School, Harvard University And Joseph E. Stiglitz University Professor, Columbia University Page 1 Three years ago, as America was preparing to go to war in Iraq, there were few discussions of the likely costs. When Larry Lindsey, President Bush‘s economic adviser, suggested that they might reach $200 billion, there was a quick response from the White House: that number was a gross overestimation. 2 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq could —really finance its own reconstruction,“ apparently both underestimating what was required and the debt burden facing the country. Lindsey went on to say that —The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.“ 3 Many aspects of the Iraq venture have turned out differently from what was purported before the war: there were no weapons of mass destruction, no clear link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, no imminent danger that would warrant a pre-emptive war. Whether Americans were greeted as liberators or not, there is evidence that they are now viewed as occupiers. Stability has not been established. Clearly, the benefits of the War have been markedly different from those claimed. So too for the costs. It now appears that Lindsey was indeed wrong–by grossly underestimating the costs. Congress has already appropriated approximately $357 billion for military operations, reconstruction, embassy costs, enhanced security at US bases and foreign aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This total, which covers costs through the end of November 2005, includes $251bn for military operations in Iraq, $82bn for Afghanistan and $24bn for related foreign operations, such as reconstruction, embassy 1 Paper prepared for presentation at the ASSA meetings, Boston, January 2006. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors, and do not represent those of any institution with which they are currently affiliated, or with which they have been affiliated in the past. 2 OMB Director Mitch Daniels is reported to have said that Lindsey‘s estimates were —very, very high.“ Both he and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld estimated the costs in the range of $50-60bn, some of which they believed would be financed by other countries. 3 Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2002. Page 2 2 safety and base security. 4 These costs have been rising throughout the war. Since FY 2003, the monthly average cost of operations has risen from $4.4bn to $7.1 bn œ the costs of operations in Iraq have grown by nearly 20% since last year (whereas Afghanistan was 8% lower than last year). 5 The Congressional Budget Office has now estimated that in their central, mid-range scenario, the Iraq war will cost over $266 billion more in the next decade, putting the direct costs of the war in the range of $500 billion 6 These estimates, however, underestimate the War‘s true costs to America by a wide margin. In this paper, we attempt to provide a range of estimates for what those costs have been, and are likely to be. Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are. We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars. Providing even rough order of magnitude estimates of the costs turns out to be very difficult, for a number of reasons. There are standard problems in cost allocation; there are future costs associated with the Iraq war that are not included in the current calculations; there are marked differences between social costs and prices paid by the government (and it is only the latter which traditionally get reflected in the cost estimates); and there are macro-economic costs, associated both with the increase in the price of oil and the Iraq war expenditures. Consider, as an example, accounting for the value of the more than two thousand American soldiers who have died since the beginning of the war, and the more than sixteen thousand who have been wounded. The military may quantify the value of a life lost as the amount it pays in death benefits and life insurance to survivors œ which has recently been increased from $12,240 to $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $500,000 (life insurance). But in other areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the government values a life of a prime age male at around $6 million, so that the cost of the American soldiers who have already lost their lives adds up to around $12 billion 7 . The standard estimates of the death costs also omit the cost of the nearly one hundred American civilian contractors 8 and the four American journalists that have been killed in Iraq, as well as the cost of coalition soldiers, and non-American contractors working for US firms. 4 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, —The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Enhanced Base Security Since 9/11“, Amy Belasco, Defense Specialist, October 7, 2005. This covers funding in P.L.107- 117, 107-206, 1207-115,108-7,108-11,108-106,108-199,108-287,109-13,108-447, and the recent FY 2006 Continuing Resolution (109-77) which provides $45bn for the 6-week period starting 9/30/05. DOD will need additional funds to cover the rest of the year. 5 Ibid. 6 The CBO estimated costs for the period of 2005-2014 under three scenarios. The estimates were $179 bn, $266bn, and $392bn, respectively. We have conservatively used their middle scenario. CBO 2005. 7 Government agencies have estimated the value of a life at $6.1m (Environmental Protection Agency), and $5.5m (Department of Transportation). The value of a life for victims of 9/11 were estimated in a range from $2-$11million. 8 Although the actuarial value of those lives should, presumably, have been included in the contractors‘ bidprice when undertaking the contract. Page 3 Thru 36 [PDF HERE] Technorati Tags: Linda Bilmes, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Larry Lindsey, Paul Wolfowitz, True Cost Economics, Cost Of War, War On Iraq, Economics Of War

[March 31 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Due To Increasing Lifespans We're Seeing The McCarthy Era Again, And More Stupid Wars

2006-03-31T09:22:00.000-08:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now."

[March 31 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: I Figured It Out... Due To Increasing Lifespans In The U.S. We're Seeing The McCarthy Era Again, And More Stupid Wars

Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 7:03 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours

Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net

Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here

#33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp

Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

I'm Sure They 'Spiffy'd' It Up For Him: Judge gets execution site tour - San Jose Mercury News

2006-03-31T08:13:00.000-08:00

Fri, Mar. 31, 2006 Judge gets execution site tour SAN QUENTIN VISIT IS PRELUDE TO MAY DEATH PENALTY HEARING By Howard Mintz Mercury News SAN QUENTIN - With California's method of execution under siege, a San Jose federal judge on Thursday toured the state's death chamber and received an unprecedented tutorial on how a condemned inmate is put to death by a lethal progression of drugs. From stepping inside San Quentin's dimly lit execution chamber to probing a tray of syringes, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel's trip marked an unusual foray into the inner machinery of California's execution process. Fogel, accompanied by an entourage of lawyers and other officials, went to San Quentin on a fact-finding mission as he considers a death row inmate's claim that the state's lethal injection procedures amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The prison session included hours of testimony from the head of San Quentin's 13-member execution team, who provided a step-by-step description of every detail in the process of injecting a condemned inmate with three drugs. Reporters from the Mercury News and Sacramento Bee accompanied Fogel on the tour. The unique hearing is part of death row inmate Michael Morales' legal challenge to the state's lethal injection method, which he argues masks excruciating pain. Morales is one of a growing number of condemned inmates challenging lethal injection in states around the country, but his case may produce the most detailed courtroom examination of whether the method runs afoul of the Constitution's ban on ``cruel and unusual punishment.'' The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down an execution method. Morales, on death row for the 1981 rape and murder of a Lodi girl, narrowly avoided execution in February, when the state couldn't comply with Fogel's orders on how to allow the lethal injection to proceed. One of his orders would have required the state to have a doctor in the execution chamber, which provoked controversy in the medical community. Fogel has scheduled a two-day hearing in May to consider testimony from Morales' side and the state on the legality of California's death protocol, which is similar to many other states that use lethal injection. After the nearly four-hour prison tour, Morales' lawyers said they received a revealing glimpse into the inner workings of the execution chamber, where 13 inmates have been put to death since 1978. But they say the tour reinforced their view that the state's proposals to improve the lethal injection process have not solved the problems. One proposal would change the lethal injection procedure to give an inmate a larger, continuous dose of the sedative that is the first drug administered in an execution. The state then would also inject the inmate with a paralytic drug and a third drug to stop the heart. ``I think we have all the same problems we had before,'' said John Grele, one of three members of Morales' legal team to accompany Fogel. Morales' lawyers say the second and third drugs remain ``hazardous'' and ``painful'' and should be abandoned. State lawyers disputed Grele's characterization. ``I think he's wrong,'' said senior Deputy Attorney General Dane Gillette, who attended Thursday's tour. ``I think it was OK before and I think it's better now.'' Fogel peppered the execution team leader with a string of questions, primarily focused on clarifying how the drugs are administered. The judge did not give any indication where he stands on the current process but appeared particularly interested in how the new approach to keeping an inmate on a steady stream of sedatives would be handled. The team leader's identity is being kept a secret, and the official told Fogel on Thursday that no one at the prison is told who is on the execution squad. ``We don't talk about that,'' said the official, who has participated in nine executions. At one point, after touring the execution chamber, Fogel remarked to a court staff attorney: ``This has been very useful.'' The focal point of the tour was a peek behind the doors of the execution chamber, which is not ordinarily visible to witnesses to an execution. Inside a cramped anteroom, intravenous tubes tangle down from bags containing the drugs, which are injected into a panel one by one from syringes neatly arranged on a tray table. The drugs run from the panel into the tubes that snake into the execution chamber, where the tubes are attached to a condemned inmate's arms by licensed paramedics. The chamber retains vestiges from its use as a gas chamber, including the levers used to send lethal doses of gas inside. Lethal injection replaced the gas chamber as the state's chief method of execution in the mid-1990s. Fogel allowed reporters from the two publications to attend Thursday's prison tour over the objections of state officials who argued it would compromise the privacy and security of the execution team official testifying. Contact Howard Mintz at hmintz@mercurynews.com or (408) 286-0236. Technorati Tags: Prison Reform, Prison Industrial Complex, Gas Chamber, Lethal Injection, San Quentin,

Fish Stories & 'Red Herrings' Redux: Our Fake Immigration Crisis - Alternet

2006-03-30T15:17:00.000-08:00

Also See: [March 30 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Fishing Stories: Let Me Tell You About The BIGGEST ‘Red Herring’ To Ever Swim The Potomac - Immigration Reform

[March 27 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Immigration Reform - The Largest ‘Red Herring’ To Ever Swim The Potomac

Related Articles [HERE]

Our Fake Immigration Crisis By Robert Scheer, Truthdig Posted on March 30, 2006,

There is no immigration crisis — other than the one created by a small but vocal stripe of opportunist politicians, media demagogues and freelance xenophobes. So it has always been throughout the history of this country when anti-immigrant hysteria periodically reigns during low ebbs in our national sense of security and vision.

The script is as old as the Mayflower: A false alarm is sounded that the values, wages and safety of the current roster of credentialed Americans are jeopardized by the “flood” or “tidal wave” or “river” sneaking across our porous borders — be they Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Mexican or even the freed slaves seeking to earn an honest living in Northern cities after the Civil War. Any and all manner of societal problems are to be laid on these scapegoats, and the same simplistic solution offered: Find and deport them, and don’t let any more in.

Luckily, although it sometimes takes years or even decades, saner voices eventually prevail, acknowledging that the continued influx of immigrants has always fueled America’s astonishing economic and cultural rise ever since the original natives were bum-rushed off their turf. Immigration laws are liberalized, compromises are reached, amnesties are offered, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service bureaucracy grinds on.

Having intermittently covered this issue for the Los Angeles Times over 30 years, I can well recall the peaks of panic in which we reporters were dispatched to the border and out into the fields to witness the arrest of people desperate to find work — only to be embarrassed by the hunted eyes and clutched crosses of the enemy discovered.

Such frenzied attention was inevitably followed by a lull in which most Americans were quite happy to eat the food harvested by those same harassed and abused workers as well as entrusting the “illegals” with the care of American homes and children. On no other issue is there such an extreme disconnect between attitudes and actions.

When Wal-Mart was busted for hiring undocumented workers, did anybody boycott the company for it? Of course not; consumers value price and aren’t concerned, for the most part, about how a company accomplishes cheapness. If, however, people do really care about keeping all jobs open to American citizens, then there is only one effective strategy: Level the playing field by enforcing labor laws.

Some 2 million immigrant workers now earn less than the minimum wage and millions more work without the occupational safety, workers’ compensation, overtime pay and other protections legal status offers. Consequently, when the president says that immigrants perform work that legal residents are unwilling to do, he may be right — but we don’t know. The only way to test that hypothesis is to bring this black market labor pool above ground.

That approach has been tried in California with some success. José Millan, who until this year ran such an enforcement program as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s labor commissioner and before that for Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, told me that legalization of undocumented workers is essential to improving the situation for everybody.

“I am in favor of anything that brings these workers out of the shadows and into the sunlight; it’s very easy to exploit a population when they’re afraid,” Millan told me Monday. “We would be a better country if we recognized the fact that there are 10 million undocumented workers in our midst, and we would be better off if they were granted the benefits and responsibilities of a legal existence.”

This current xenophobia is no more warranted than it has been in the past. The number of claimed “illegal aliens” as a percentage of the population is clearly absorbable by the job market as our low unemployment rate demonstrates. Yet, the Republican Party and the Congress it dominates are currently teetering between driving undocumented workers further underground or taking a saner compromise approach.

The former, a draconian bill already passed by the House of Representatives, would legalize witch-hunts of undocumented workers, by reclassifying them as felons; their employers would be subject to a year or more in prison and punitive fines; as would even church and nonprofit organizations who offer succor to them.

Because employers are not trained to play cop, they will simply be driven to discriminate against job applicants based on “foreignness” determined by ethnicity or accent. The more reasonable alternative co-authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and embraced as the heart of the proposal adopted by the Judiciary Committee on Monday, shuns the criminalization of the undocumented, instead offering paths — albeit long, arduous and uncertain ones — to legal status for undocumented workers already here.

This is a moment of truth for America. It is time to acknowledge that we need the immigrant workers as much as they need us, and to begin to treat them with the respect they deserve.

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

Technorati Tags: Immigration, Immigration Reform, Emigration, Illegal Immigration, Illiegal Immigrants, Illegal Migration,

Bush, Blair had ‘no evidence’ of Iraq WMDs - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

2006-03-30T14:40:00.000-08:00

Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT Broadcast: 31/03/2006 Bush, Blair had ‘no evidence’ of Iraq WMDs: lawyer Reporter: Tony Jones TONY JONES: Phillipe Sands, thanks for being there. PHILIPPE SANDS, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER AND AUTHOR: Delighted to join you again. TONY JONES: Yes, indeed. It's extremely rare, isn't it, to get this kind of an insight of an extremely private, we should say secret meeting between two leaders preparing for a coming war. Tell us what you think are the main insights to be gained from the so-called White House memo? PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, I think there are two really crucial issues. Firstly, the memo of the meeting of 31 January, which has not been challenged - its authenticity hasn't been attacked in any way, the contents haven't been attacked - confirms the decision to go to war had already been taken by President Bush, in terms irrespective of whether or not there was a second resolution. And the British PM does not demur from that decision. Secondly but I think even more significantly, the memo effectively confirms that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think it's clear that the material indicates that both President Bush and the PM had a belief that there were weapons of mass destruction there but they didn't actually have any evidence. And that's why they engaged in the type of conversation that relates to putting up spy planes because they needed to do something to provoke some Iraqi reaction in order to justify, if you like, a second resolution. TONY JONES: I'll come to the detail of all of this in a moment. First, I've got to ask you, how were you able to verify that this memo is, in fact, the genuine article? As you say, it hasn't been denied by either of the two leaders but it hasn't been confirmed, either. PHILIPPE SANDS: Well the New York Times reported this past Monday and they've obviously been doing their own ferreting around two senior British officials, confirming the authenticity of the material. So there's independent verification. For my own part as an academic, I have to check my sources very carefully. As a member of the English bar I have to check that my facts are accurate and I satisfied myself and indeed nothing in the book has been challenged in relation to its accuracy. I think you can rely on it as accurate. TONY JONES: Well according to the memo, President Bush discusses three possible ways of provoking a confrontation within Iraq. What detail of those options is actually spelt out in what appears to be a five-page memo? PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, in my book, I've indicated some of the material and it's obviously a short memo of a meeting and so the detail that has now come into the public domain is about as detailed as it gets. It doesn't indicate, for example, how serious President Bush was about this idea of spy planes, whether any preparation was taken or indeed, whether it actually happened. It's floated, if you like, as an idea. I have to confess I was pretty surprised that even such an idea could be floated because it really brings back memories of what happened in Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin and so on and so forth. So it's very general material, but it's all completely consistent with the fact that a decision was taken and they really didn't have any material. And bear in mind, as your piece began, this was five days before Colin Powell was due to go to the Security Council and unveil the smoking gun, so to speak, and that fell as a damp squib. It's I think all very telling. TONY JONES: The second option pertains to that in some way, doesn't it? Because there was some thought to actually bringing out one of the Iraqi, one of the key Iraqi defectors who in the end were the very people who provided that false information to Colin Powell? PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, we now know that a lot of the material upon which various parts of the Bush Administration relied, came from selective and not well-tested people who came out of Iraq and indeed, some suggestions are that some of the material came from a serving foreign Mminister of Iraq. But we don't know anymore than the detail that's come into the public domain as to what precisely happened. So it's sketchy but it's accurate. TONY JONES: Yes, well the third option was to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Once again, no detail as to whether this was discussed seriously and it appears no response recorded from Prime Minister Blair. PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, in relation to that suggestion or that possibility, it's unclear from the material whether the suggestion was that any effort to assassinate would come from the US or the UK or from some other source. It might be interpreted simply as an expression of hope that someone would pop off Saddam Hussein and that would do the job. But what is very striking is that these ideas are floated by Bush and there's simply no reaction from the British PM. I have to say, personally, I found that rather dispiriting. There's no, "Hang on a second George, you can't be going down that line". It's all, "I'm solidly with you, Mr President". I think that raises serious questions. TONY JONES: At the beginning of the interview you seemed to throw some doubt over my next proposition but it did appear that the main reason for Tony Blair going into this meeting was for him to seek and to tell President Bush that without a second resolution, Britain at least would not be going to war. You're saying that's not so? PHILIPPE SANDS: I think it's clear from the memo that that is not so and the British Prime Minister's decision, his personal view - because it then had to go back to Parliament - I think was taken at that meeting on 31 January. "I'm solidly with you Mr President", is I think unequivocal. I think it is true to give the British PM full credit, is that he wanted a second resolution and he wanted a second resolution because he had been told by his lawyers at that point, although the situation subsequently changed, that he needed one. In the memo as I describe in the book and as the New York Times has now provided further information on, the reason for that in part is Tony Blair's view that a second resolution would provide an insurance policy - if things go belly-up, so to speak, we'll have Security Council backing and that will make things much easier. That, of course, becomes all the more pertinent, given President Bush's expectation that there wouldn't be internecine strife or conflict, which has proved tragically to be very wrong. And we know if there'd have been Security Council backing, at least there would have been the support of the international community. TONY JONES: Put in the actual words of the memo, Tony Blair says, "A second resolution would give us international cover". PHILIPPE SANDS: Well it would have given the whole action a legitimacy that it has never had. I think it would have made it possible, for example, from the outset for military troops from neighbouring Arab countries to join in the operations or at least the aftermath of the actual war and armed conflict and that would have allowed a proper regional response to a situation, rather than a situation which we have, which is that no local countries have provided any troops at all. They've had to rely on Australia and Britain, Honduras and all sorts of other countries and that has really tended to delegitimise the issue. As we now know, it's become part of the problem in itself, in terms of the allegation it's fuelling the insurgency. So PM Blair had - he was right. I regret very much that he didn't follow through on the vision that he had. TONY JONES: What do you make of - this is real politic I suppose - but what do you make of President Bush's statement that the US would not only put its weight behind getting a second resolution, it would threaten and it would twist arms? PHILIPPE SANDS: We know that did happen. I've spoken personally to ambassadors of Security Council members and I'm aware of the inducements that were given to countries in the Security Council to vote in favour of a resolution. And I think the most striking aspect of that period is that not one country could be persuaded. And if you talk to these people, ambassadors privately, the reason that they'll tell you is very clear, they simply didn't believe the argument. They didn't believe that the evidence of this - at this time Hans Blix was reporting back Iraqi cooperation was accelerating. Mr ElBaradei said there weren't any nuclear materials and Mr Blix was saying he probably didn't think there were going to be any weapons of mass destruction - there may be some incipient programs to try to build it up in the future but there would be no hard evidence. It really all in the end turns on the evidence - the inducements, the pressure, the arm-twisting had no effect. TONY JONES: Here's one of the critical bits of the memo from our point of view. President Bush had to say that if we ultimately failed military action, to get the resolution that is, military action would follow anyway? PHILIPPE SANDS: Those words are totally unambiguous. That document confirms irrevocably that the decision had been taken by President Bush and it goes onto confirm that the British PM was with him. There's an interesting question listening to your piece as to the role of Australia in all of this. No doubt, at some point, material will emerge to indicate at what point John Howard gave his unequivocal support. Anecdotally, I do know that President Bush told an Australian acquaintance of mine personally that John Howard was one man he could always count on. So I'd be personally surprised if there isn't some indication somewhere that John Howard would also have provided rather early support. TONY JONES: We'll have to see - that might be one for historians. I've got to ask you, what was motivating people clearly at very high levels of the British Government to leak this sort of information, which is clearly damaging to both governments? PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, I think one of the interesting aspects of the last three years has been the amount of material that has emerged all over the world. It's emerged in Spain, it's emerged in the US, it's emerged in the United Kingdom and I think that must be a reflection of disquiet about the way in which decisions were taken in that crucial period. I don't know how it was in Australia or so much in the United States but in the United Kingdom, it is clear that there is very considerable unhappiness at the highest levels of government and decision-making as to the way in which decisions were taken and, of course, there've been inquiries about that issue that have reported and been rather critical of the PM. TONY JONES: Alright, Philippe Sands we will have to leave you there. We thank you very much for taking the time once again to come and talk to us on Lateline. PHILIPPE SANDS: Thank you very much. Technorati Tags: War On Iraq, Genocide, Weapons Of Mass Destruction, WMDs, Phillipe Sands, Tony Blair, George W. Bush

[March 30 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Fishing Stories: The BIGGEST 'Red Herring' To Ever Swim The Potomac - Immigration Reform

2006-03-30T12:57:00.000-08:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [March 30 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Fishing Stories: Let Me Tell You About The BIGGEST ' Red Herring' To Ever Swim The Potomac - Immigration Reform Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 10:01 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

Readying for War with Iran? No Fooling... 'Fool Me Twice' - Foreign Policy

2006-03-29T14:13:00.000-08:00

"Fortunately, we know more about Iran’s nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information."

Related Articles [HERE] Fool Me Twice By Joseph Cirincione Posted March 27, 2006

I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.

DESTINATION: IRAN? Pundits and experts are debating the merits of U.S. airstrikes against Iranian nuclear Facilities. Photo: Sgt. Ken Bergmann/U.S. Department of Defense Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.” The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again. Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran. I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years. My friends reminded me that I had said the same about Iraq—that I was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution. But this time, it is the administration’s own statements that have convinced me. What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran. The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim. If diplomacy fails, the administration might be able to convince leading Democrats to back a resolution for the use of force against Iran. Many Democrats have been trying to burnish a hawkish image and place themselves to the right of the president on this issue. They may find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric, particularly those with presidential ambitions. The factual debate during the next six months will revolve around the threat assessment. How close is Iran to developing the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs? Is there a secret weapons program? Are there secret underground facilities? What would it mean if small-scale enrichment experiments succeed? Fortunately, we know more about Iran’s nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information. The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate. The administration should now declassify the information it used to estimate how long it will be until Iran has the capability to make a bomb. The Washington Post reported last August that this national intelligence estimate says Iran is a decade away. We need to see the basis for this judgment and all, if any, dissenting opinions. The congressional intelligence committees should be conducting their own reviews of the assessments, including open hearings with independent experts and IAEA officials. Influential groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, should conduct their own sessions and studies. An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran’s nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again. Joseph Cirincione is director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Technorati Tags: War On Iran, Military Strike On Iran, Iran-Libya Sanctions Bill, ILSA, Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP

Hometown News: Immigration Bill Protests Day Two - Thousand in the Streets, H.S. Students Arrested In Watsonville California

2006-03-29T13:27:00.000-08:00

Notes from Leighm:

I spent years driving truck. For many of those years it was produce from the fields around Watsonville & Salinas. Honestly, I don't think I ever met an 'illegal alien'. They all worked hard, had 'green cards', paid their taxes, went to visit family in Mexico over the holidays (The airlines would gouge them by jacking up the air fares at that time of year for flights to Mexico), and collected unemployment when the harvest was over, as is their right. I'd rather make citizens of these folks than the ARVN and Middle Eastern thugs that have done our global dirty work over the years. If Osama bin Laden had chosen to, he would be a naturalized American citizen by now for helping us in Afghanistan and Kosovo (Where Wesley Clark was in the direct chain of command, as commander of NATO, commanding the Kosovo Liberation Army... al Qaeda mercs.) If you DO want to meet illegal aliens, just stop at a WalMart after hours and check the shelf stockers and clean up crews... I say arrest the directors, managers and staff of the organizations that hire them en masse, arrange coyotes who bring them to sweatshops to labor in sub-human conditions(if the worker survives the trip in a boxcar), and we will start to control illegal immigration. What do you think the chances are of that occurring?

Quote Of The Day: "This is way more effective than sitting in a gym," --Amanda Ramirez, 16, Sophomore, Pajaro Valley High School Santa Cruz Sentinel: (the senile) Day two of protests turn violent at Pajaro Valley High by Tom Ragan and Daniel Lopez sentinel staff writers (A Hispanic staff writer at the SC Senile? Thats new! // leigh) http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/March/29/local/stories/01local.htm WATSONVILLE — Nearly 1,000 high school students came precariously close to clashing with dozens of officers armed with batons Tuesday after a demonstration on immigration rights turned into a tense standoff above Highway 1 near Pajaro Valley High School and ended with five arrests. The demonstration was one of many held across the country to coincide with the first day of immigration reform talks by the U.S. Senate. It was the second protest staged by Watsonville students in as many days. A carefully orchestrated march on Monday, California's holiday recognizing labor rights leader Cesar Chavez, disrupted traffic and erupted in violence among protesters, according to police. Tuesday's showing of students turned into a free-for-all that closed Highway 1 and overwhelmed police. Dozens of students fled toward the relatively busy highway after they were turned back by police who had stopped their attempt to make their way back into town along Harkins Slough Road. "The freeway! The freeway!" they yelled. California Highway Patrol officers ran after them, herding some of them back while others dodged oncoming traffic to cross the highway. Hundreds of students walked off campus at Watsonville High School about 10:30 a.m., but tension did not begin to build until police prevented Pajaro Valley High School students from leaving campus around noon. Officers had mobilized forces from the CHP and Sheriff's Office in an effort to avoid a repeat of the gridlock, fights and bottle-throwing that took place during Monday's five-hour march through town, Capt. Eddie Rodriguez said. Two lines of officers, standing side by side and clad in riot gear at the Harkins Slough Bridge, blocked the path of students as they made their way down from Pajaro Valley High to the road. "We just want to walk, and we want to prove to the police that we can have a nice steady walk and not have all this drama," said Amanda Ramirez, 16, a sophomore at the high school. Police stood their ground and the students refused to return to the gym to debate the issues as administrators proposed. "This is way more effective than sitting in a gym," Ramirez said. <...> More Coverage From the Watsonville Register-Pajaronian: Students walk out of Watsonville High to protest immigration bill BY AMANDA SCHOENBERG About 300 students walked out of Watsonville High School at 10:30 a.m. Monday, joining a demonstrat... http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3191&page=1 Demonstration snarls Main Street traffic for hours BY TARMO HANNULA Multiple law agencies put their traffic-control skills to test Monday as a widespread demonstration ... http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3190&page=1 Hundreds of protesters could face charges BY J.D. HILLARD The mass demonstrations in downtown Watsonville Monday against federal anti-immigration bill HR 4437... http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3189&page=1 Local residents part of nationwide protests against immigration bill BY LAURA NORTON “No somos criminales. We are not criminals,” more than 2,000 people chanted while marching through... http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3183&page=1 Brown Berets hit with charges, fines and fees for protest march BY LAURA NORTON The organizing group of an immigration bill protest that drew 2,000 people in Watsonville on Saturd... http://www.register-pajaronian.com/main.php?story_id=3182&page=1 #33# Technorati Tags: Immigration, Immigration Reform, CAFTA, NAFTA, C.A.F.T.A., N.A.F.T.A., Emigration, Illegal Immigration, Illiegal Immigrants, illegal Migration,

Billions for Big Oil - No Royalty Payments For Oil & Gas From The Publicly Owned Waters Of The Gulf Coast

2006-03-29T11:37:00.000-08:00

Related Articles: [HERE] New York Times March 27, 2006 Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil By EDMUND L. ANDREWS WASHINGTON, March 26 — It was after midnight and every lawmaker in the committee room wanted to go home, but there was still time to sweeten a deal encouraging oil and gas companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. "There is no cost," declared Representative Joe L. Barton, a Texas Republican who was presiding over Congressional negotiations on the sprawling energy bill last July. An obscure provision on new drilling incentives was "so noncontroversial," he added, that senior House and Senate negotiators had not even discussed it. Mr. Barton's claim had a long history. For more than a decade, lawmakers and administration officials, both Republicans and Democrats, have promised there would be no cost to taxpayers for a program allowing companies to avoid paying the government royalties on oil and gas produced in publicly owned waters in the Gulf. But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program's remaining restrictions proves successful. "The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn't cost anything," said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. "Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it's like subsidizing a fish to swim." How did a supposedly cost-free incentive become a multibillion-dollar break to an industry making record profits? The answer is a familiar Washington story of special-interest politics at work: the people who pay the closest attention and make the fewest mistakes are those with the most profit at stake. It is an account of legislators who passed a law riddled with ambiguities; of crucial errors by midlevel bureaucrats under President Bill Clinton; of $2 billion in inducements from the Bush administration, which was intent on promoting energy production; and of Republican lawmakers who wanted to do even more. At each turn, through shrewd lobbying and litigation, oil and gas companies ended up with bigger incentives than before. Until last month, hardy anyone noticed — or even knew — the real costs. They were obscured in part by the long gap between the time incentives are offered and when new offshore wells start producing. But lawmakers shrouded the costs with rosy projections. And administration officials consistently declined to tally up the money they were forfeiting. Most industry executives say that the royalty relief spurred drilling and exploration when prices were relatively low. But the industry is divided about whether it is appropriate to continue the incentives with prices at current levels. Michael Coney, a lawyer for Shell Oil, said, "Under the current environment, we don't need royalty relief." The program's original architect said he was surprised by what had happened. "The one thing I can tell you is that this is not what we intended," said J. Bennett Johnston, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana who had pushed for the original incentives that Congress passed in 1995. Mr. Johnston conceded that he was confused by his own law. "I got out the language a few days ago," he said in a recent interview. "I had it out just long enough to know that it's got a lot of very obscure language." A Subsidy of Disputed Need Things looked bleak for oil and gas companies in 1995, especially for those along the Gulf Coast. Energy prices had been so low for so long that investment had dried up. With crude oil selling for about $16 a barrel, scores of wildcatters and small exploration companies had gone out of business. Few companies had any stomach for drilling in water thousands of feet deep, and industry leaders like Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell were increasingly focused on opportunities abroad. "At the time, the Gulf of Mexico was like the Dead Sea," recalled John Northington, then an Energy Department policy adviser and now an industry lobbyist. Senator Johnston, convinced that the Gulf's vast reservoirs and Louisiana's oil-based economy were being neglected, had argued for years that Congress should offer incentives for deep-water drilling and exploration. "Failure to invest in the Gulf of Mexico is a lost opportunity for the U.S.," Mr. Johnston pleaded in a letter to other lawmakers. "Those dollars will not move into other domestic development, they will move to Asia, South America, the Middle East or the former Soviet Union." Working closely with industry executives, he wrote legislation that would allow a company drilling in deep water to escape the standard 12 percent royalty on up to 87.5 million barrels of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. The coastal waters are mostly owned by the federal government, which leases tens of millions of acres in exchange for upfront fees and a share of sales, or royalties. Mr. Johnston and other supporters argued that the incentives would actually generate money for the government by increasing production and prompting companies to bid higher prices for new leases. "The provision will result in a minimum net benefit to the Treasury of $200 million by the year 2000," Mr. Johnston declared in November 1995, denouncing what he called "outrageous allegations" that the plan was a giveaway. He won support from oil-state Democrats, Republicans and the Clinton administration. Hazel O'Leary, the energy secretary at the time, said the assistance would reduce American dependence on foreign oil and "enhance national security." Representative Robert Livingston of Louisiana, then a rising Republican leader, declared that the inducements would "create thousands of jobs" and "reduce the deficit." Many budget experts agree that the rosy estimates were misleading. The reason, they say, is that it often takes seven years before a new offshore field begins producing. As a result, almost all the costs of royalty relief would occur outside of Congress's five-year budget timeframe. Opponents protested that the cost estimates were wrong, that the incentives amounted to corporate welfare and that companies did not need government incentives to invest. "They are going to the Gulf of Mexico because that's where the oil is," said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, during a House debate. "What we do here is not going to change that. We are just going to decide whether or not we are going to give away the taxpayers' dollars to a lot of oil companies that do not need it." Industry executives and lobbyists fanned out across Capitol Hill to shore up support for the program, visiting 150 lawmakers in October 1995. The effort succeeded. A month later, Congress passed Mr. Johnston's bill. A Missing Escape Clause To hear lawmakers today, they never intended to waive royalties when energy prices were high. The 1995 law, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, was supposed to include an escape clause: in any year when average spot prices for oil or gas climbed above certain threshold levels, companies would pay full royalties instead. "Royalty relief is an effective tool for two things: keeping investment in America during times of super-low prices, and spurring American energy production when massive capital and technological risks would otherwise preclude it," said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the House Resources Committee. "Absent those criteria, I do not believe any relief should be granted." But in what administration officials said appeared to have been a mistake, Clinton administration managers omitted the crucial escape clause in all offshore leases signed in 1998 and 1999. At the time, with oil prices still below $20 a barrel, the mistake seemed harmless. But energy prices have been above the cutoff points since 2002, and Interior Department officials estimate that about one-sixth of production in the Gulf of Mexico is still exempt from royalties. Walter Cruickshank, a senior official in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, told lawmakers last month that officials writing the lease contracts thought the price thresholds were spelled out in the new regulations, which were completed in 1998. But officials writing the regulations left those details out, preferring to set the precise rules at each new lease sale. "It seems to have been a massive screw-up," said Mr. Northington, who was then in the Energy Department. No one noticed the error for two years, and no one informed Congress about it until last month. Five years later, the costs of that lapse were compounded. A group of oil companies, led by Shell, defeated the Bush administration in court. The decision more than doubled the amount of oil and gas that companies could produce without paying royalties. The case began as a relatively obscure dispute. Shell paid $3.8 million in 1997 for a Gulf lease and soon drilled a successful well. But the Interior Department denied the company royalty relief, saying that Shell had drilled into an older field already producing oil and gas. The decision hinged on undersea geography and the court's interpretation of language in the 1995 law. A typical field, or geological reservoir, often encompasses two or three separately leased tracts of ocean floor. Interior Department officials insisted that the maximum amount of royalty-free oil and gas was based on each field. Shell and its partners argued that limit applied only to each lease. Perhaps shrewdly, the oil companies sued the Bush administration in Louisiana, where federal courts previously had sided with the industry in spats with the government. The fight was not even close. In January 2003, a federal district judge declared that the Interior Department's rules violated the 1995 law. If the department "disagrees with Congress's policy choices," Judge James T. Trimble Jr. wrote, "then such arguments are best addressed to Congress." What might have been a $2 billion mistake in the Clinton administration suddenly ballooned into a $5 billion headache under Mr. Bush. But even as the Bush administration was losing in court, it was offering new incentives for the energy industry. Mr. Bush placed a top priority on expanding oil and gas production as soon as he took office in 2001. Vice President Dick Cheney's task force on energy, warning of a deepening shortfall in domestic energy production, urged the government to "explore opportunities for royalty reduction" and to open areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Gale A. Norton, who stepped down this month as interior secretary, moved quickly to speed up approvals of new drilling permits. Starting in 2001, she offered royalty incentives to shallow-water producers who drilled more than 15,000 feet below the sea bottom. In January 2004, Ms. Norton made the incentives far more generous by raising the threshold prices. Her decision meant that deep-gas drillers were able to escape royalties in 2005, when prices spiked to record levels, and would probably escape them this year as well. She also offered to sweeten less-generous contracts the drillers had signed before the regulation was approved. "These incentives will help ensure we have a reliable supply of natural gas in the future," Ms. Norton proclaimed, predicting that American consumers would save "an estimated $570 million a year" in lower fuel prices. Ms. Norton's decision was influenced by the industry. The Interior Department had originally proposed a cut-off price for royalty exemptions of $5 per million British thermal units, or B.T.U.'s, of gas. But the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents smaller producers, argued that the new incentive would have little value because natural gas prices were already above $5. Ms. Norton set the threshold at $9.34. Based on administration assumptions about future production and prices, that change could cost the government about $1.9 billion in lost royalties. "There is no cost rationale," said Shirley J. Neff, an economist at Columbia University and Senator Johnston's top legislative aide in drafting the 1995 royalty law. "It is astounding to me that the administration would so blatantly cave in to the industry's demands." Incentives Keep Growing Last April, President Bush himself expressed skepticism about giving new incentives to oil and gas drillers. "With oil at $50 a barrel," Mr. Bush remarked, "I don't think energy companies need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore." But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old "royalty relief" program. For the most part, the law locked in incentives that the Interior Department was already offering for another five years. But it included some embellishments, like an extra break on royalties for companies drilling in the deepest waters. Lee Fuller, vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said smaller companies wanted to prevent future administrations from cutting back on incentives. "Having a clear, stable royalty policy was of value to independent producers," he said. And energy companies, whose executives had long contributed campaign funds to Republican candidates, pushed to block any amendments aimed at diluting the benefits. The push to lock in the royalty inducements came primarily from House Republicans. The only real opposition came from a handful of House Democrats, in a showdown about 1 a.m. on July 25, according to a transcript of the session. "It is indefensible to be keeping these companies on the government dole when oil and gas prices are so high," charged Representative Markey of Massachusetts, who proposed to strip the royalty provisions. "We might as well be giving tax breaks to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett." Mr. Barton, the Texas Republican, brushed aside the objections. He reassured lawmakers that the new provisions would not cost taxpayers anything. When Mr. Markey proposed a more modest change — having Congress prohibit incentives if crude oil prices rose above $40 a barrel — Republicans quickly voted him down again. "The only reason they waited until after midnight to bring up these issues is that they couldn't stand up in the light of day," Mr. Markey said in a recent interview. "They all expected me to give up because it was so late and I didn't have the votes. But if nothing else, I wanted to get these things on the record." A Royalty-Free Future? It is still not clear how much impact the reduced royalties had in encouraging deep-water drilling. While activity in the Gulf has increased since 1995, prices for oil and gas have more than quadrupled over the same period, providing a powerful motivation, experts say. "It's hard to make a case for royalty relief, especially at these high prices," said Jack Overstreet, owner of an independent oil exploration company in Texas. "But the oil industry is like the farm lobby and will have its hand out at every opportunity." The size of the subsidies will soar far higher if oil companies win their newest court battle. In a lawsuit filed March 17, Kerr-McGee Exploration and Production argued that Congress never authorized the government to set price cut-offs for incentives on leases awarded from 1996 through 2000. If the company wins, the Interior Department recently estimated, about three-quarters of oil and gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico will be royalty-free for the next five years. Mr. Markey and other Democrats recently introduced legislation that would pressure companies to pay full royalties when energy prices are high, regardless of what their leases allow. But Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration have signaled their opposition. "These are binding contracts that the government signed with companies," Ms. Norton recently remarked. "I don't think we can change them just because we don't like them." Technorati Tags: Peak Oil, LNG, Liquified Natural Gas, Oil Production, Energy Economics, Alternative Fuels, Alternative Energy, Oil Production, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell

[March 29 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Can Mass Protests (Students, Anarchists, Labor, And Parents!) Undo The French Government

2006-03-29T09:45:00.000-08:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [March 29 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Viva La France: Can Mass Protests (It Wasn't Just Students, Anarchists And Labor... Parents!) Bring Down The French Government? Minor server/weather related glitches in the NEWS audio today Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 8:42 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

You Have Mail!: My letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor In Re: "The Israel Lobby" and the ADL

2006-03-28T14:38:00.000-08:00

Good Afternoon, I had the misfortune of reading the ADL's 'rebuttal' http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp to Mearsheimer and Walt's paper published in the London Review of Books http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html which was linked from your website today. They (and your editors) might also care to peruse Noam Chomsky's statement http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9999&sectionID=11 pubilshed today by Znet. These are scholarly works in their entirety, and for the ADL to make statements as trite as

"On every issue, the authors start with unproven, anti-Israel assumptions and then look for isolated examples to justify these assumptions. One does not have to take a pro-Israel position to recognize that the authors, despite their reputations, have no interest in producing a serious, balanced work. The result is a sloppy diatribe. Here’s how it works. Mearsheimer and Walt start by blaming Israel for everything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once establishing Israel’s consistent guilt, from the creation of the state to present day, they then move to asserting that the “Israel lobby” (which is loosely and inconsistently defined) in the United States uses every device and method of pressure politics to stifle criticism of Israel and to ensure America’s pro-Israel policy, against America’s true interests and to serve the interests of the Jewish state."

Defines and hones the meaning of the Phrase "cheap attack". Has it ever dawned on the ADL that controversy and academia are synonomous? Unlikely. In the ADL's lexicon, disagreement with Israel's policies, and the US. foreign policy extensions thereof are tantamount to stupidity or treason no matter how well thought out the argument might be. Hence the diatribe with nothing whatsoever within that rant to disprove any of Mearsheimer and Walt's assertions. But I have come to expect such behavior from the ADL, as the more intelligent Jews of the world that could rebut the assertions contained within the Mearsheimer and Walt's paper would most likely find ADL's posturing and beliefs offensive, and in the long run, dangerous to Jews and the Jewish faith throughout the world. Shame on the Christian Science Monitor for allowing a cheap attack on respected scholars within the pages of their website, lending an undeserved legitimacy to an organization that would be one of the focuses of any investigation of U.S-Israeli Policy interlinking. Sincerely, Leighm Technorati Tags: National Security Strategy, U.S. Foreign Policy, AIPAC, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, ADL, Anti-Defamation League, Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation League

Billy Bragg Of WILCO, Musician & Activist Releases Song To Public Domain - The lonesome death of Rachel Corrie - D/L Available - Guardian UK

2006-03-28T12:39:00.000-08:00

The lonesome death of Rachel Corrie Exclusive download (MP3): The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie Billy Bragg Tuesday March 28, 2006 Guardian Rachel Corrie went to Gaza to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians, whose voice is seldom heard in her country, the US. That she herself should be silenced - first by an Israeli bulldozer, next by a New York theatre cancelling a play created from her words - is a testimony to the power of her message. This song was written on a plane on March 20 and recorded at Big Sky Recordings, Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 22. The tune is borrowed from Bob Dylan. An Israeli bulldozer killed poor Rachel Corrie As she stood in its path in the town of Rafah She lost her young life in an act of compassion Trying to protect the poor people of Gaza Whose homes are destroyed by tank shells and bulldozers And whose plight is exploited by suicide bombers Who kill in the name of the people of Gaza But Rachel Corrie believed in non-violent resistance Put herself in harm's way as a shield of the people And paid with her life in a manner most brutal But you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears, Take the rag away from your face. Now ain't the time for your tears. Rachel Corrie had 23 years She was born in the town of Olympia, Washington A skinny, messy, list-making chain-smoker Who volunteered to protect the Palestinian people Who had become non-persons in the eyes of the media So that people were suffering and no one was seeing Or hearing or talking or caring or acting And the horrible math of the awful equation That brought Rachel Corrie into this confrontation Is that the spilt blood of a single American Is worth more than the blood of a hundred Palestinians But you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears, Take the rag away from your face. Now ain't the time for your tears. The artistic director of a New York theatre Cancelled a play based on Rachel's writings But she wasn't a bomber or a killer or fighter But one who acted in the spirit of the Freedom Riders Is there no place for a voice in America That doesn't conform to the Fox News agenda? Who believes in non-violence instead of brute force Who is willing to confront the might of an army Whose passionate beliefs were matched by her bravery The question she asked rings out round the world If America is truly the beacon of freedom Then how can it stand by while they bring down the curtain And turn Rachel Corrie into a non-person? Oh, but you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears, Bury the rag deep in your face For now's the time for your tears. My Name Is Rachel Corrie, co-edited by Alan Rickman and Guardian features editor Katharine Viner, opens at the Playhouse theatre tonight. Telephone 0870 060 6631. Listen to an exclusive download (MP3) of the song here. Technorati Tags: Rachel Corrie, Billy Bragg, Gaza, Palestinian, Israeli Defense Force, IDF

[March 28 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: To Understand The Drama & Intricacies Of The White House, Watch Reruns Of 'The West Wing'

2006-03-28T09:45:00.000-08:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [March 28 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: To Understand The Drama & Intricacies Of The White House, Watch Reruns Of 'The West Wing' Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 9:42 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

Noam Chomsky On Mearsheimer & Walt 'The Israel Lobby' - ZNET

2006-03-28T08:53:00.000-08:00

The Article In Question: The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ZNet | Foreign Policy The Israel Lobby? by Noam Chomsky ; March 28, 2006 I've received many requests to comment on the article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (henceforth M-W), published in the London Review of Books, which has been circulating extensively on the internet and has elicited a storm of controversy. A few thoughts on the matter follow. It was, as noted, published in the London Review of Books, which is far more open to discussion on these issues than US journals -- a matter of relevance (to which I'll return) to the alleged influence of what M-W call "the Lobby." An article in the Jewish journal Forward quotes M as saying that the article was commissioned by a US journal, but rejected, and that "the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication." But despite the fact that it appeared in England, the M-W article aroused the anticipated hysterical reaction from the usual supporters of state violence here, from the Wall St Journal to Alan Dershowitz, sometimes in ways that would instantly expose the authors to ridicule if they were not lining up (as usual) with power. M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. Take any topic that has risen to the level of Holy Writ among "the herd of independent minds" (to borrow Harold Rosenberg's famous description of intellectuals): for example, anything having to do with the Balkan wars, which played a huge role in the extraordinary campaigns of self-adulation that disfigured intellectual discourse towards the end of the millennium, going well beyond even historical precedents, which are ugly enough. Naturally, it is of extraordinary importance to the herd to protect that self-image, much of it based on deceit and fabrication. Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard reactions. Very easy to demonstrate, and by no means limited to these cases. Those without experience in critical analysis of conventional doctrine can be very seriously misled by the particular case of the Middle East(ME). But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I've reviewed elsewhere what the record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can't try to repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby. The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity. Let's look at (1), and ask the obvious question: for whom has policy been a failure for the past 60 years? The energy corporations? Hardly. They have made "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" (quoting John Blair, who directed the most important government inquiries into the industry, in the '70s), and still do, and the ME is their leading cash cow. Has it been a failure for US grand strategy based on control of what the State Department described 60 years ago as the "stupendous source of strategic power" of ME oil and the immense wealth from this unparalleled "material prize"? Hardly. The US has substantially maintained control -- and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby. And as noted, the energy corporations prospered. Furthermore, those extraordinary successes had to overcome plenty of barriers: primarily, as elsewhere in the world, what internal documents call "radical nationalism," meaning independent nationalism. As elsewhere in the world, it's been convenient to phrase these concerns in terms of "defense against the USSR," but the pretext usually collapses quickly on inquiry, in the ME as elsewhere. And in fact the claim was conceded to be false, officially, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Bush's National Security Strategy (1990) called for maintaining the forces aimed at the ME, where the serious "threats to our interests... could not be laid at the Kremlin's door" -- now lost as a pretext for pursuing about the same policies as before. And the same was true pretty much throughout the world. That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis. What were "the Lobbies" that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world? Consider the year 1958, a very critical year in world affairs. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year). Suharto's coup aroused virtual euphoria, and he remained "our kind of guy" (as the Clinton administration called him) until he could no longer keep control in 1998, through a hideous record that compares well with Saddam Hussein -- who was also "our kind of guy" until he disobeyed orders in 1990. What was the Indonesia Lobby? The Saddam Lobby? And the question generalizes around the world. Unless these questions are faced, the issue (1) cannot be seriously addressed. When we do investigate (1), we find that US policies in the ME are quite similar to those pursued elsewhere in the world, and have been a remarkable success, in the face of many difficulties: 60 years is a long time for planning success. It's true that Bush II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that's an entirely separate matter. That leads to (2). As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That's also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component, by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that's mostly the 90s). And it's also when the intellectual-political class began their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media, scholarship, etc. From that point on it's hard to distinguish "national interest" (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the Lobby. I've run through the record of Israeli services to the US, to the present, elsewhere, and won't review it again here. M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal. Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." Do the energy corporations fail to understand their interests, or are they part of the Lobby too? By now, what's the distinction between (1) and (2), apart from the margins? Also to be explained, again, is why US ME policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere -- to which, incidentally, Israel has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America, to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) -- the latter, pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world. I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination. The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case. NC Technorati Tags: National Security Strategy, U.S. Foreign Policy, AIPAC, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Alan Dershowitz,

Recipe For 'Coalition Crumble': British Papers Focus on Alleged U.S. 'Massacres' in Iraq - Editor & Publisher

2006-03-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

Just add media coverage & simmer: Did American Marines murder 23 Iraqi civilians? Independent - London,England,UK ... American military officials in Iraq have already admitted that 15 civilians who died in the incident in the western town of Haditha last November were killed ... Iraqis killed by US troops ‘on rampage’ The Sunday Times - UK ... the results of a 10-week investigation into an incident last November when US marines killed 15 civilians in their homes in the western Iraqi town of Haditha. ... British Papers Focus on Alleged U.S. 'Massacres' in Iraq By E&P Staff Published: March 26, 2006 11:45 AM ET NEW YORK Two leading British newspapers carried new accounts and details on alleged “massacres” of civilians in Iraq in the past four months. Except for an AP article and a Knight Ridder account published by some American papers last week the incidents have gained little exposure in the U.S. press. The most recent incident this month was first brought to light by Time magazine, as it covered another episode last November when U.S. marines killed 15 civilians in their homes in Haditha. The military at first claimed the 15 were killed by a roadside bomb. The British daily The Independent returned to this story today, adding several details, including allegations by villagers that the Americans had allowed one injured man to bleed to death. The March 15 incident took place in the village of Abu Sifa. According to Iraqi police, 11 bodies were pulled from the wreckage of a house, among them four women and five children aged between six months and five years. An official police report obtained by Knight Ridder said: “The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people.” Knight Ridder also related that military spokesman Maj. Tim Keefe had said that while the idea of U.S. troops turning into executioners is "highly unlikely," the military is taking the accusations very seriously. “The two incidents are being investigated by U.S. authorities, but persistent eyewitness accounts of rampaging attacks by American troops are fuelling human rights activists’ concerns that Pentagon commanders are failing to curb military excesses in Iraq,” the Sunday Times of London reports today. “The Pentagon claims to have investigated at least 600 cases of alleged abuse by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to have disciplined or punished 230 soldiers for improper behaviour. But a study by three New York-based human rights groups, due to be published next month, will claim that most soldiers found guilty of abuse received only ‘administrative’ discipline such as loss of rank or pay, confinement to base or periods of extra duty.” Most other cases ended with sentences of two, three or four months. “That’s not punishment, and that’s the problem,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch, which is compiling the study with two other groups. “Our concern is that abuses in the field are not being robustly investigated and prosecuted, and that they are not setting an example with people who cross the line,” Sifton told the newspaper. “There is a clear preference by the military for discipline with administrative and non-judicial punishments instead of courts martial. That sends the message that you can commit abuse and get away with it.” The Times adds: “Yet the evidence from Haditha and Abu Sifa last week suggested that the Pentagon is finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss allegations of violent excesses as propaganda by terrorist sympathisers.” Some past allegations were proven to be exagerated but more recent accounts are proving more credible. E&P Staff Technorati Tags: War On Iraq, Coalition Of The Willing, Abu Sifa, Haditha, Knight Ridder, Human Rights Watch,

Depleted Uranium For Dummies - InformationClearingHouse and SF BayView.com

2006-03-27T12:05:00.000-08:00

“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam”

Depleted Uranium For Dummies Everything you need to know about depleted uranium. By Irving Wesley Hall Every day our troops remain in Iraq increases the chances that they will come home sick, produce children with birth defects, and die prematurely. 03/23/06 "ICH" -- -- Under the direction of Secretary of Defense Cheney, the 1991 Gulf War began with a "shock and awe" bombing campaign that destroyed large biological laboratories, chemical plants, and nuclear enrichment facilities, most of them around Baghdad. Many sites were illegally supplied by the Reagan-Bush administration, in which both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld served, so the United States government knew their locations. Biological, chemical and nuclear weapons damage the bodies of soldiers in distinct ways. The first employs deadly bacteria and viruses to cause known illnesses. The second uses poisonous, or toxic, substances to attack the body's chemistry. Nuclear weapons, such as depleted uranium (D.U.), were unimaginable before World War II. They attack the body with invisible radioactive energy that, as you will soon read, produces a wider variety of symptoms that develop over a longer period of time. Radioactive heavy metal particles embedded in the body are both radioactive and toxic. [...] http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12452.htm SF BayView.com: Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad by Leuren Moret March 22, 2006 Vietnam was a chemical war for oil, permanently contaminating large regions and countries downriver with Agent Orange, and environmentally the most devastating war in world history. But Since 1991, the U.S. has staged four nuclear wars using depleted uranium weaponry, which, like Agent Orange, meets the U.S. government definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Vast regions in the Middle East and Central Asia have been permanently contaminated with radiation. [...] http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml Technorati Tags: Depleted Uranium, DU, D.U., War On Iraq, War Crimes, Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD, Radiation Poisoning

Priced out of paradise - The Trials & Tribulations Of Being An Immigrant Service Worker In California- Sacramento Bee

2006-03-27T10:47:00.000-08:00

Priced out of paradise Tahoe's workers can't find affordable housing By Jocelyn Wiener -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, March 26, 2006 For 19 years, Salvador Murillo Cabrera has welcomed tourists to the Lake Tahoe basin. He's served their sandwiches, cleaned their slot machines, emptied their trash cans, vacuumed the carpets of their motel rooms. He's painted the multimillion-dollar vacation homes owned by out-of-towners who pop up for the occasional ski weekend. During most of those years, Murillo has held down two jobs, working 70 to 80 hours a week. He's never once gone skiing - it's not worth the risk. "If we break a foot, how are we going to support our households?" he asked in Spanish, taking a break from mopping the floors of the Kings Beach Boys & Girls Club last month. Until he lost that job, he earned $13 an hour there, and a little more for his full-time job as head of maintenance at a local motel. His wife cleans condominiums. For 19 years, the couple have worked toward the dream of owning a home, not a fancy place, but somewhere they could raise their two young daughters and save a little money to send them to college. But for Murillo, and for most of the service workers whose sweat greases the gears of Tahoe's breathtaking resorts, skyrocketing housing prices have rendered such plans elusive. The same is true for the teachers, nurses, bank tellers, police officers, utility workers and civil servants who make the community run. To move up, they know, they have to move out. In the past three years, the number of year-round residents living in and around the California side of the north shore has declined at least 20 percent. More of the basin's midwage professionals are moving "off the mountain" to Reno and Carson City. The views might be less spectacular, but down payments are still possible. The fleeing professionals have left the Tahoe basin confronting an increasingly stark divide. At one end are the out-of-towners who lay down hundreds of thousands, often millions, for homes they use on weekends. Those at the other end of the spectrum earn their livings cleaning up. They don't leave, because they can't leave. Their jobs are here, and they can't afford to commute from elsewhere. Instead, multiple families cram into run-down apartments or tiny trailers. The adults hold down two or three jobs, at hotels, casinos and ski resorts. Still, they struggle to stay afloat. "Where is the money I've worked for?" Murillo asked, with a rueful smile. "I don't have it." Housing prices have risen throughout California in recent years; around Lake Tahoe they have exploded. In late 1998, the median price for a home in the Tahoe basin was $160,500. By late last year, it was $550,000. For the past several years, dot-com millionaires and retiring baby boomers from the Bay Area and Sacramento, encouraged by low interest rates, have snapped up available homes at unprecedented rates. Now as the frenzy begins to calm, local workers have been priced out of the market. Those seeking to live at the lake's edges are entranced by its shimmering beauty. Long into the spring, snow ices the mountains like cupcakes. Sunlight dapples the pine trees and skitters across the lake's surface. But beauty comes protected. The Forest Service controls 80 percent of land in the area; the state another 5 percent. Strict building ordinances designed to preserve the lake's clarity and what Mark Twain once described as "the air angels breathe" slow development. That limits the amount and kind of housing available. "When you take all those factors together, you have what is truly one of the most complex, difficult and expensive development environments in the whole country," said Rich Colwell, chief assistant executive officer for Placer County. Spring in Tahoe brings added hardships for service workers. Ski resorts close. Casino traffic dries up. The rush of summer vacationers seeking motel rooms and restaurants is still several weeks away. In the interim period - known in Tahoe as the "shoulder" season - service work disappears. George LeBard, executive director of Project Mana, said the number of people seeking food assistance from his organization doubles for a few months every spring, and again in fall. On a Thursday afternoon last month, families lined up outside Project Mana's office in Incline Village, an upscale vacation community on the Nevada side of the lake, for bags of powdered milk and canned tuna and spaghetti. "If we don't come, we don't eat," 21-year-old Lupe Perez, a housekeeper whose husband works in construction, said in Spanish. That same afternoon, 33-year-old Maria Villa walked with her mother and two children to the waiting room of the town's free health clinic run by the Children's Cabinet, a local nonprofit. She wore sunglasses to cover eyes puffy with infection. Villa cleans rooms at a nearby hotel. She, her mother, her sister and the children share a three-bedroom apartment with another family - a father and two sons. To supplement her income, Villa picks up jobs cleaning the designer homes that line the lakefront. Uninsured, and with no car, she says she'd probably turn to home remedies if she didn't have the clinic. She does not begrudge the vacationers their prosperity. "We wish they would come more often to give us more work," she explained, in Spanish. Another woman in the waiting room nodded solemnly. Fifteen-year-old Karen Durian finds it odd that such beautiful homes sit empty so much of the year. Durian volunteers with Project Mana each week, handing out food bags. Her father works two jobs as a construction worker building "big mansions." Her mother makes a living cleaning the empty vacation houses. "It is kind of frustrating because (the owners) have it there, but they don't use it," she said. "These people are struggling and these other people have a house just laying there, like it's a rug or something." She said Incline Village is eerily vacant much of the time. Besides hanging out at the bowling alley or the movie theater, there's not much for young people to do. Snowboarding, she points out, costs a lot of money. Locals are worried that the disappearance of the area's middle class is further wearing down the community fabric. With an aging work force edging toward retirement and no housing for young workers, they say Tahoe is on the brink of another crisis: Soon, no one will live close enough to run the community. "I hate to paint this really bleak picture," said Rachelle Pellissier, executive director of the Workforce Housing Association of Truckee-Tahoe. "But it is bleak." Already, fewer people participate in local boards and committees, she said. In eastern Placer County, the jury pool has declined at least 20 percent in the last three years, she said. The school district population is rapidly shrinking, too: Enrollment in Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified declined from 5,367 in the 1999-2000 school year to 4,503 last year. Many of the area's police officers and utility workers commute from elsewhere. Most of the time, the drive is not a problem, they say. But when it snows heavily and traffic backs up, emergency help can take hours to arrive. After a big storm last year, schools stayed closed an extra day because no one could come in to clean snow off the roofs. Jason Litchie, a 32-year-old police sergeant, grew up in Truckee, attended high school there and eventually joined the Police Department. In 1998, he and his wife began looking for a place to buy. In early 2000, "we just said 'forget it.'" Working with a real estate agent in Reno, they found a three-bedroom place immediately. It was perfect: 2,000 square feet, with a lawn and a view of the city. "Given my preference, I would have stayed," he said. "Now I would never move back." In recent years, business leaders and politicians have begun earnest discussions about how to address the region's housing crisis. In 2002, a group of employers from the northern part of the region came together to form the Workforce Housing Association of Truckee-Tahoe. They started by advocating for the creation of more affordable housing. Last fall, they decided to start developing that housing themselves. Alex Mourelatos, who owns Mourelatos' Lakeshore Resort, is a member of the association. Four years ago, frustrated that he could not find local workers qualified to staff the front desk, he resolved to turn a tree-lined 12-acre parcel nearby into 152 units of affordable work force housing. He worked with the developers to comply with local ordinances. But, by January, construction costs had gone up too much. The developer pulled out. Still, Mourelatos hasn't given up. "It sounds like a fantastic idea to me," Rosa Hernandez, 38, who cleans rooms at the resort, said in Spanish. "Because many of us don't have money to pay the rent." Truckee is taking a proactive approach to the issue: A year ago, leaders updated the general plan to require that 15 percent of new housing units be affordable. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is developing a 20-year-plan for communities around the lake, and hopes to learn from other resort communities, like Mammoth, that have had to address similar housing crises. "No one has a crystal ball," said Julie Regan, communications director for the agency, "but I think it will be a combination of solutions." In a small trailer wrapped in plastic to keep out the cold, Antonia Cortez and her family have made their home in the heart of Tahoe's crisis. The town of Kings Beach, just a few miles west of Incline Village, has among the highest poverty rates in Placer County. Signs in neighborhoods around Cortez's home advertise "fixer-uppers" with broken windows and rotting floors for $400,000. Cortez, 30, her husband Pedro Valdenegro, 35, and their 4-year-old daughter sleep in a room just big enough for a bed. Their 7-year-old daughter shares a pullout couch in the living room with her teenage aunt. Cortez's parents sleep in the other room. The kitchen is so small, they often eat in shifts. Cortez's parents own the trailer, located in a crowded lot a few blocks off the main drag. Everyone chips in to pay the $500 monthly rent for the land underneath. The family doesn't own cars, so Cortez and her husband walk or ride a bus to their jobs at the Tahoe Biltmore. In the summer, Valdenegro works an additional 30 hours a week at the resort across the street. The walls of their trailer are cluttered with family photographs. Someday, they hope to combine their resources with those of several other relatives to buy a trailer in Reno, with the land underneath. One day last month, a pot of beans boiled cozily on the stove. Giggling children bounced up and down on couches that double as beds. "Aquí no tenemos nada, pero tenemos un sueño," Cortez said, her moon-shaped face lighting into a smile. "Here we don't have anything, but we have a dream." About the writer: * The Bee's Jocelyn Wiener can be reached at (916) 321-1967 or jwiener@sacbee.com. Technorati Tags: Immigration, Immigration Reform, Emmigration

Emmigration From Mexico Devastating Mexican Communities - Migration to U.S. emptying much of Mexican countryside - KR via San Jose Mercury-News

2006-03-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

"No corner of Mexico has been left untouched by emigration. In 31 percent of Mexico's municipalities, population is shrinking steadily because of migration to the United States,"

Sun, Mar. 26, 2006 Migration to U.S. emptying much of Mexican countryside LABOR EXPORT DEVASTATING By Jay Root Knight Ridder JOAQUÍN AMARO, Mexico -- Decades ago, before massive waves of young men fled north, Pedro Avila Salamanca helped his father harvest corn and fatten pigs. He learned to write his name in a one-room schoolhouse. Sometimes he rode to town on a donkey. It's all a distant memory now. Everywhere abandoned houses are crumbling. The towns are shrinking. And Avila, 89, who wears donated clothes and lives on the meager checks his daughters send from the United States, can't remember the last time he ate meat. ``What would I buy it with?'' he asked. Avila is a part of the immigration debate that neither Mexican political leaders nor cheap-labor advocates in the United States like to talk about: Heavy migration has all but emptied much of the Mexican countryside. Money sent back to Mexico from those working in the United States reached a record high last year, $20 billion, making remittances from migrants Mexico's second-largest source of income, surpassed only by oil exports. But the export of human labor has been devastating here. It's left the land dotted with near-ghost towns inhabited by the very old and the very young, their lives dependent on whatever money their relatives send home. If there were economic development here, there would be few people of working age to reap its benefits. ``For the governing class, immigrants become the solution. They leave. They reduce the political and social pressure . . . they even reduce the costs of public-works projects,'' said Rodolfo García Zamora, an economist and immigration expert at the Autonomous University of Zacatecas, the government-operated university in this state. ``They can only hope that everybody leaves and sends home collective remittances.'' In five states, including Zacatecas, remittances from abroad now equal or exceed the salaries generated locally. In the state of Michoacán, money sent home from the United States is equivalent to 182 percent of in-state income. No corner of Mexico has been left untouched by emigration. In 31 percent of Mexico's municipalities, population is shrinking steadily because of migration to the United States, according to figures provided by García Zamora. In Zacatecas, known for silver mines and dry, mountainous terrain, the data is even more stark: 45 of the 58 municipalities are shrinking. The state's population would double if all its emigrants and their offspring returned home from the United States. The population drain is no secret in tiny Joaquín Amaro, just up the road from the tiny ``rancho'' where Avila was born in 1916. There are nine times more people from this town living in Cicero, Ill., than in Joaquín Amaro itself. Florentino Rodríguez, 75, is back here after spending most of his working years -- from 1951 to 1994 -- in the United States. Today, nine of his 10 living children live there. His wife recently died. Tears rolled down Rodríguez's face when he was asked to describe life in his shrinking hometown. ``It's hard. I'm all alone,'' he said. ``The men go to the United States and they stay. Only the old ones are left behind.'' Across the border, meanwhile, the exodus has sparked a fierce debate in the U.S. Congress and beyond. Many business and farm interests say entire industries would collapse without immigrant labor. Conservative activists favor deportation and a wall on the border. Liberal groups want to put immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship. If anything binds them together, it's the conviction that something needs to change. The number of illegal immigrants estimated to be in the United States has grown nearly 50 percent in the past six years, to 12 million from 8.4 million in 2000, according to a report released this month by the Pew Hispanic Center. More than half the unauthorized population comes from Mexico. As Congress debates enhanced border security and guest-worker proposals, experts and many immigrants themselves say the only way to keep people in Mexico is to create good jobs here. That was behind a proposal put before Congress in 2004 to create a North American Investment Fund that would have sent $20 billion in American and Canadian development aid to Mexico to start projects there. The proposal went nowhere. ``If we don't start now with a bold program, illegal migration will only get worse,'' said one of the proposal's proponents, Robert Pastor. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who sponsored the 2004 bill, said it may be a long time before Congress is willing to take that step. ``We've got a lot of education to do,'' Cornyn said. ``I don't think the American people support the idea of just taking their tax money and giving it to somebody else just because we want to help them out.'' Technorati Tags: Immigration, Immigration Reform, CAFTA, NAFTA, C.A.F.T.A., N.A.F.T.A., Emmigration, Illegal Immigration, Illiegal Immigrants, illegal Migration, Rodolfo García Zamora

Bye Bye Baja: Mexico, top private interests look to revamp Pacific ports south of the border - Sacramento Bee

2006-03-27T09:54:00.000-08:00

[March 27 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Immigration Reform - The Largest 'Red Herring' To Ever Swim The Potomac

2006-03-27T08:34:00.000-08:00

"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [March 27 2006] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Immigration Reform - The Largest 'Red Herring' To Ever Swim The Potomac Click To Listen: [ M3U Audio Playlist 64Kbps 11:51 Minutes ] Individual Files Available [ Here ] Within 24 Hours Courtesy of: [www.archive.org] Copyright: Cabale New Service and KPIG Radio Via www.leighm.net Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Travus T. Hipp Commentary Archive: Click Here #33#

Search Technorati For: Travus T. Hipp Other Related Topics @ Technorati: Politics News

"The war in Iraq arrives on America's shores by gurney": War Without End (Four Part Series) - San Francisco Chronicle

2006-03-26T11:35:00.000-08:00

The war in Iraq arrives on America's shores by gurney. More than 16,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded -- almost 400 have lost arms, legs, hands or feet. Each injury ripples through lives with its own pattern and force. And as two soldiers and their families are discovering, the war will be with them forever.

http://www.sfgate.com/warwithoutend/

Damaged soldiers start their agonizing recoveries

Joan Ryan

Washington, D.C. — Army Sgt. Michael Buyas stared at the new guy in the physical therapy room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He looked bad, even for this place, where everyone was hacked up and missing legs, arms, hands, feet. Michael was used to the room now, but at first it seemed like a sci-fi human body shop, where broken people came for patching and rebuilding.

The newest arrivals wore hospital gowns, their wounds sometimes still raw and gaping. Most, though, looked like men stopping at the gym on the way home from work, except no one had a complete body. They walked the treadmills on their spindly titanium legs or shifted from their wheelchairs onto weightlifting machines, trading insults the way young men do.

There was something so familiar about the new guy. Story | Photos

=========

The Series

Part One

Walter Reed Army Medical Center is where many of the war's most damaged soldiers start their agonizing recoveries.

Part Two

Being a hero in central Washington state is a thrill, but for Michael, the challenges of having a young family, no career and no legs can be overwhelming.

Part Three

Brent finds that in plunging back into the bar scene at home in Arizona his relationship with his mother strains to the breaking point. nervous.

Part Four

Perhaps the biggest milestone is joining fellow soldiers and remembering how, even without legs, to stand tall.

Casualties

From March 19, 2003 to March 22, 2006 Dead: 2,319 Wounded: 17,269 Amputees: 454 Amputees who have lost more than one limb: 62

Sources: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Brookings Institution, Department of Defense

Health care

Wounded soldiers receive free health care for the rest of their lives, plus vocational rehabilitation, prosthetic services, life insurance, pension, education benefits, grants for specially adapted housing and automobiles, and survivor and burial benefits. Veterans do not pay taxes on the money they receive from the VA. More details

Feedback

Write to us about this series. The email address to use is iraqwounded@sfgate.com.

Contact Brent Bretz through this Web site: www2.caringbridge.org/az/bretz/

Contact Michael Buyas at buyasr@msn.com

===========

How the series was reported

Chronicle reporter Joan Ryan and photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice began documenting "War Without End" during an April 2005 visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where they met Sgts. Michael Buyas and Brent Bretz.

In the subsequent months, Ryan and Fitzmaurice — later joined by photographer Michael Macor — followed the treatment and recovery of the soldiers. They visited with and interviewed them regularly, traveling to Washington state and Arizona to chronicle their first trips home from the hospital.

In most cases, direct quotes used in this story were heard by the reporter. In some cases, when scenes were reconstructed based on interviews, direct quotes were provide by interview subjects.

All scenes from Walter Reed — with one exception — were witnessed by Ryan and Fitzmaurice. The scene in which Carrie Buyas sees her husband for the first time and tells him his legs are gone was re-created from interviews with Carrie, Michael, and Carrie's sisters, Jacky New and Lynn Crockett, who accompanied her to Walter Reed.

The courtship between Carrie and Michael was reported through interviews with Carrie and Michael, Carrie's parents, two sisters, brother and sister-in-law, and Michael's brother, Charles.

The scene in Iraq when Michael responded to the explosion that took Brent's legs was re-created from interviews with Michael, Sgt. Gerardo Avila and Spc. Stephen Morgan and from e-mail interviews with Capt. Ronald Schow, the company commander for Michael and Brent.

Brent and Michael's physical condition and complications were reported through interviews with Dr. Robert Granville, director of amputee services at Brooke Army Medical Center, Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick at the amputee clinic at Walter Reed, and Walter Reed physical therapists Bo Bergeron and Bob Bahr.

Further background on amputations and prostheses was provided by Col. William C. Doukas, chairman of the Walter Reed department of orthopedics and rehabilitation, and John Fergason of the Brooke prosthetics laboratory.

The scene in which Kathy Pearce flies to Germany to see Brent was re-created through interviews with Kathy and her other four children, who accompanied her: Shilo Sessions, Russell Bretz, Melany Merkley and Marie Ekren.

#33#

Technorati Tags: War Wthout End, U.S. War Casualties