America's exploding debt is a ticking time-bomb. No one can say for sure what might trigger a crisis and when the bomb might explode, but this much is for sure: America's current level of borrowing is unsustainable.
America's debt crisis is reflected both in our exploding national debt and our astounding level of borrowing from foreigners, as measured in the current account trade deficit. Every day we fail to address these problems, we increase the chances that the country will be facing an economic crisis of major proportions. Yet few Americans are aware that anything is amiss. The mainstream media covers the issue intermittently, but because the debt increases incrementally, the issue lacks the sort of "crisis" banner that motivates editors and reporters. The lessons of history are clear: a nation's heavy borrowing from abroad is usually a precursor to decline. America's debt is also a moral issue, because we are in effect stealing from future generations. By borrowing so heavily today, we are hollowing out the foundation of America's economic future.
There are two components of America's debt time-bomb: the national debt and the current accounts trade deficit.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
W.'s Head in the Sand
In the Christmas spirit, the time has come for the reality-based community to reach out to the White House.
The Bush warriors are so deluded, they're even faking their fakery.
This week, the president presented a plan-like plan for "victory" in Iraq, which Scott McClellan rather pompously called the unclassified version of their super secret master plan. But there's no way to achieve victory from the plan even if there were a real plan. If this is what they're telling themselves in the Sit Room, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.
Talk about your unknown unknowns, as Rummy would say.
The National Strategy for Victory must have come from the same P.R. genius who gave President Top Gun the "Mission Accomplished" banner about 48 hours before the first counterinsurgency war of the 21st century broke out in Iraq.
It's not a military strategy - classified or unclassified. It's political talking points - and not even good ones. Are we really supposed to believe that anybody, even the most deeply delusional Bush sycophant, believes the phrase "Our strategy is working"?
The president talked about three neatly definable groups of insurrectionists. But, as Dexter Filkins reported in yesterday's New York Times, there are dozens, perhaps as many as a hundred, groups fighting the US Army in Iraq, and they have little, if anything, in common.
Mr. Bush's presentation claimed that the US was actually making progress in Iraq. But outside the Bush-Cheney-Rummy bubble, 10 more marines were killed by a roadside bomb outside Fallujah, for a total of 2,125 US military deaths so far.
The administration must realize it needs a real exit strategy, because it's advertising for one. The US Agency for International Development is offering more than $1 billion for anyone - anyone at all - who can come up with a plan to pacify and rebuild 10 Iraqi cities seen as vital in the war.
Maybe the White House should apply - Usaid's proffer says the "invitation is open to any type of entity."
When Bush officials weren't telling us fairy tales about the big, bad W.M.D. in Iraq, they were assuring us that the unprovoked war would be a kindness for Iraq, giving it democracy. But not only are they failing to bring democracy to Iraq, they are also degrading democracy in America as they help Iranian-backed mullahs install an Islamic republic with Saddamist torture chambers.
They've tarnished American moral leadership with illegal detentions, torture, secret CIA prisons in countries only recently liberated from the Soviet gulag, and Soviet-style propaganda both at home and in Iraq.
Guess the Bush administration didn't learn anything this fall when federal auditors charged it with violating the law by buying favorable news coverage of education polices. The administration got right back into the fake news business, paying to plant propaganda in the Iraqi press. They outsourced this disinformation campaign to something called the Lincoln Group - have they no shame?
You have to admire Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman. He kept a straight face when he called the US "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world." He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press."
Exceedingly clear. The Bushies don't believe in it. They disdain the whole democratic system of checks and balances.
At the Naval Academy, President Bush talked about how well the Iraqi security forces were fighting. He claimed that 40 Iraqi battalions were taking the lead in the fight against insurgents, and that in the battle of Tal Afar this year, "the assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces - 11 Iraqi battalions backed by 5 coalition battalions providing support."
Anderson Cooper of CNN swiftly produced Time's Baghdad bureau chief, Michael Ware, who was embedded with the US military during the entire Tal Afar battle. "With the greatest respect to the president, that's completely wrong," Mr. Ware said, adding: "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading."
He also told Mr. Cooper: "I have had a very senior officer here in Baghdad say to me that there's never going to be a point where these guys will be able to stand up against the insurgency on their own."
Mr. Ware recalled that in a battle two weeks ago, he saw an Iraqi security officer put down his weapon and curl up into a ball when he was under attack. "I have seen that on - on many, many occasions," he said.
Curling up in a ball. Good National Strategy for Victory.
The Bush warriors are so deluded, they're even faking their fakery.
This week, the president presented a plan-like plan for "victory" in Iraq, which Scott McClellan rather pompously called the unclassified version of their super secret master plan. But there's no way to achieve victory from the plan even if there were a real plan. If this is what they're telling themselves in the Sit Room, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.
Talk about your unknown unknowns, as Rummy would say.
The National Strategy for Victory must have come from the same P.R. genius who gave President Top Gun the "Mission Accomplished" banner about 48 hours before the first counterinsurgency war of the 21st century broke out in Iraq.
It's not a military strategy - classified or unclassified. It's political talking points - and not even good ones. Are we really supposed to believe that anybody, even the most deeply delusional Bush sycophant, believes the phrase "Our strategy is working"?
The president talked about three neatly definable groups of insurrectionists. But, as Dexter Filkins reported in yesterday's New York Times, there are dozens, perhaps as many as a hundred, groups fighting the US Army in Iraq, and they have little, if anything, in common.
Mr. Bush's presentation claimed that the US was actually making progress in Iraq. But outside the Bush-Cheney-Rummy bubble, 10 more marines were killed by a roadside bomb outside Fallujah, for a total of 2,125 US military deaths so far.
The administration must realize it needs a real exit strategy, because it's advertising for one. The US Agency for International Development is offering more than $1 billion for anyone - anyone at all - who can come up with a plan to pacify and rebuild 10 Iraqi cities seen as vital in the war.
Maybe the White House should apply - Usaid's proffer says the "invitation is open to any type of entity."
When Bush officials weren't telling us fairy tales about the big, bad W.M.D. in Iraq, they were assuring us that the unprovoked war would be a kindness for Iraq, giving it democracy. But not only are they failing to bring democracy to Iraq, they are also degrading democracy in America as they help Iranian-backed mullahs install an Islamic republic with Saddamist torture chambers.
They've tarnished American moral leadership with illegal detentions, torture, secret CIA prisons in countries only recently liberated from the Soviet gulag, and Soviet-style propaganda both at home and in Iraq.
Guess the Bush administration didn't learn anything this fall when federal auditors charged it with violating the law by buying favorable news coverage of education polices. The administration got right back into the fake news business, paying to plant propaganda in the Iraqi press. They outsourced this disinformation campaign to something called the Lincoln Group - have they no shame?
You have to admire Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman. He kept a straight face when he called the US "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world." He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press."
Exceedingly clear. The Bushies don't believe in it. They disdain the whole democratic system of checks and balances.
At the Naval Academy, President Bush talked about how well the Iraqi security forces were fighting. He claimed that 40 Iraqi battalions were taking the lead in the fight against insurgents, and that in the battle of Tal Afar this year, "the assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces - 11 Iraqi battalions backed by 5 coalition battalions providing support."
Anderson Cooper of CNN swiftly produced Time's Baghdad bureau chief, Michael Ware, who was embedded with the US military during the entire Tal Afar battle. "With the greatest respect to the president, that's completely wrong," Mr. Ware said, adding: "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading."
He also told Mr. Cooper: "I have had a very senior officer here in Baghdad say to me that there's never going to be a point where these guys will be able to stand up against the insurgency on their own."
Mr. Ware recalled that in a battle two weeks ago, he saw an Iraqi security officer put down his weapon and curl up into a ball when he was under attack. "I have seen that on - on many, many occasions," he said.
Curling up in a ball. Good National Strategy for Victory.
Open Letter to the Journalists Covering the Venezuelan Elections
The decision of four opposition parties in Venezuela to withdraw from elections this weekend raises important questions for the media. It is clear to anyone familiar with the situation that this is an attempt to discredit the election, by parties that (according to opposition polling) were indisputably expected to do very badly in the election. This is despite their control over the majority of the broadcast and print media in Venezuela, as well as most of the country’s national income and wealth.
Yet much of the international press coverage would convince the general reader, who is not familiar with the details of the situation, that these parties may have a case for their claim that the ballot couldn’t be trusted. In this coverage it appears to be a matter of opinion, despite a strong statement to the contrary from the OAS, which is observing the election. (See below). As of this morning, almost none of the English-language press had reported the OAS comments, although they were reported in Spanish-language newspapers such as Clarin in Argentina.
It is clear that the opposition’s attempt to discredit these elections will be joined by powerful figures in the United States, including some Members of Congress and - possibly, depending on how the media covers these events - the White House and State Department.
It is worth noting that most of these same opposition parties, and also Súmate (an opposition group that co-ordinated the August 2004 attempt to recall President Chavez), refused to accept the results of that referendum, which they lost by a 59-41 margin. They claimed that a massive electronic fraud had taken place, and even commissioned a statistical analysis by two economists, at Harvard’s Kennedy school and MIT, which provided a theory and alleged evidence for this fraud. (See: ).
The referendum was certified by the OAS and the Carter Center. The electronic voting machines used in that election produced a paper receipt for each vote, which was then deposited in a ballot box. It was thus a simple matter for the election observers (OAS/Carter Center) to audit a sample of the electronic vote and match it to the paper ballots, which they did.
Yet much of the international press coverage would convince the general reader, who is not familiar with the details of the situation, that these parties may have a case for their claim that the ballot couldn’t be trusted. In this coverage it appears to be a matter of opinion, despite a strong statement to the contrary from the OAS, which is observing the election. (See below). As of this morning, almost none of the English-language press had reported the OAS comments, although they were reported in Spanish-language newspapers such as Clarin in Argentina.
It is clear that the opposition’s attempt to discredit these elections will be joined by powerful figures in the United States, including some Members of Congress and - possibly, depending on how the media covers these events - the White House and State Department.
It is worth noting that most of these same opposition parties, and also Súmate (an opposition group that co-ordinated the August 2004 attempt to recall President Chavez), refused to accept the results of that referendum, which they lost by a 59-41 margin. They claimed that a massive electronic fraud had taken place, and even commissioned a statistical analysis by two economists, at Harvard’s Kennedy school and MIT, which provided a theory and alleged evidence for this fraud. (See:
The referendum was certified by the OAS and the Carter Center. The electronic voting machines used in that election produced a paper receipt for each vote, which was then deposited in a ballot box. It was thus a simple matter for the election observers (OAS/Carter Center) to audit a sample of the electronic vote and match it to the paper ballots, which they did.
Venezuela to Fuel Puerto Rico
San Juan, Dec 1 (Prensa Latina) Puerto Rican state-run AEE (electric energy authority) signed a deal with Venezuela Thursday for diesel supplies at a price lower than the international market.
AEE executive chief Edwin Rivera confirmed the purchase of 250,000 barrels of diesel from Caracas.
Through state-run Petroleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA) the Venezuelan government granted a more than 1.5 percent per barrel discount for the refined fuel rated number 2.
The contract will allow Puerto Ricans to reduce energy consumption during the first quarter of 2006, and accounts for 25 percent of the fuel the AEE consumes.
Puerto Rico initially tried to enter Venezuela-spearheaded PETROCARIBE energy project to receive oil at preferential prices but its efforts were obstructed as officials of the Chavez government said that only sovereign nations could join that project.
Puerto Rico has been an associate Free State dependency of the US since 1952, and that status only allows a partial administration without right to sovereignty.
Following Puerto Rican independence leader Juan Mari Bras´ request to Caracas for a deal similar to the one signed, Venezuelan Ambassador to Washington Bernardo Alvarez contacted Puerto Rican President Anibal Acevedo to open negotiations.
The diesel supplies will arrive in Puerto Rica on December 26, 2006.
The AEE expects to buy up to five million diesel barrels from Venezuela, and talks are in process to also purchase fuel in Qatar and Nigeria.
AEE executive chief Edwin Rivera confirmed the purchase of 250,000 barrels of diesel from Caracas.
Through state-run Petroleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA) the Venezuelan government granted a more than 1.5 percent per barrel discount for the refined fuel rated number 2.
The contract will allow Puerto Ricans to reduce energy consumption during the first quarter of 2006, and accounts for 25 percent of the fuel the AEE consumes.
Puerto Rico initially tried to enter Venezuela-spearheaded PETROCARIBE energy project to receive oil at preferential prices but its efforts were obstructed as officials of the Chavez government said that only sovereign nations could join that project.
Puerto Rico has been an associate Free State dependency of the US since 1952, and that status only allows a partial administration without right to sovereignty.
Following Puerto Rican independence leader Juan Mari Bras´ request to Caracas for a deal similar to the one signed, Venezuelan Ambassador to Washington Bernardo Alvarez contacted Puerto Rican President Anibal Acevedo to open negotiations.
The diesel supplies will arrive in Puerto Rica on December 26, 2006.
The AEE expects to buy up to five million diesel barrels from Venezuela, and talks are in process to also purchase fuel in Qatar and Nigeria.
American capillary vision and inventions of democracy
Behind the closed doors in White House anything and everything even the God's Will can get a good deal of twists and turns
There has been a plethora of superseding "inventions" to "justify" U.S. invasion in Iraq. Some hail this as the U.S. administration's innovative approach to U.S. International Policy. Nobody can stop the crafty innovators in the White House, they continue to go from one invention to the other. The latest "invention" of the White House is aimed at justifying torture as means of interrogation of terror suspects (even before they are charged or let alone prosecuted). Ordinary folks seem not educated enough and lack an adequate command in innovative White House linguistics to understand the language of the White House inventors. What is known in anybody's language as 'invasion' and 'terror', 'torture', in the language of U.S. Administration receives a divine print of a holy war for democracy. Nothing will deviate this President of the U.S. from his pursuance of what he calls "God's Will". Coincidentally, Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi and their Islam fundamentalist suicide bombers use a "mantra" "Insha"Allah" meaning the same thing - "God's Will". "God's Will" has thus become the "universal justification" for terror, counter terror, aggression, counter aggression, invasion, counter invasion, butchery and counter butchery. Torture is the inhuman manipulation of the human feelings of fear to achieve desired outcomes. The human race has come a long way protesting, fighting against and discarding these primitive ways.
American capillary vision and inventions of democracy - Part II
Once a proud, rapidly developing nation of educated, decent people, Iraq is now on its knees, begging for a chance to survive
Caught up in the consequence of this "short sighted" U.S. policy of political prostitution are the innocent men, women and children of Iraq and U.S. This senseless war based on deception, has not only stripped Iraqis off their dignity, pride, elementary human rights and freedom, it also has scarred the sense of pride, decency and sanity of the American Soldiers, dehumanising some of them to a the lowest level. It has distressed and angered the decent American population. Scars of both nations will take many years to heal.
The Origins of the Overclass
The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.
The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.
During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.
How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"
The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.
During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.
How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"
US intercepted communications of Congolese President Laurent Kabila
December 4, 2005 -- US intercepted communications of Congolese President Kabila during 1998 Rwandan-Ugandan invasion of Congo. According to intelligence sources, in 1998, when Rwanda and Uganda launched a U.S.-backed invasion of Congo, the supersecret joint NSA-CIA Special Collection Service (F6) was actively monitoring the communications of Congolese President Laurent Kabila. Of particular interest were Kabila's conversations in Swahili, a language he learned while living in exile in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania during the long reign of Congolese dictator Joseph Mobutu (Mobutu Sese Seko).
Although the U.S. helped put Kabila into power after an invasion carried out by Uganda and Rwanda in 1996-97, Washington soon broke with the leader after he demonstrated a more nationalistic stance, something that did not sit well with international diamond and gold cartels wishing to plunder Congo's vast resources. Kabila was assassinated in Kinshasa on January 16, 2001, four days before George W. Bush was inaugurated. Kabila was replaced by his son, Joseph who continues to lead a fractured nation where multinational diamond and gold interests continue to plunder the nation dry.
Although the U.S. helped put Kabila into power after an invasion carried out by Uganda and Rwanda in 1996-97, Washington soon broke with the leader after he demonstrated a more nationalistic stance, something that did not sit well with international diamond and gold cartels wishing to plunder Congo's vast resources. Kabila was assassinated in Kinshasa on January 16, 2001, four days before George W. Bush was inaugurated. Kabila was replaced by his son, Joseph who continues to lead a fractured nation where multinational diamond and gold interests continue to plunder the nation dry.
Nominate Cindy Sheehan to be Time's "Person of the Year"
Nominate Cindy Sheehan to be
Time's "Person of the Year"
HERE
Time's "Person of the Year"
HERE
Breaking news: Chavez sweeps Venezuelan elections
Breaking news: Chavez sweeps Venezuelan elections
I don't normally just do "news" here, after all, most of my readers are cruising the net and have access to all the sources I do. In this case, however, I'm making an exception. Why? Because, as I write this, there isn't the slightest evidence at the New York Times or Washington Post (even on the South America page!) websites that an election even took place in Venezuela today. Why are they ignoring it? Because there's no way to disguise what happened, or to spin it in favor of the U.S. line (although they will try mightily to do so once they catch their breath).
At the moment, the BBC is the only news organization carrying the story:
Venezuela has charged, and Washington has denied, that the boycott aas a Washington-backed plot. Whether it was or not, there's no doubt that the opposition parties were taking their lead from Washington, and decided to boycott the election when they realized they didn't have a prayer of winning. The Chavez government is immensely popular in Venezuela because of the way it is funneling the country's oil income into social needs. Partly because of that, I'm highly skeptical of the alleged 25% turnout; we know from past elections (and polls) that Chavez's popularity is well over 50%. It's possible that Chavez supporters, realizing that the opposition had folded its tent and snuck away in the night, weren't motivated to vote, but I tend to doubt that. Sending a message to the opposition (and to the world) was a key part of the election, and a key part of the defense of the country -- the stronger the support for the government, the less likely the U.S. is to either attack (which is unlikely in the short term) or to undertake serious destabilization measures like a blockade. So we'll see what further information emerges in the next few days on that one point (the turnout), but for now, one thing is definite -- Hugo Chavez and his party will continue to lead the Bolivarian revolution, and the Venezuelan people, forward.
I don't normally just do "news" here, after all, most of my readers are cruising the net and have access to all the sources I do. In this case, however, I'm making an exception. Why? Because, as I write this, there isn't the slightest evidence at the New York Times or Washington Post (even on the South America page!) websites that an election even took place in Venezuela today. Why are they ignoring it? Because there's no way to disguise what happened, or to spin it in favor of the U.S. line (although they will try mightily to do so once they catch their breath).
At the moment, the BBC is the only news organization carrying the story:
"Parties allied to President Hugo Chavez say they have won all 167 seats in the country's parliament, after elections boycotted by the opposition.
"None of the five main opposition parties took part, accusing the electoral body of bias. Only about 25% of registered voters cast a ballot.
"The Fifth Republic Movement, Mr Chavez's party, won 114 seats in the 167 single-chamber National Assembly, according to senior party member, Willian Lara. He said the remainder of seats had been won by allies of the president."
Venezuela has charged, and Washington has denied, that the boycott aas a Washington-backed plot. Whether it was or not, there's no doubt that the opposition parties were taking their lead from Washington, and decided to boycott the election when they realized they didn't have a prayer of winning. The Chavez government is immensely popular in Venezuela because of the way it is funneling the country's oil income into social needs. Partly because of that, I'm highly skeptical of the alleged 25% turnout; we know from past elections (and polls) that Chavez's popularity is well over 50%. It's possible that Chavez supporters, realizing that the opposition had folded its tent and snuck away in the night, weren't motivated to vote, but I tend to doubt that. Sending a message to the opposition (and to the world) was a key part of the election, and a key part of the defense of the country -- the stronger the support for the government, the less likely the U.S. is to either attack (which is unlikely in the short term) or to undertake serious destabilization measures like a blockade. So we'll see what further information emerges in the next few days on that one point (the turnout), but for now, one thing is definite -- Hugo Chavez and his party will continue to lead the Bolivarian revolution, and the Venezuelan people, forward.
Damaging Disclosures and the Plot to Bomb al-Jazeera
As an indication of how well-entrenched the police state is in Britain, consider the prosecution, under the Officials Secrets Act, of David Keogh, a former communications officer at the Cabinet Office, and Leo O’Connor, a former parliamentary researcher. "Mr. Keogh, 49, is charged with making a 'damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations' without lawful authority, while Mr. O'Connor, 42, is charged with having receiving a document 'through its disclosure without lawful authority by a crown servant,'" according to the Financial Times. "The document, according to a report in the Daily Mirror, detailed minutes of a conversation between Tony Blair and President George W. Bush, in which bombing the headquarters of the Arabic satellite TV channel al-Jazeera was discussed."
Interesting how it is a crime to reveal a war crime (or potential war crime), deemed a "damaging disclosure," and Keogh and O’Connor may actually go to prison while Bush and Blair will be free to become "elder statesmen" advising others on how best to kill innocent civilians and journalists.
It appears Keogh and O’Connor will not be allowed to defend themselves, thus adding a rather Stalinesque flavor to the proceedings (Julie Hyland described it as "a Kafkaesque quality"). "No details of the memo were given in court and O'Connor’s lawyer Neil Clark has said he does not know what is in the alleged document, and has never seen it. Calling for the government to release the information, he said he needed to 'know the case' against his client as it would be 'impossible' to defend him otherwise," writes Hyland.
Of course, the point here is not to allow Keogh and O'Connor to defend themselves, but rather to send a message: if you reveal the murderous intentions of the government (or a possible contrivance between two governments) to bomb news offices and studios in a sovereign nation, you will be prosecuted and sent to prison. As Hyland notes, using " the OSA against civil servants is … unusual. Former intelligence officer David Shayler was prosecuted and imprisoned under the act, after he disclosed that Britain’s MI6 had backed a failed plot to assassinate Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.” In other words, the Officials Secrets Act is used only when something is released that seriously embarrasses the government—or makes the government out for what it really is: a collection of sociopaths capable of killing dozens if not thousands of people under a veil of official secrecy.
But the real story here, beyond the prosecution of Keogh and O’Connor, is the alarming idea that heads of state get together in government suites and connive to bomb media outlets and thus mass murder journalists, producers, technicians, managers, etc., in a sovereign country (it is said Blair talked Bush out of going forward with his idea). It says a whole lot about the mindset and character of George Bush.
But then we've known about that for a few years now.
Interesting how it is a crime to reveal a war crime (or potential war crime), deemed a "damaging disclosure," and Keogh and O’Connor may actually go to prison while Bush and Blair will be free to become "elder statesmen" advising others on how best to kill innocent civilians and journalists.
It appears Keogh and O’Connor will not be allowed to defend themselves, thus adding a rather Stalinesque flavor to the proceedings (Julie Hyland described it as "a Kafkaesque quality"). "No details of the memo were given in court and O'Connor’s lawyer Neil Clark has said he does not know what is in the alleged document, and has never seen it. Calling for the government to release the information, he said he needed to 'know the case' against his client as it would be 'impossible' to defend him otherwise," writes Hyland.
Of course, the point here is not to allow Keogh and O'Connor to defend themselves, but rather to send a message: if you reveal the murderous intentions of the government (or a possible contrivance between two governments) to bomb news offices and studios in a sovereign nation, you will be prosecuted and sent to prison. As Hyland notes, using " the OSA against civil servants is … unusual. Former intelligence officer David Shayler was prosecuted and imprisoned under the act, after he disclosed that Britain’s MI6 had backed a failed plot to assassinate Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.” In other words, the Officials Secrets Act is used only when something is released that seriously embarrasses the government—or makes the government out for what it really is: a collection of sociopaths capable of killing dozens if not thousands of people under a veil of official secrecy.
But the real story here, beyond the prosecution of Keogh and O’Connor, is the alarming idea that heads of state get together in government suites and connive to bomb media outlets and thus mass murder journalists, producers, technicians, managers, etc., in a sovereign country (it is said Blair talked Bush out of going forward with his idea). It says a whole lot about the mindset and character of George Bush.
But then we've known about that for a few years now.
Latino Troops Have Parents
"I Have a Quota of Kids to Recruit, So What the Hell?
Latino Troops Have Parents
By SAUL LANDAU
In the faculty dining room at the California State University where I teach, a Mexican-American woman places thin slices of turkey on bread. Stress lines radiate down from her high cheekbones. One of her sons left last week for Iraq. "I pray every day," she says, smearing mayonnaise on bread.
"Why did he join the military?"
She smiles, resigned to her lack of control over an adolescent growing up in a combat culture. "He's a good boy. I ask God to return him to me," she says. "What can I do? I'm desperate."
Desperation describes the mood of hundreds of thousands of Latino parents whose kids serve in war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also describes the actual situation of those once confident imperial managers who have gotten 200,000 young men and women stuck in two quagmires without an exit strategy.
Bush's wars and the subsequent occupation of Iraq have clearly divided the nation and fomented anti-Americanism throughout the world. They have also strained the resources of the mighty Pentagon. The 2005-6 "Defense Budget" of $640+ billion--counting the Intelligence budget--comes to almost twice what the rest of the world spends on "defense."
Until the 21st Century Middle East wars, the military casually filled its recruiting quota from amongst poor youth around the country. National Guard service appeared attractive since the chances of having to engage in an actual war seemed remote. But after Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and discovered that he had insufficient troops to occupy both places, he called up more than 100,000 National Guard troops and launched an aggressive recruiting campaign. But the growing dead and wounded count filtered through the Administration's optimistic spin. Even the usually gullible teenagers began to think twice about "joining up."
Over the last decades, the Pentagon has raised salaries and increased benefits top attract a non-draft army. In less than twenty years, salaries have leaped up to four times. In 1981, a low-ranking private earned less than $4,500 a year. Today, that same rank comes with a salary of almost $15,000. A corporal, two short grades up, leaped from $5,000 to $22,000. In addition, he or she gets free food, housing and clothing--uniform--and discounts on most consumer goods.
Officers without post graduate degrees can earn up to $125,000 and enjoy privileges like ski resorts in the Alps. For the first time in its history, the United States had a large, standing professional army.
Yet, in 2003, despite increases in salaries and bonuses--and other promises of free training and education -- offered by the armed forces, the recruiters fell short of their quotas. The slogan "be all you can be in the army" did not convince those who knew of or heard of stories involving friends and family members getting killed or permanently disabled. The body count and wounded numbers rose in the war zones. By late November, more than 2,100 servicemen and women had died; estimates of more than 20,000 wounded. The Pentagon has not released a count on how many of the wounded have died of their injuries.
"As dimwitted as American teenagers are," a Mexican-American army recruiter confessed to me in June in Pomona California, "they're not stupid enough to fall for the crap we're selling to get them to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't quote me."
I'm quoting him, but omitting his name and rank. His parents came from Sinaloa and settled in San Bernadino, where he grew up and decided to make an army career after he dropped out of high school. "It pays OK and I don't work too hard. I'd rather be here than in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'll tell you that."
His partner, a young woman with sergeant stripes on her sleeve whispers to him in Spanish. "Estas loco? No digas mas. No te chingas cabron." He laughs.
Next to his recruiting table outside the university student center, some undergraduates had set up a "de-cruiting" table, offering prospective recruits "the facts about the US military," including the numbers of dead and wounded that the two wars had already exacted. In addition, the anti-military students "clarified" some of the army's promises about loans and other benefits, were far less than the military had promised. They had statements from some returning wounded veterans to the effect that the army had docked their pay and cut their benefits.
The sergeant made no attempt to counter the students at the adjoining table. He handed out pamphlets, shook hands and laughed. "It's my job. I have a quota of kids to recruit, so what the Hell."
Hell, indeed. That word has spread even to those black and Latino communities that have traditionally supplied more than their share of youth for the US military's frequent overseas and violent excursions.
For "illegal" Mexicans or those who want a quick route to citizenship, the military holds a strong attraction. Since Mexico provides the closest and most logical recruiting arena, Mexican "illegals" numerically outstrip all other Latin Americans living in the United States and in Iraq itself. Some 8000 Mexicans have now volunteered for official military service (John Ross, Counterpunch February 21, 2005).
Mexicans and those of Mexican descent make up more than half of the approximately 110,000 Latinos mostly, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Central Americans currently serving in the U.S. military. In addition, almost 25,000 other Mexicans have enlisted as a means of obtaining US citizenship. Coyotes smuggled some of these Mexicans into the country as children who never had any "legal" documents.
The recruiters target high schools with heavy population of Mexican descent. The Marines have had particular success in their forceful publicity campaign. They claim that youth of Mexican origin make up 13% of the Corps. But that high percentage of Latinos also shows up in the high dead and wounded count.
Even before the bloody November 2004 battle of Fallujah which exacted a heavy toll, Mexican families began to feel the pain of war. The dead, the legless, armless, eyeless and brain dead wounded began to come home. On both sides of the Rio Grande, Mexican parents shared a common anguish. 122 Latinos were among the first 1000 U.S. casualties in Iraq. 70 of them were of Mexican descent.
On December 24, 2004, the day before Christmas, Sergio Diaz Varela died in Ramadi. His family and friends attended his funeral in Guadalajara, where "armed troops from Fort Hood, Texas led by General Ken Keene accompanied the young soldier to his final resting place, and U.S. ambassador Tony Garza commended the boy's soul to God" (John Ross, Counterpunch, Feb 21, 2005).
Similar funerals took place in San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato and in the Altos de Jalisco. On the invasion day, the first GI killed was Mexican American. Fernando Suarez del Solar, father of Jesus, a resident of Escondido, California, spoke in Spanish. The 48 year old man, slight of build, said he had immigrated from Tijuana 1997. He now worked as cashier at a convenience stores and delivered newspapers.
He began hesitatingly. "El dia de hoy estoy aqui demandando el retorno inmediato de nuestras tropas," he told a student audience at the California State Polytechnic University in California. "Yo perdi a mi hijo, a mi Guerrero Azteca, Jesus Alberto, por negligencia del comando Americano en Irak en esta guerra ilegal llena de mentiras del presidente Bush."
As he spoke he seemed to gain confidence and strength. "Ustedes saben que mi hijo muere por pisar una granada "AMIGA," una granada puesta la noche anterior por el Army y nunca avisaron a la unidad de mi hijo y les dieron la orden de avansar y como mi hijo era el explorador piso una de ellas y duro casi tres horas para recibir atencion medica, para que un helicoptero llegara con auxilio. Esto es una muestra de nuestro ejercito invensible? Es una muestra de la proteccion que les dan a nuestros muchachos?" A tear of grief or rage or both fell onto his cheek.
He got no answers from the Pentagon. So, he traveled to Iraq to find the truth about his son's death. He joined Military Families Speak Out. With other relatives of dead and wounded servicemen and women, he speaks and organizes against the war.
Fernando Suarez does more than ask God for help. "Señor Bush," he shouted to a California student group in the Fall of 2004. "Cuantos hijos de nosotros nesecita para llenar su tanque de gasolina? Cuantos hijos americanos muertos nesecita para parar esta guerra llena de mentiras? Yo no quiero mas muertes de nuestros hijos de sus padres, esposos. paremos esto YA!!! Señor Bush, espero que dios le perdone, porque yo no puedo."
Saul Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University.
Latino Troops Have Parents
By SAUL LANDAU
In the faculty dining room at the California State University where I teach, a Mexican-American woman places thin slices of turkey on bread. Stress lines radiate down from her high cheekbones. One of her sons left last week for Iraq. "I pray every day," she says, smearing mayonnaise on bread.
"Why did he join the military?"
She smiles, resigned to her lack of control over an adolescent growing up in a combat culture. "He's a good boy. I ask God to return him to me," she says. "What can I do? I'm desperate."
Desperation describes the mood of hundreds of thousands of Latino parents whose kids serve in war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also describes the actual situation of those once confident imperial managers who have gotten 200,000 young men and women stuck in two quagmires without an exit strategy.
Bush's wars and the subsequent occupation of Iraq have clearly divided the nation and fomented anti-Americanism throughout the world. They have also strained the resources of the mighty Pentagon. The 2005-6 "Defense Budget" of $640+ billion--counting the Intelligence budget--comes to almost twice what the rest of the world spends on "defense."
Until the 21st Century Middle East wars, the military casually filled its recruiting quota from amongst poor youth around the country. National Guard service appeared attractive since the chances of having to engage in an actual war seemed remote. But after Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and discovered that he had insufficient troops to occupy both places, he called up more than 100,000 National Guard troops and launched an aggressive recruiting campaign. But the growing dead and wounded count filtered through the Administration's optimistic spin. Even the usually gullible teenagers began to think twice about "joining up."
Over the last decades, the Pentagon has raised salaries and increased benefits top attract a non-draft army. In less than twenty years, salaries have leaped up to four times. In 1981, a low-ranking private earned less than $4,500 a year. Today, that same rank comes with a salary of almost $15,000. A corporal, two short grades up, leaped from $5,000 to $22,000. In addition, he or she gets free food, housing and clothing--uniform--and discounts on most consumer goods.
Officers without post graduate degrees can earn up to $125,000 and enjoy privileges like ski resorts in the Alps. For the first time in its history, the United States had a large, standing professional army.
Yet, in 2003, despite increases in salaries and bonuses--and other promises of free training and education -- offered by the armed forces, the recruiters fell short of their quotas. The slogan "be all you can be in the army" did not convince those who knew of or heard of stories involving friends and family members getting killed or permanently disabled. The body count and wounded numbers rose in the war zones. By late November, more than 2,100 servicemen and women had died; estimates of more than 20,000 wounded. The Pentagon has not released a count on how many of the wounded have died of their injuries.
"As dimwitted as American teenagers are," a Mexican-American army recruiter confessed to me in June in Pomona California, "they're not stupid enough to fall for the crap we're selling to get them to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't quote me."
I'm quoting him, but omitting his name and rank. His parents came from Sinaloa and settled in San Bernadino, where he grew up and decided to make an army career after he dropped out of high school. "It pays OK and I don't work too hard. I'd rather be here than in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'll tell you that."
His partner, a young woman with sergeant stripes on her sleeve whispers to him in Spanish. "Estas loco? No digas mas. No te chingas cabron." He laughs.
Next to his recruiting table outside the university student center, some undergraduates had set up a "de-cruiting" table, offering prospective recruits "the facts about the US military," including the numbers of dead and wounded that the two wars had already exacted. In addition, the anti-military students "clarified" some of the army's promises about loans and other benefits, were far less than the military had promised. They had statements from some returning wounded veterans to the effect that the army had docked their pay and cut their benefits.
The sergeant made no attempt to counter the students at the adjoining table. He handed out pamphlets, shook hands and laughed. "It's my job. I have a quota of kids to recruit, so what the Hell."
Hell, indeed. That word has spread even to those black and Latino communities that have traditionally supplied more than their share of youth for the US military's frequent overseas and violent excursions.
For "illegal" Mexicans or those who want a quick route to citizenship, the military holds a strong attraction. Since Mexico provides the closest and most logical recruiting arena, Mexican "illegals" numerically outstrip all other Latin Americans living in the United States and in Iraq itself. Some 8000 Mexicans have now volunteered for official military service (John Ross, Counterpunch February 21, 2005).
Mexicans and those of Mexican descent make up more than half of the approximately 110,000 Latinos mostly, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Central Americans currently serving in the U.S. military. In addition, almost 25,000 other Mexicans have enlisted as a means of obtaining US citizenship. Coyotes smuggled some of these Mexicans into the country as children who never had any "legal" documents.
The recruiters target high schools with heavy population of Mexican descent. The Marines have had particular success in their forceful publicity campaign. They claim that youth of Mexican origin make up 13% of the Corps. But that high percentage of Latinos also shows up in the high dead and wounded count.
Even before the bloody November 2004 battle of Fallujah which exacted a heavy toll, Mexican families began to feel the pain of war. The dead, the legless, armless, eyeless and brain dead wounded began to come home. On both sides of the Rio Grande, Mexican parents shared a common anguish. 122 Latinos were among the first 1000 U.S. casualties in Iraq. 70 of them were of Mexican descent.
On December 24, 2004, the day before Christmas, Sergio Diaz Varela died in Ramadi. His family and friends attended his funeral in Guadalajara, where "armed troops from Fort Hood, Texas led by General Ken Keene accompanied the young soldier to his final resting place, and U.S. ambassador Tony Garza commended the boy's soul to God" (John Ross, Counterpunch, Feb 21, 2005).
Similar funerals took place in San Luis de la Paz, Guanajuato and in the Altos de Jalisco. On the invasion day, the first GI killed was Mexican American. Fernando Suarez del Solar, father of Jesus, a resident of Escondido, California, spoke in Spanish. The 48 year old man, slight of build, said he had immigrated from Tijuana 1997. He now worked as cashier at a convenience stores and delivered newspapers.
He began hesitatingly. "El dia de hoy estoy aqui demandando el retorno inmediato de nuestras tropas," he told a student audience at the California State Polytechnic University in California. "Yo perdi a mi hijo, a mi Guerrero Azteca, Jesus Alberto, por negligencia del comando Americano en Irak en esta guerra ilegal llena de mentiras del presidente Bush."
As he spoke he seemed to gain confidence and strength. "Ustedes saben que mi hijo muere por pisar una granada "AMIGA," una granada puesta la noche anterior por el Army y nunca avisaron a la unidad de mi hijo y les dieron la orden de avansar y como mi hijo era el explorador piso una de ellas y duro casi tres horas para recibir atencion medica, para que un helicoptero llegara con auxilio. Esto es una muestra de nuestro ejercito invensible? Es una muestra de la proteccion que les dan a nuestros muchachos?" A tear of grief or rage or both fell onto his cheek.
He got no answers from the Pentagon. So, he traveled to Iraq to find the truth about his son's death. He joined Military Families Speak Out. With other relatives of dead and wounded servicemen and women, he speaks and organizes against the war.
Fernando Suarez does more than ask God for help. "Señor Bush," he shouted to a California student group in the Fall of 2004. "Cuantos hijos de nosotros nesecita para llenar su tanque de gasolina? Cuantos hijos americanos muertos nesecita para parar esta guerra llena de mentiras? Yo no quiero mas muertes de nuestros hijos de sus padres, esposos. paremos esto YA!!! Señor Bush, espero que dios le perdone, porque yo no puedo."
Saul Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University.
GPF on Great Iraq Oil Ripoff
I am posting the link to this study in the hope that people will take the trouble to actually read it. The “produciton sharing agreement,” as explained herein, may seem too technical to engage us on the gut level, but it is extremely important. I especially hope Iraqi English readers will render this account available to other Iraqis in Arabic, explicitly to generate the opposition necessary inside Iraq to kill this staggering rip-off of Iraqi national assets by multinationals under the wing of the US state. This new PSA arrangement was produced with the intention to continue colonial exploitation without the “privatization” standard that generates nationalist opposition. It is exactly that opposition I hope to encourage by posting this.
While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.
This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority (1) of Iraq’s oilfields – accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves – for development by multinational oil companies.
Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.
COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS
Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.
Our key findings are:
# At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.
# Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.
A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF
While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.
This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority (1) of Iraq’s oilfields – accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves – for development by multinational oil companies.
Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.
COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS
Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.
Our key findings are:
# At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.
# Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.
A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF
Gangs Threaten Riots in Los Angeles: ‘Took Die, the City Fry’
From Pensito Review
"Took die, the city fry,"
Rage redux: The LA Weekly reports that the word is out in the "gangosphere" that if Crips founder Tookie Williams is executed on Dec. 13, angry mobs are set to riot once again in Los Angeles."Took die, the city fry," said Raymond "The Hatchet Man" Locket, a member of the West Side Harlem Crips, who says he knew Tookie back in the day. "That’s the word on the streets."
Having lived through the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict in 1992 as well as the Northridge earthquake in 1994 (and many, many others), I personally will take a 6.9 quake over rioting any day of the week.
The '92 riots showed how vulnerable a city can be to an angry mob. Our Thin Blue Line was decimated. After purposefully allowing the violence to escalate overnight on April 29, when Chief Darryl Gates finally deployed the police the next morning, the LAPD was massively outnumbered by looters and malcontents. Firefighters were hampered from saving lives and property by people firing weapons at them.It took Gov. Wilson 72 hours to get the California National Guard onto the scene, and even then, the soldiers discovered they lacked ammunition for their weapons. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)
It is hard to imagine that the city will once again erupt into violence if Williams is executed, but then again, no one took the signs seriously that there would be riots after the King verdict.
I'm personally opposed to the death penalty (it doesn't work as a deterrent, and I'm squeamish about society being in the business of exacting bloodthirsty revenge) but fear of rioting should not stop this execution.
Which is not to say that it shouldn't be stopped. Williams has steadfastly denied being guilty of the crimes he was convicted for. Moreover, he's done his best to make the best out of his life in prison.
And, in fact, Williams has one last chance, and that chance lies with the governor of California. Could there be a more bizarre scenario than having a lunkhead like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the position of deciding whether someone lives or dies? Leaving aside the merits of the case, that is exactly the position Williams is in. He will have a face to face hearing with the governor on Dec. 8.
Marc Cooper estimates the chances that Arnold will grant clemency for Tookie at about 40 percent - and he rightly points out that if Williams were facing Schwarzenegger's Democratic predecessor, Gray Davis, the chance would have been well below zero. Davis took law and order very serious. In fact, in 286 cases in which a parole board had recommended release of prisoners, Davis turned down 100 percent.
Williams was a founder of the Westside Crips, and, as mentioned, he denies that he was involved in the cold-blooded murders of Albert Owens, during a robbery at a 7-Eleven store, and of motel owners Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Chen Yang and their daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, at the Brookhaven Motel in South-Central Los Angeles, on February 27, 1979.
He has also spent his time in prison productively. He’s the author of several children's books that encourage kids to avoid gang life and violence and has even been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course, Tookie Williams' deeds and misdeeds will mean little this governor. He will make the decision based entirely on political considerations, a factor that may spare Tookie Williams' life.
At this point, Schwarzenegger is desperate to regain support among independents. To do this, he appears to be on a path of abandoning the few supporters he currently has, who are all on the extreme right.
Arnold (and his eternally misguided staff and advisers, including his Democratic wife) could well make the political calculation that sparing Tookie might please independents and liberals. If so, the governor will grant clemency to Williams in order to further his own political goals.
On the other hand, if Schwarzenegger denies clemency, we will see if the passions exist in the vast flatlands of South Los Angeles to bring turmoil down onto our heads once again - one week before Christmas.
Report: Tamiflu is 'useless' for avian flu
Report: Tamiflu is 'useless' for avian flu, so of course the US Government will spend your tax dollars to buy lots of it from Donald Rumsfeld's company.
LONDON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- A Vietnamese doctor with experience in treating avian flu says Tamiflu, the drug being stockpiled for treatment of avian flue is useless against the virus.
Dr. Nguyen Tuong Van of the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi has treated 41 victims of H5N1, following World Health Organization guidelines and administering Tamiflu to her patients. She told the Sunday Times of London the medicine had no effect.
"We place no importance on using this drug on our patients," she said. "Tamiflu is really only meant for treating ordinary type A flu. It was not designed to combat H5N1."
The newspaper said the finding casts doubt on the British government's pandemic flu policy. The nation's top medical official, Sir Liam Donaldson, has ordered 15 million doses of Tamiflu be stockpiled.
Van said the only way to keep avian flu patients alive is to "support" all their vital organs -- including the liver and kidneys -- with modern technology like ventilators and dialysis machines, the Sunday Times reported.
The WHO has acknowledge Tamiflu had not been "widely successful in human patients," but said it believes it would have been more effective in many Asian countries if it had been used earlier in the illness.
LONDON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- A Vietnamese doctor with experience in treating avian flu says Tamiflu, the drug being stockpiled for treatment of avian flue is useless against the virus.
Dr. Nguyen Tuong Van of the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi has treated 41 victims of H5N1, following World Health Organization guidelines and administering Tamiflu to her patients. She told the Sunday Times of London the medicine had no effect.
"We place no importance on using this drug on our patients," she said. "Tamiflu is really only meant for treating ordinary type A flu. It was not designed to combat H5N1."
The newspaper said the finding casts doubt on the British government's pandemic flu policy. The nation's top medical official, Sir Liam Donaldson, has ordered 15 million doses of Tamiflu be stockpiled.
Van said the only way to keep avian flu patients alive is to "support" all their vital organs -- including the liver and kidneys -- with modern technology like ventilators and dialysis machines, the Sunday Times reported.
The WHO has acknowledge Tamiflu had not been "widely successful in human patients," but said it believes it would have been more effective in many Asian countries if it had been used earlier in the illness.
Another source for the FOX News "Loose Change" video clip.
Another source for the FOX News "Loose Change" video clip.
http://tree3.com/video/fox.wmv
Posted Dec 4, 2005 05:11 PM PST
Category: 911
http://tree3.com/video/fox.wmv
Posted Dec 4, 2005 05:11 PM PST
Category: 911
POWERFUL WORDS
Saddam Hussein's recent court appearance piqued the emotions of many Iraqis. Some were upset that he is still alive and, with no regard to any kind of law, chastised the court for not executing him on the spot.
On the other hand, millions of Iraqis who watched the proceedings on television had another take on what they saw. When the judge told Saddam that he would look into the Americans fixing a faulty elevator, Saddam gave a lecture. He said the judge should "order" U.S. personnel to fix it. Then he stated, "You are an Iraqi."
Those four words speak volumes. Today, Iraqis are being depicted as Sunni, Shi’ite, Chaldean, Assyrian, Turkomen, etc. Those Iraqis who have succumbed to the new nomenclature are playing into the hands of a disastrous U.S. policy to fragment Iraq. Saddam Hussein had to remind the judge and his countrypeople of their nationality.
When Saddam uttered those words, many Iraqis were thrilled. Even some of his former adversaries admired his pride in Iraq: a pride that is seldom seen today.
It is coming upon the two-year mark that Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. personnel. The media are laden with stories of his kidnapping in the context of their articles about the trial. They still portray the capture as occurring in a "spider hole." They still mention that Saddam was unkempt and in bad shape.
Again, we see virtually no journalistic endeavor to discover the truth. Saddam Hussein was not captured in a spider hole. After his apprehension, he was beaten and drugged. The pictures the world saw of a disheveled Saddam Hussein were taken after the torture and drug administration, but the U.S. portrayed them as being taken at the time of capture. On March 11, 2005, I ran the following article. It is very relevant today as it shows Saddam’s fortitude then. He still exudes the same steadfastness and integrity today.
On the other hand, millions of Iraqis who watched the proceedings on television had another take on what they saw. When the judge told Saddam that he would look into the Americans fixing a faulty elevator, Saddam gave a lecture. He said the judge should "order" U.S. personnel to fix it. Then he stated, "You are an Iraqi."
Those four words speak volumes. Today, Iraqis are being depicted as Sunni, Shi’ite, Chaldean, Assyrian, Turkomen, etc. Those Iraqis who have succumbed to the new nomenclature are playing into the hands of a disastrous U.S. policy to fragment Iraq. Saddam Hussein had to remind the judge and his countrypeople of their nationality.
When Saddam uttered those words, many Iraqis were thrilled. Even some of his former adversaries admired his pride in Iraq: a pride that is seldom seen today.
It is coming upon the two-year mark that Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. personnel. The media are laden with stories of his kidnapping in the context of their articles about the trial. They still portray the capture as occurring in a "spider hole." They still mention that Saddam was unkempt and in bad shape.
Again, we see virtually no journalistic endeavor to discover the truth. Saddam Hussein was not captured in a spider hole. After his apprehension, he was beaten and drugged. The pictures the world saw of a disheveled Saddam Hussein were taken after the torture and drug administration, but the U.S. portrayed them as being taken at the time of capture. On March 11, 2005, I ran the following article. It is very relevant today as it shows Saddam’s fortitude then. He still exudes the same steadfastness and integrity today.
The War Crimes of the Democratic Party
The War Crimes of the Democratic Party
Video - Axis of LogicDecember 3, 2005
Of course we all know that the Republicans - led by the Bush regime - are directly responsible for the genocide in Iraq. They have been caught with their lies and we must hold them responsible for their war crimes. But we can agree with the Bush Regime on one thing - The Democrats played a supporting role to the mass slaughter in Iraq and if justice were served, leading Democrats would be in prison with the Republican leaders for the rest of their lives.
If it ever occurs to you that there is a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats ... If you are ever tempted to think the Republicans alone are responsible for the war on the people of Iraq ... If you ever find the new "antiwar" arguments of the Democrats to be persuasive ... If you are tempted to "hold your nose" and vote for a Democrat in the next election ... Watch this video. - Axis Editors
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv
A Peaceful World Revolution is Possible
Ten Ways to Argue about the War
What a couple of weeks in Iraq (and at home): Withdrawal was suddenly on everyone's lips, while tragedy and absurdity were piling up like some vast, serial car wreck of event and emotion. Before a massed audience of Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, our President announced a new war goal beyond finding weapons of mass destruction, bringing freedom to Iraqis, or liberating the whole of the Middle East; something more modest this time -- "complete victory" -- over whomever. In the meantime, ten Marines died in a trap near Fallujah. Remember Fallujah? The city we literally destroyed in order to save it and then didn't quite get around to rebuilding as the Sunni Triangle's first safe haven from insurgency and terrorism? Now, it's a danger zone again and still significantly in rubble. In these same weeks, the use of white phosphorus, a fierce burning agent, back in November 2004 to force rebels in Fallujah out of their defenses suddenly became a global news story and a scandal (though its use was actually known at the time); the Europeans began demanding explanations from the Bush administration for the kidnapping, transport, and secret imprisonment of suspected terrorists on their territory; a torture chamber/detention center run by the Interior Ministry but connected to the militia of the leading Shiite religious party in the Iraqi government was uncovered by American troops; it was evidently part of a long known-about "ghost network" of such centers linked to government and party-sponsored (and possibly U.S. backed or trained) death squads intent on intimidating or cleansing the Sunni neighborhoods of Iraq's cities. Ever more American war planes were reportedly taking to Iraqi skies and more American bombs falling on Iraq's towns and cities. Saddam reappeared in court, his hair dyed black, complaining and carrying a Koran like the good religious man he surely isn't; and it was revealed that, in the process of bringing freedom to Iraqis, a Pentagon-hired "business intelligence" firm had done its darnedest to turn a burgeoning Iraqi free press into a paid-for press. This was done in the struggle to conquer what is known in the trade as Iraq's "information battlespace." Not only that, but the story took us a full, ridiculous spin of the dial back to the earliest moments of our conquest of Iraq. At that time, administration officials arrived in Baghdad so filled with hubris that it didn't occur to them to bring along anyone who knew anything about Iraq, no less actual translators. In the case of our newspaper caper, clearly a psyops-for-dummies operation, some of the paid-for stories were written by American servicemen and then translated into Arabic. These must have been truly convincing accounts! (Imagine the opposite: Iraqi soldiers in camps in the U.S. hired to write articles translated into English to help win the war for American "information battlespace.") And believe me, that's only a bit of the week or two that was.
The President spoke of "progress" in Iraq, but who could possibly believe him at this point? A majority of Americans clearly no longer do, but a minority -- about 36% according to the polls -- seem to be hanging in there, though perhaps with difficulty, like worried Republican Congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingrey. While fretting about re-election, he was nonetheless quoted in the Washington Post, saying, "The light is there at the end of the tunnel. People need to see it." Again, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. In what follows, Michael Schwartz takes the arguments that remain for war supporters and that still can confound antiwar people and answers them one by one.
The President spoke of "progress" in Iraq, but who could possibly believe him at this point? A majority of Americans clearly no longer do, but a minority -- about 36% according to the polls -- seem to be hanging in there, though perhaps with difficulty, like worried Republican Congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingrey. While fretting about re-election, he was nonetheless quoted in the Washington Post, saying, "The light is there at the end of the tunnel. People need to see it." Again, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. In what follows, Michael Schwartz takes the arguments that remain for war supporters and that still can confound antiwar people and answers them one by one.
Bush to fight till victory
From Truth About Iraqis
But the US president is not out there with the troops defending Iraq's virtue and sovereignty, is he?No.
Valiant remarks from behind the protective shield of a soapbox pulpit while ...
Fourteen US soldiers and Marines were killed in Iraq today.
That's the largest number of US fatalities since the IED attack in August, which also claimed 14 US military lives.
More than a dozen US military personnel were injured in the attacks today.
Maybe, after the speech about staying on in Iraq till victory and the White House's attack on Democrats who criticize the war as being irresponsible, Bush should show some spine and visit the mothers of those killed today.
I recently read a post by Riverbend saying she felt sorry for the US soldiers in Iraq.
Well, I don't. I really don't. Reap what you sow, gringo. Fire on Iraqi civilians and this is what you get.
Allow Iranians to run torture camps in Iraq and this is what you get.
Displace tens of thousands of Iraqis into tent cities and this is what you get.
Debilitate an entire society and this is what you get.
Missing from the headlines this week is the story of an Iraqi six-year-old who was killed in Falluja by US forces. His family say they have the shell casing which proves it was US military who killed him.
Or the dozens of Iraqis who are winding up dead on street corners and in desert ditches.
Having said all this, I have to express a certain compassion for the mothers of these soldiers. I keep replaying in my mind the mother of that Michigan soldier who was killed in Iraq as portrayed in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.
In DC, she walks towards the Capitol, crying about her son, until she has been so weakened by her pain, that she feels she cannot walk any further and hold her hands to her knees.
It was gut-wrenching. You just can't but feel with this woman.
And we keep reading stories in US and UK press about mothers and fathers who are distraught when they hear of their children's needless sacrifice in Iraq.
Yes. It was needless. There is no defense of democracy in the Iraq war. It is not part of the war on terror.
Ann Coulter, maybe it is time you serve in Iraq. Your long blonde locks will be a hit with the shroog.
posted by Truth_about_Iraqis at 1:10 PM
"Pacified" Fallujah
Lies cost lives in Iraq.
Remember the reasons given by the US military and puppet interim Iraqi government for Operation Phantom Fury against Fallujah? Just prior to the November, 2004 assault on that city, the primary reasons given for the massacre in Fallujah were: to provide "security and stability" for the upcoming January 30 "elections" and to rid Fallujah of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
Let us judge the success or failure of this massacre by their own yardstick.
The "security and stability" generated for the elections on January 30, 2005 by the siege of Fallujah looked like roughly 40 dead Iraqi bodies and 200 wounded, on that day alone.
As for Zarqawi, since not one resident of Fallujah has seen or reported evidence of this individual in their city before, during or after said siege, his existence at all in Iraq remains in question…aside from living large in US military propaganda which is happily trumpeted by corporate media outlets in the US.
Yesterday morning on NPR (National Pentagon Radio) their reporter in Baghdad was asked if he felt what Mr. Bush said in a recent speech was true-was the US military strategy in Iraq working? He replied that he felt what Mr. Bush said was true in some cases, like in Fallujah. The NPR reporter referred to Fallujah as "pacified."
"Pacified" Fallujah looks like a dead six year-old child in that city, shot by a US sniper in the Al-Dubbat neighborhood on December 1st, according to Al-Sharqiyah.
"Pacified" Fallujah looks like "two US soldiers were killed by sniper fire on Wednesday [30 November] in the city of Al-Fallujah, [60 kilometers] west of Baghdad, according to eyewitnesses. A tense atmosphere prevailed in the city after the US forces besieged some of its quarters and blocked the main street, while National Guard forces closed shops and asked the residents to stay in their homes." Again according to Al-Sharqiyah.
"Pacified" Fallujah looks like 10 Marines killed and 11 wounded by a roadside bomb while on a "foot patrol near Fallujah" on Thursday December 1st, which was the deadliest attack on American troops in nearly four months.
So if you want to keep thinking there is peace in Fallujah, you’d better ignore the facts on the ground and keep listening to NPR “presstitutes” talking on the radio from their hotel rooms in Baghdad.
Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of CIA/Gestapo treatment
German citizen released after months in 'rendition'.
In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the CIA's Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.Coats informed the German minister that the CIA had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said. There was also a request: that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public. The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries, and possible legal challenges to the CIA from Masri and others with similar allegations.
The Masri case, with new details gleaned from interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials, offers a rare study of how pressure on the CIA to apprehend al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has led in some instances to detention based on thin or speculative evidence. The case also shows how complicated it can be to correct errors in a system built and operated in secret.
The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people, including several key leaders of al Qaeda, in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks. It is impossible to know, however, how many mistakes the CIA and its foreign partners have made.
Unlike the military's prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - where 180 prisoners have been freed after a review of their cases - there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation- a process called "rendition" - is also responsible for policing itself for errors.
The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.
"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.":
- William Blum
- William Blum
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Mission Accomplished: Big Oil's Occupation of Iraq
The Bush administration’s covert plan to help energy companies steal Iraq’s oil could be just weeks away from fruition, and the implications are staggering: continued price-gouging by Big Oil, increased subjugation of the Iraqi people, more US troops in Iraq, and a greater likelihood for a US invasion of Iran.
That’s just for starters.
The administration’s challenge has been how to transfer Iraq’s oil assets to private companies under the cloak of legitimacy, yet simultaneously keep prices inflated.
But Bush & Co. and their Big Oil cronies might have found a simple yet devious solution: production sharing agreements (PSAs).
Here’s how PSAs work. In return for investment in areas where fields are small and results are uncertain, governments occasionally grant oil companies sweetheart deals guaranteeing high profit margins and protection from exploration risks. The country officially retains ownership of its oil resources, but the contractual agreements are often so rigid and severe that in practical terms, it can be the equivalent of giving away the deed to the farm.
Since Iraq sits on the world’s third largest oil reserves, the PSA model makes little sense in the first place; Iraq’s fields are enormous and the exploration risks are accordingly miniscule, so direct national investment or more equitable forms of foreign investment would be in order. But as a comprehensive new
report by the London-based advocacy group PLATFORM details, the PSA model “is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost.”
PLATFORM’s “Crude Designs: The Rip-off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth” points out that the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people:
- “At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi
government budget.”
- “Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.”
Of course, given the current political chaos, Iraqi citizens have little power over whether their politicians sign the proposed PSA agreements. That critical decision could be left to con-men like the former Interim Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi, who recently met with no less than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice during
his red-carpet visit to the White House. One can assume the topic of Iraq’s proposed PSAs came up more than once.
Chalabi’s successor as Oil Minister, Ibrahim Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, is expected to toe the corporate line, and Iraq’s former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi issued post-invasion guidelines stating: “The Iraqi authorities should not spend time negotiating the best possible deals with the oil companies; instead they should proceed quickly, agreeing to whatever terms the companies will accept, with a possibility of renegotiation later.”
But PSAs are notoriously hard to renegotiate. According to PLATFORM, “under PSAs future Iraqi governments would be prevented from changing tax rates or introducing stricter laws or regulations relating to labour standards, workplace safety, community relations, environment or other issues.” The Iraqi people would be locked into inflexible agreements spanning 25-40 years with disputes solved by corporate-friendly international arbitration tribunals, rather than by national courts.
Is that really the same thing as liberation?
According to Greg Muttitt, co-author and lead researcher of the “Crude Designs” report, “for all the US administration's talk of creating a democracy in Iraq, in fact, their heavy pushing of PSAs stands to deprive Iraq of democratic control of its most important natural resource. I would even go further: the
USA, Britain and the oil companies seem to be taking advantage of the weakness of Iraq's new institutions of government, and of the terrible violence in the country, by pushing Iraq to sign deals in this weak state, whose terms would last for decades. The chances of Iraq getting a good deal for its people in these circumstances are minimal; the prospect of mega-profitable deals for multinational oil companies is fairly assured.”
Of course, ongoing oil exploration in Iraq by administration-friendly companies would require permanent US bases, a massive ongoing troop presence and billions more in taxpayer-dollar subsidies to sleazy outfits like Halliburton.
The implications of all of this for domestic oil prices is unclear. While neo-conservatives initially pushed for privatizing Iraq’s oil reserves as a way of destroying OPEC (they wanted to boost production and flood world markets with cheap oil) the administration seems to have taken a more corporate-friendly stance. After all, the last thing oil executives want is to break OPEC’s stranglehold on pricing, because keeping supply low has delivered record profits.
But the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” which Bush released this week as part of his pro-occupation PR blitz lists a surprising goal: “facilitating investment in Iraq’s oil sector to increase production from the current 2.1 million barrels per day to more than 5 million per day.” OPEC’s quota for Iraq currently sits at around 4 million barrels per day, so the administration’s goal is not only significantly higher, but (at “more than 5 million”) a little too open-ended for the cartel’s comfort. Could be that Bush & Co. want to have their cake and eat it too: tighten the screws on OPEC, yet continue to rip off consumers through elevated prices.
The whole PSA affair may also stoke the fires for a US invasion of Iran, which sits on oil reserves even greater than those of Iraq.
Tehran already is on the administration’s hit list, less for its nuclear aspirations than for its plans to open a euro-based international oil-trading market in early 2006. Iran’s oil “bourse” would compete with the likes of New York’s NYMEX and provide OPEC the opportunity to snub the greenback in favor of “petroeuros,” a development the administration will avoid at all costs. So if the PSA model is adopted in Iraq, it would provide a clear precedent for implementing it in Iran too, and hand the administration another reason to start the next invasion.
Heather Wokusch can be reached via her website: www.heatherwokusch.com. She’s been on an extended book-writing sabbatical, but will be up and ranting on a regular basis in early 2006.
That’s just for starters.
The administration’s challenge has been how to transfer Iraq’s oil assets to private companies under the cloak of legitimacy, yet simultaneously keep prices inflated.
But Bush & Co. and their Big Oil cronies might have found a simple yet devious solution: production sharing agreements (PSAs).
Here’s how PSAs work. In return for investment in areas where fields are small and results are uncertain, governments occasionally grant oil companies sweetheart deals guaranteeing high profit margins and protection from exploration risks. The country officially retains ownership of its oil resources, but the contractual agreements are often so rigid and severe that in practical terms, it can be the equivalent of giving away the deed to the farm.
Since Iraq sits on the world’s third largest oil reserves, the PSA model makes little sense in the first place; Iraq’s fields are enormous and the exploration risks are accordingly miniscule, so direct national investment or more equitable forms of foreign investment would be in order. But as a comprehensive new
report by the London-based advocacy group PLATFORM details, the PSA model “is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost.”
PLATFORM’s “Crude Designs: The Rip-off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth” points out that the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people:
- “At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi
government budget.”
- “Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.”
Of course, given the current political chaos, Iraqi citizens have little power over whether their politicians sign the proposed PSA agreements. That critical decision could be left to con-men like the former Interim Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi, who recently met with no less than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice during
his red-carpet visit to the White House. One can assume the topic of Iraq’s proposed PSAs came up more than once.
Chalabi’s successor as Oil Minister, Ibrahim Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, is expected to toe the corporate line, and Iraq’s former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi issued post-invasion guidelines stating: “The Iraqi authorities should not spend time negotiating the best possible deals with the oil companies; instead they should proceed quickly, agreeing to whatever terms the companies will accept, with a possibility of renegotiation later.”
But PSAs are notoriously hard to renegotiate. According to PLATFORM, “under PSAs future Iraqi governments would be prevented from changing tax rates or introducing stricter laws or regulations relating to labour standards, workplace safety, community relations, environment or other issues.” The Iraqi people would be locked into inflexible agreements spanning 25-40 years with disputes solved by corporate-friendly international arbitration tribunals, rather than by national courts.
Is that really the same thing as liberation?
According to Greg Muttitt, co-author and lead researcher of the “Crude Designs” report, “for all the US administration's talk of creating a democracy in Iraq, in fact, their heavy pushing of PSAs stands to deprive Iraq of democratic control of its most important natural resource. I would even go further: the
USA, Britain and the oil companies seem to be taking advantage of the weakness of Iraq's new institutions of government, and of the terrible violence in the country, by pushing Iraq to sign deals in this weak state, whose terms would last for decades. The chances of Iraq getting a good deal for its people in these circumstances are minimal; the prospect of mega-profitable deals for multinational oil companies is fairly assured.”
Of course, ongoing oil exploration in Iraq by administration-friendly companies would require permanent US bases, a massive ongoing troop presence and billions more in taxpayer-dollar subsidies to sleazy outfits like Halliburton.
The implications of all of this for domestic oil prices is unclear. While neo-conservatives initially pushed for privatizing Iraq’s oil reserves as a way of destroying OPEC (they wanted to boost production and flood world markets with cheap oil) the administration seems to have taken a more corporate-friendly stance. After all, the last thing oil executives want is to break OPEC’s stranglehold on pricing, because keeping supply low has delivered record profits.
But the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” which Bush released this week as part of his pro-occupation PR blitz lists a surprising goal: “facilitating investment in Iraq’s oil sector to increase production from the current 2.1 million barrels per day to more than 5 million per day.” OPEC’s quota for Iraq currently sits at around 4 million barrels per day, so the administration’s goal is not only significantly higher, but (at “more than 5 million”) a little too open-ended for the cartel’s comfort. Could be that Bush & Co. want to have their cake and eat it too: tighten the screws on OPEC, yet continue to rip off consumers through elevated prices.
The whole PSA affair may also stoke the fires for a US invasion of Iran, which sits on oil reserves even greater than those of Iraq.
Tehran already is on the administration’s hit list, less for its nuclear aspirations than for its plans to open a euro-based international oil-trading market in early 2006. Iran’s oil “bourse” would compete with the likes of New York’s NYMEX and provide OPEC the opportunity to snub the greenback in favor of “petroeuros,” a development the administration will avoid at all costs. So if the PSA model is adopted in Iraq, it would provide a clear precedent for implementing it in Iran too, and hand the administration another reason to start the next invasion.
Heather Wokusch can be reached via her website: www.heatherwokusch.com. She’s been on an extended book-writing sabbatical, but will be up and ranting on a regular basis in early 2006.
The War on Al Jazeera
What to do when the war you crafted starts getting bad press? According to a recently leaked memo, Bush would have liked to shoot the messenger -- literally.
Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs.
The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.
Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit.
All the King's Media
Amid the smoke and stench of burning careers, Washington feels a bit like the last days of the ancien régime. As the world's finest democracy, we do not do guillotines. But there are other less bloody rituals of humiliation, designed to reassure the populace that order is restored, the Republic cleansed. Let the perp walks begin. Whether the public feels reassured is another matter.
George W. Bush's plight leads me to thoughts of Louis XV and his royal court in the eighteenth century. Politics may not have changed as much as modern pretensions assume. Like Bush, the French king was quite popular until he was scorned, stubbornly self-certain in his exercise of power yet strangely submissive to manipulation by his courtiers. Like Louis Quinze, our American magistrate (whose own position was secured through court intrigues, not elections) has lost the "royal touch." Certain influential cliques openly jeer the leader they not so long ago extolled; others gossip about royal tantrums and other symptoms of lost direction. The accusations stalking his important counselors and assembly leaders might even send some of them to jail. These political upsets might matter less if the government were not so inept at fulfilling its routine obligations, like storm relief. The king's sorry war drags on without resolution, with people still arguing over why exactly he started it. The staff of life--oil, not bread--has become punishingly expensive. The government is broke, borrowing formidable sums from rival nations. The king pretends nothing has changed.
The burnt odor in Washington is from the disintegrating authority of the governing classes. The public's darkest suspicions seem confirmed. Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence--take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that only 6 percent of citizens believe their elected representatives serve the public interest. If they think that of state and local officials, what must they think of Washington?
George W. Bush's plight leads me to thoughts of Louis XV and his royal court in the eighteenth century. Politics may not have changed as much as modern pretensions assume. Like Bush, the French king was quite popular until he was scorned, stubbornly self-certain in his exercise of power yet strangely submissive to manipulation by his courtiers. Like Louis Quinze, our American magistrate (whose own position was secured through court intrigues, not elections) has lost the "royal touch." Certain influential cliques openly jeer the leader they not so long ago extolled; others gossip about royal tantrums and other symptoms of lost direction. The accusations stalking his important counselors and assembly leaders might even send some of them to jail. These political upsets might matter less if the government were not so inept at fulfilling its routine obligations, like storm relief. The king's sorry war drags on without resolution, with people still arguing over why exactly he started it. The staff of life--oil, not bread--has become punishingly expensive. The government is broke, borrowing formidable sums from rival nations. The king pretends nothing has changed.
The burnt odor in Washington is from the disintegrating authority of the governing classes. The public's darkest suspicions seem confirmed. Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence--take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that only 6 percent of citizens believe their elected representatives serve the public interest. If they think that of state and local officials, what must they think of Washington?
All the King's Media
Amid the smoke and stench of burning careers, Washington feels a bit like the last days of the ancien régime. As the world's finest democracy, we do not do guillotines. But there are other less bloody rituals of humiliation, designed to reassure the populace that order is restored, the Republic cleansed. Let the perp walks begin. Whether the public feels reassured is another matter.
George W. Bush's plight leads me to thoughts of Louis XV and his royal court in the eighteenth century. Politics may not have changed as much as modern pretensions assume. Like Bush, the French king was quite popular until he was scorned, stubbornly self-certain in his exercise of power yet strangely submissive to manipulation by his courtiers. Like Louis Quinze, our American magistrate (whose own position was secured through court intrigues, not elections) has lost the "royal touch." Certain influential cliques openly jeer the leader they not so long ago extolled; others gossip about royal tantrums and other symptoms of lost direction. The accusations stalking his important counselors and assembly leaders might even send some of them to jail. These political upsets might matter less if the government were not so inept at fulfilling its routine obligations, like storm relief. The king's sorry war drags on without resolution, with people still arguing over why exactly he started it. The staff of life--oil, not bread--has become punishingly expensive. The government is broke, borrowing formidable sums from rival nations. The king pretends nothing has changed.
The burnt odor in Washington is from the disintegrating authority of the governing classes. The public's darkest suspicions seem confirmed. Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence--take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that only 6 percent of citizens believe their elected representatives serve the public interest. If they think that of state and local officials, what must they think of Washington?
George W. Bush's plight leads me to thoughts of Louis XV and his royal court in the eighteenth century. Politics may not have changed as much as modern pretensions assume. Like Bush, the French king was quite popular until he was scorned, stubbornly self-certain in his exercise of power yet strangely submissive to manipulation by his courtiers. Like Louis Quinze, our American magistrate (whose own position was secured through court intrigues, not elections) has lost the "royal touch." Certain influential cliques openly jeer the leader they not so long ago extolled; others gossip about royal tantrums and other symptoms of lost direction. The accusations stalking his important counselors and assembly leaders might even send some of them to jail. These political upsets might matter less if the government were not so inept at fulfilling its routine obligations, like storm relief. The king's sorry war drags on without resolution, with people still arguing over why exactly he started it. The staff of life--oil, not bread--has become punishingly expensive. The government is broke, borrowing formidable sums from rival nations. The king pretends nothing has changed.
The burnt odor in Washington is from the disintegrating authority of the governing classes. The public's darkest suspicions seem confirmed. Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence--take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that only 6 percent of citizens believe their elected representatives serve the public interest. If they think that of state and local officials, what must they think of Washington?
It's propaganda (shock, horror)!
The news of a US military operation that pays Iraqi newspapers to run stories written by "information operations" troops about how wonderfully things are going in the war should not come as a shock.
Even before the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon planned to create its own in-house propaganda and disinformation operation, to be called the Office of Strategic Influence. The program was supposedly killed after critics pointed out how easily the phony news it created could drift back into the domestic media.
Nevertheless, the occupation of Iraq has put the Pentagon in the "strategic influence" business in a big way, with its own TV news operation (the Pentagon Channel), a then-coalition-controlled Iraqi TV and radio network (now nominally in the hands of the Iraqi government, but still powered by Pentagon dollars and run by a US vendor) and millions of dollars to hire public relations firms and consultants to spin the coalition's propaganda to the Iraqi people.
In fact, paying off the Iraqi media to run good news mirrors what the Bush administration has been doing at home.
For example, in the past year it was revealed that the Bush administration paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to a prominent conservative commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote a new education law that had been strongly supported by President George W Bush. The Education Department paid a public relations firm for a video that promoted the law and appeared as a news story, without making clear the reporter was hired as part of the deal.
Similarly, some-time reporter and $200-an-hour gay escort, James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, violated a ban on "fake" news stories by reprinting White House news releases verbatim.
Even before the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon planned to create its own in-house propaganda and disinformation operation, to be called the Office of Strategic Influence. The program was supposedly killed after critics pointed out how easily the phony news it created could drift back into the domestic media.
Nevertheless, the occupation of Iraq has put the Pentagon in the "strategic influence" business in a big way, with its own TV news operation (the Pentagon Channel), a then-coalition-controlled Iraqi TV and radio network (now nominally in the hands of the Iraqi government, but still powered by Pentagon dollars and run by a US vendor) and millions of dollars to hire public relations firms and consultants to spin the coalition's propaganda to the Iraqi people.
In fact, paying off the Iraqi media to run good news mirrors what the Bush administration has been doing at home.
For example, in the past year it was revealed that the Bush administration paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to a prominent conservative commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote a new education law that had been strongly supported by President George W Bush. The Education Department paid a public relations firm for a video that promoted the law and appeared as a news story, without making clear the reporter was hired as part of the deal.
Similarly, some-time reporter and $200-an-hour gay escort, James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, violated a ban on "fake" news stories by reprinting White House news releases verbatim.
US civil rights group to sue CIA
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.
It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.
Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.
'Extraordinary rendition'
"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.
The release identified the jail as the "Salt Pit".
The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.
The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.
The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.
It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.
Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.
The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.
He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.
It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.
Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.
'Extraordinary rendition'
"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.
The release identified the jail as the "Salt Pit".
The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.
The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.
The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.
It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.
Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.
The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.
He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Republican Sex Freaks
What would the corporate media say if a powerful Democrat wrote a novel about children having sex with animals? Thanks to that party’s incompetence there aren’t any powerful Dems these days, but we can imagine the outcry. Fox News would have a week long expose on Democratic depravity. Potentate pundits would lament the Democrats inability to connect with Christians in the heartland.
Lewis Libby was until recently a very powerful Republican. He was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff until he was indicted for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. He also fantasizes about little girls and bears.
In his novel, The Apprentice, Libby imagined a caged bear having sex with children.
Libby is obviously a freak. Only a freak would be able to imagine girls and bears and then put pen to paper and write about it. Libby is clearly a sick, depraved man who shouldn’t be trusted around children, or bears either for that matter. It isn’t surprising that people who fantasizes about a combination of bestiality and pedophilia are also intent on waging an endless war on the rest of the planet and another war on the dispossessed here at home.
Lewis Libby has exposed some very disturbing themes that are always present in right wing thinking. This is a group that is obsessed with sex, and that has very strange issues with women. Dr. W. David Hager was the Bush appointee in the Food and Drug Administration responsible for reproductive health issues. He held that position until his ex-wife revealed that he forced her to have anal intercourse over a period of many years.
Is the U.S. at war because of sexual depravity and sexual repression? What does the mind of Lewis Libby tell us about the actions of the Bushmen? Will bear sex be the new method of torture at Guantanamo?
The Bush administration is perverse in so many ways it is difficult to count them all. It is allowed to be perverse because the corporate media allow them to lie. Libby’s novel has been described as “racy" or “steamy." Those words are woefully inadequate in describing pedophilia and bestiality. The same people who couldn’t tell us enough about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton are oddly silent when the right wing put their sickness in print for all to see.
The freak show doesn’t end with Libby. There is a cabal of closeted gays in the White House who get gigs for gay prostitutes but who also craft anti-gay political strategies. The Bushies claim to be good Christians but also proclaim their intention to keep killing in an endless war and argue in court to maintain the right to kidnap and torture.
The sick freakishness of Libby and whoever put a gay prostitute in the press room makes one long for a more basic, semi-logical insanity. Donald Rumsfeld recently exhibited the most typical Bush team craziness on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If you had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found, would you have advocated invasion?
RUMSFELD: I didn't advocate invasion.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You didn't?
RUMSFELD: No, I wasn't asked.
Just to make sure he left no fanciful stone unturned, Rummy added, “I agreed completely with the decision to go to war and have said that a hundred times."
Rummy is running for cover because only the right wing base are still true believers in the neocon plot to occupy Iraq. It is crazy for the Secretary of Defense to say that he was against an invasion that he publicly called for many times, but at least he hasn’t come up with any bizarre sexual fantasies. In the face of grotesque sickness we must now praise Rummy’s butt-covering delusions.
The Bushies have proven their disdain for people of color, whether they are in New Orleans or Iraq. We also know that they hate women and aren’t terribly fond of children either. If people of color, women, and children are all considered inferior beings, then only white men are worthy of consideration. Everyone else gets screwed, hopefully not by bears.
Libby’s fantasy world may be among the most extreme, but then again perhaps it isn’t. The actions of his clique indicate that they all pine away for the days when they could dominate whomever they wanted in whatever way they wanted. His novel is just another way to express the awful fantasies they have managed to make real.
Lewis Libby was until recently a very powerful Republican. He was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff until he was indicted for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. He also fantasizes about little girls and bears.
In his novel, The Apprentice, Libby imagined a caged bear having sex with children.
"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest."
Libby is obviously a freak. Only a freak would be able to imagine girls and bears and then put pen to paper and write about it. Libby is clearly a sick, depraved man who shouldn’t be trusted around children, or bears either for that matter. It isn’t surprising that people who fantasizes about a combination of bestiality and pedophilia are also intent on waging an endless war on the rest of the planet and another war on the dispossessed here at home.
Lewis Libby has exposed some very disturbing themes that are always present in right wing thinking. This is a group that is obsessed with sex, and that has very strange issues with women. Dr. W. David Hager was the Bush appointee in the Food and Drug Administration responsible for reproductive health issues. He held that position until his ex-wife revealed that he forced her to have anal intercourse over a period of many years.
Is the U.S. at war because of sexual depravity and sexual repression? What does the mind of Lewis Libby tell us about the actions of the Bushmen? Will bear sex be the new method of torture at Guantanamo?
The Bush administration is perverse in so many ways it is difficult to count them all. It is allowed to be perverse because the corporate media allow them to lie. Libby’s novel has been described as “racy" or “steamy." Those words are woefully inadequate in describing pedophilia and bestiality. The same people who couldn’t tell us enough about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton are oddly silent when the right wing put their sickness in print for all to see.
The freak show doesn’t end with Libby. There is a cabal of closeted gays in the White House who get gigs for gay prostitutes but who also craft anti-gay political strategies. The Bushies claim to be good Christians but also proclaim their intention to keep killing in an endless war and argue in court to maintain the right to kidnap and torture.
The sick freakishness of Libby and whoever put a gay prostitute in the press room makes one long for a more basic, semi-logical insanity. Donald Rumsfeld recently exhibited the most typical Bush team craziness on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If you had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found, would you have advocated invasion?
RUMSFELD: I didn't advocate invasion.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You didn't?
RUMSFELD: No, I wasn't asked.
Just to make sure he left no fanciful stone unturned, Rummy added, “I agreed completely with the decision to go to war and have said that a hundred times."
Rummy is running for cover because only the right wing base are still true believers in the neocon plot to occupy Iraq. It is crazy for the Secretary of Defense to say that he was against an invasion that he publicly called for many times, but at least he hasn’t come up with any bizarre sexual fantasies. In the face of grotesque sickness we must now praise Rummy’s butt-covering delusions.
The Bushies have proven their disdain for people of color, whether they are in New Orleans or Iraq. We also know that they hate women and aren’t terribly fond of children either. If people of color, women, and children are all considered inferior beings, then only white men are worthy of consideration. Everyone else gets screwed, hopefully not by bears.
Libby’s fantasy world may be among the most extreme, but then again perhaps it isn’t. The actions of his clique indicate that they all pine away for the days when they could dominate whomever they wanted in whatever way they wanted. His novel is just another way to express the awful fantasies they have managed to make real.
Brazil and Argentina support Bolivia’s Morales
Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Argentina Nestor Kirchner praised Wednesday Bolivian Indian leader Evo Morales whom opinion polls identify as the front-runner for the December 18 general election in his country.
Meeting in the border town of Puerto Iguazu, President Lula da Silva said that "At no moment in history have we enjoyed the opportunity of having a South America completely devoted to its people".
The Brazilian president went on to say: “imagine what Chavez's election meant for Venezuela. Imagine what it would mean if Evo Morales won Bolivia’s election”.
"These are extraordinary events that not even the most talented political scientists could have ever written about it or even less forecasted”, he added.
And turning to President Kirchner, "I’m certain that what you are doing in Argentina is evidence of leadership and progress, having more people committed to help people to advance and overcome poverty".
President Kirchner also expressed preference for Mr. Morales in Bolivia's coming December 18 presidential election saying that he has given proof of “caring for people, for his country, for the fair exploitation of his country’s resources”.
President Lula recently met in Brasilia with Morales, currently a member of Congress and leader of the Movement Toward Socialism, MAS, who has promised he will not seize oil and gas companies' property if he is elected, a most controversial issue in Bolivian politics which caused the ousting of two presidents in the last two years.
Last May the Bolivian Congress passed a new hydrocarbons bill raising taxes on oil companies and royalties which had a significant impact for foreign companies such as Brazil’s Petrobras and Spanish-Argentine Repsol-YPF, among others.
Brazil is land locked Bolivia’s main foreign investor and yields great influence in business and politics.
However Mr. Morales also leads the strong coca planting peasants’ movement which does not please United States that has invested millions of dollars in trying to convince Bolivian farmers to grow conventional crops.
Washington also believed that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was behind the political turmoil in Bolivia financing radical groups, but it now seems that the country is back to its more traditional course with neighbours Brazil and Argentina playing a more active role.
Bolivia with large reserves of oil and particularly natural gas, second only to Venezuela in South America, is expected to have a growing responsibility as a future reliable gas and oil supplier for energy short Mercosur and associate members.
Public opinion polls show Mr. Morales leading in vote intention but not enough yet to avoid a run off. Runner up is conservative former President Jorge Quiroga.
Meeting in the border town of Puerto Iguazu, President Lula da Silva said that "At no moment in history have we enjoyed the opportunity of having a South America completely devoted to its people".
The Brazilian president went on to say: “imagine what Chavez's election meant for Venezuela. Imagine what it would mean if Evo Morales won Bolivia’s election”.
"These are extraordinary events that not even the most talented political scientists could have ever written about it or even less forecasted”, he added.
And turning to President Kirchner, "I’m certain that what you are doing in Argentina is evidence of leadership and progress, having more people committed to help people to advance and overcome poverty".
President Kirchner also expressed preference for Mr. Morales in Bolivia's coming December 18 presidential election saying that he has given proof of “caring for people, for his country, for the fair exploitation of his country’s resources”.
President Lula recently met in Brasilia with Morales, currently a member of Congress and leader of the Movement Toward Socialism, MAS, who has promised he will not seize oil and gas companies' property if he is elected, a most controversial issue in Bolivian politics which caused the ousting of two presidents in the last two years.
Last May the Bolivian Congress passed a new hydrocarbons bill raising taxes on oil companies and royalties which had a significant impact for foreign companies such as Brazil’s Petrobras and Spanish-Argentine Repsol-YPF, among others.
Brazil is land locked Bolivia’s main foreign investor and yields great influence in business and politics.
However Mr. Morales also leads the strong coca planting peasants’ movement which does not please United States that has invested millions of dollars in trying to convince Bolivian farmers to grow conventional crops.
Washington also believed that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was behind the political turmoil in Bolivia financing radical groups, but it now seems that the country is back to its more traditional course with neighbours Brazil and Argentina playing a more active role.
Bolivia with large reserves of oil and particularly natural gas, second only to Venezuela in South America, is expected to have a growing responsibility as a future reliable gas and oil supplier for energy short Mercosur and associate members.
Public opinion polls show Mr. Morales leading in vote intention but not enough yet to avoid a run off. Runner up is conservative former President Jorge Quiroga.
WAR ON THE PRESS
The White House Assault
America's leadership is waging a war against the journalistic standards and practices that underpin not only a free press but our democracy. The Fourth Estate is withering under an unprecedented White House assault designed to intimidate, smear and discredit investigative journalism — and allow the president and his political cronies to lie with impunity. If left unchecked, this and future administrations will continue to:
- manipulate the media "message" by producing propaganda, putting journalists on the government payroll and tightly scripting all public events;
- dismiss all dissenting views in the media as biased and politically motivated;
- undermine public trust in journalism using the right-wing “echo chamber” to sow hostility toward reporters who challenge the official line; and
- eliminate access to information making it nearly impossible for journalists to investigate vast swathes of the federal government.
Bush's Media Agenda
The current administration is more inhospitable to truth and an informed citizenry than any before it. In fact, the administration seeks the opposite: a public that buys a carefully constructed myth over reality. This deception has manifest in seven lines of attack:
- Infiltrating public broadcasting with party loyalists
- Manufacturing fake news and propaganda
- Bribing journalists to flack for the administration
- Gutting the Freedom of Information Act
- Deceiving media (and the U.S. public) about Iraq
- Stifling dissent within mainstream media
- Consolidating media control into the hands of the elite
Defending Our Press
The damage already done is reflected in plummeting public faith in reporters and the unrelenting stream of lies flowing from the White House into mainstream news.
This crisis can be attributed in part to the failure of big media corporations and some journalists to meet the basic responsibilities of the press in a democratic society. But the Bush administration’s wholesale assault on a free press is also to blame. This White House has gone well beyond the cynical maneuvers of past administrations and implemented a scheme to tear down journalism and erode civil liberties.
Free Press has launched a nonpartisan campaign to defend democracy from the war on diverse and independent media. The campaign will exert grassroots and lobbying pressure to implement policies that hold our leadership accountable and ensure that abuses of press freedom are not repeated by this and future administrations
Buchanan: What right does the US have to interfere in others' politics? by Patrick J. Buchanan
Buchanan calls Neocons Trotskyites
The Comintern, or Communist International, also known as the Third International, was the 1919 creation of Vladimir Lenin. Its declared purpose: Fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic.''
Fomenting the communist revolution worldwide was, in brief, the Comintern's mission.
At its Seventh World Congress in 1935, however, on Stalin's orders, the Comintern repudiated the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as its mission and called for formation of popular fronts in Western nations to combat fascism.
For this act of heresy, Leon Trotsky, the champion of permanent revolution, excommunicated Stalin -- and was himself rewarded in 1940 with an ice ax in the head, courtesy of Stalinist assassin Ramon Mercader.
But Trotskyism did not die with Trotsky. It mutated and is today the taproot of that neo-conservatism that calls for permanent revolution to advance global democracy. Today, this ideology is embedded in the Party of Reagan and the Bush administration, and neoconservatives are using tax dollars to create and operate their own Neo-Comintern.
The US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which pumps out millions of dollars to "promote democracy'' abroad, is its pivotal agency.
Why did you want to bomb me, Mr Bush and Mr Blair?
Al-Jazeera's quest for answers has been met with silence from both the White House and Downing Street
I have lost count of the number of accusations levelled against al-Jazeera and the incidents of harassment to which it has been subjected since it was founded in 1996. It was rumoured to have been set up by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency with the purpose of improving Israel's standing in the Arab world. It has also been accused of being a CIA mouthpiece designed to disseminate western culture among the Arabs. Some have suggested that it is part of an international conspiracy to break up the Arab world by means of stirring up discord and creating problems for the Arab regimes. Others decided it was a front for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; or funded by Saddam Hussein. And, at the same time, it has been condemned by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and bitterly criticised by Donald Rumsfeld.
Venezuela’s Disloyal Opposition Serves the Bush Administration’s Narrow Ideological Interests
In an arrant display of rank political opportunism, Venezuela’s faltering middle-class opposition parties have announced that they would boycott the December 4 legislative elections. Far from a principled and high minded move, this tawdry tactic represents a cynical decision on the part of the opposition to spare itself the inconvenience of once again having to face the humiliating defeat that they surely would have experienced at the polls. The opposition’s tactic is more in line with a Tom Delay or Karl Rove ruse than something of Jeffersonian stature.
While trumpeting claims about Venezuela’s ebbing democracy, the opposition has proven itself to be far more guilty of eroding the country’s democratic structures than any grab for power by the chavistas. In essence, the opposition is prepared to sacrifice the nation’s democratic system to serve its immediate objective of ousting the government by any means, on the false grounds that the authorities cannot guarantee free and fair elections. Every election that has been held in Venezuela since Chávez came to power has been extensively monitored, and even the U.S. State Department has been forced to grudgingly validate the authenticity of past results, as their legitimacy was unimpeachable.
Justifying the Unjustified
While trumpeting claims about Venezuela’s ebbing democracy, the opposition has proven itself to be far more guilty of eroding the country’s democratic structures than any grab for power by the chavistas. In essence, the opposition is prepared to sacrifice the nation’s democratic system to serve its immediate objective of ousting the government by any means, on the false grounds that the authorities cannot guarantee free and fair elections. Every election that has been held in Venezuela since Chávez came to power has been extensively monitored, and even the U.S. State Department has been forced to grudgingly validate the authenticity of past results, as their legitimacy was unimpeachable.
Justifying the Unjustified
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.
The World's Most Dangerous Man It's George W. Bush
Bush is a prisoner of his own demons, and we, in this era of the imperial presidency, are his prisoners, as he steers the country on a reckless road to ruin. The idea that there is something very wrong with that man in the White House, that he is wreathed in a darkness of potentially apocalyptic deadliness – that he is, in short, a deeply disturbed and dangerous individual – is chilling. From the image of the president as benevolent father-figure, we have come, in the historical blink of an eye that marks the time since the days of Dwight Eisenhower, to the chief executive as a reckless and wanton destroyer – not Zeus, but Loki. Blind to evidence, and rendered half-mad by a toxic mix of religious and ideological fervor, the most powerful man in the world is on a death-dealing rampage. No different, really, than one of those crazed gunmen you read about in the news, who go on a spectacular crime spree, kidnapping and murdering their way across several state lines, holding hostages and threatening to kill them the whole way.
We are, all of us, George W. Bush's hostages, and, what's especially scary is that we don't know what he's going to do next. He seems capable of anything. Hersh reports the creation of a special squadron detailed to crossing over the border and pursuing the insurgents into Syria, and certainly we have every reason to expect this war to spread. The reversion to air power perhaps augurs the dawning of new "shock and awe" campaigns, this time over Damascus and points west.
We are, all of us, George W. Bush's hostages, and, what's especially scary is that we don't know what he's going to do next. He seems capable of anything. Hersh reports the creation of a special squadron detailed to crossing over the border and pursuing the insurgents into Syria, and certainly we have every reason to expect this war to spread. The reversion to air power perhaps augurs the dawning of new "shock and awe" campaigns, this time over Damascus and points west.
The Enduring JFK Mystery
Editor’s Note: The assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the darkest moments in modern American history. But one of its most pernicious legacies has been the notion that average Americans must be shielded from what really happens on matters of national security, even something as important as the murder of a president.
Since the Warren Commission probe of the JFK assassination, other investigations of serious government wrongdoing, one after another, have been truncated – CIA abuses, Iran-Contra, Contra drug trafficking, Iraq-gate, misuse of Iraq War intelligence, Abu Ghraib – supposedly because the full stories would undermine morale or otherwise not be "good for the country."
Ultimately, of course, this loss of a true history is corrosive to the concept of a democratic republic, and it has been one of our goals as a publication to flesh out the facts of those failed investigations. In that light, we are publishing a report from JFK assassination expert Lisa Pease on a recent historical conference in Washington:
Since the Warren Commission probe of the JFK assassination, other investigations of serious government wrongdoing, one after another, have been truncated – CIA abuses, Iran-Contra, Contra drug trafficking, Iraq-gate, misuse of Iraq War intelligence, Abu Ghraib – supposedly because the full stories would undermine morale or otherwise not be "good for the country."
Ultimately, of course, this loss of a true history is corrosive to the concept of a democratic republic, and it has been one of our goals as a publication to flesh out the facts of those failed investigations. In that light, we are publishing a report from JFK assassination expert Lisa Pease on a recent historical conference in Washington:
Jewish settlers cut down and uprooted hundreds of olive trees on Palestinian farms near the West Bank city of Nablus, said residents & Israeli police
Summary:
Background: The Elon Moreh settlement, along with other West Bank settlements, are illegal according to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. A more detailed description of the legal question is made by David Kretzmer, Prof of International Law, Jerusalem Hebrew University.
The settlers, of course, deny this, and claim the land is theirs by “divine right.”
Israeli settlers continue to chop down the only livelihood of the local Palestinians – their olive trees.
Background: The Elon Moreh settlement, along with other West Bank settlements, are illegal according to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. A more detailed description of the legal question is made by David Kretzmer, Prof of International Law, Jerusalem Hebrew University.
The settlers, of course, deny this, and claim the land is theirs by “divine right.”
Demonize to Colonize by Ramsey Clark
"In the determination of any criminal charge ... everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 14(1)The complete demonization of Saddam Hussein threatens to determine every decision and action affecting not only his future but that of Iraq as well. With U.S. mass media and U.S. government propaganda stripping Saddam Hussein of every redeeming human quality, any act against him or Iraq is ipso facto justified.
This successful demonization made the U.S. unilateral war of aggression against Iraq politically possible. It now makes a fair trial for Saddam Hussein impossible.
The debate about intelligence failures is itself a cover-up of the obvious. Saddam Hussein was demonized to justify regime change in Iraq. It rendered him an evil madman threatening the civilized world. He possessed weapons of mass destruction. He supported 9/11. He aided al-Qaeda. WMDs could be launched within minutes of his order. That Saddam Hussein would use them was clear. He used them "against his own people." Ignored were the facts that under devastating attacks by the U.S. in 1991 and 2003, Iraq did not use any illegal weapons. In 1991, Iraq was the victim of 88,500 tons of explosives (almost seven Hiroshimas) delivered by the Pentagon in 42 days that destroyed its infrastructure: water systems, power, transportation, communications, manufacturing, commercial properties, housing, mosques, churches, synagogues. Food production, processing, storage, distribution, fertilizer and insecticide production, were targeted for destruction. Nearly 150,000 defenseless people were killed outright in Iraq. The U.S. claimed its casualties to be 156 — 1/3 from friendly fire, the remainder accidents.
Sanctions against Iraq from August 6, 1990, into 2003 took over 1,500,000 lives, the majority children under age five. By October 1986, 567,000 children under five were dead from sanctions according to a U.N. FAO report that month. One-fourth of the infants born alive in Iraq in 2002 weighed less than four pounds, a dangerously low and crippling birth weight — symbolic of the condition of the entire country.
During the high-tech terrorism of "Shock and Awe" in March and April 2003, Iraq never used any WMDs or other illegal weapon as some 25,000 of its defenseless people were killed.
At least 35 nations have WMDs in their military stockpiles, the U.S. more than all others combined. The U.S. is planning a new generation of nuclear weapons, tactical weapons that would have been used against Iraq if the U.S. had possessed them in 2003. The U.S. used 4,000 tons, or more, of depleted uranium, super bombs in attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein and cluster bombs to savage anyone within a large area, usually urban, where they were dropped.
Saddam Hussein was demonized because he refused to surrender the sovereignty and independence of Iraq and its people to demands and plans for U.S. domination and exploitation under its New World Order.
I’m With Venezuela... …In the Conflict Between Vicente Fox and Hugo Chávez
Last weekend, which marked the 195th anniversary of the November 20 Mexican Revolution, something unprecedented in the history of Mexico occurred. The Venezuelan government held a march to protest Mexican president Vicente Fox's subservience and to support Bolivarian foreign policy. These demonstrations were repeated in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. Many rightwing or apolitical Mexicans watch with a certain fear every time Hugo Chávez opens his mouth and gets linked with Andrés Manuel López Obrador. As Alberto Núñez, president of the business organization Coparmex, said:
"The business sector has expressed its rejection of populist, demagogic governments, and for that reason it has warned that it fears Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez's aims of influencing Mexico."
Or take the threats that Manuel Espino, president of Fox's National Action Party (PAN), uttered against the Venezuelan government:
Reporter: What actions would those be?
Manuel Espino: Hugo Chávez will find out soon enough.
R: Does this imply activism on the part of PAN supporters in Venezuela?
ME: It implies whatever is necessary, respecting the law and sovereignty of all nations, but supporting the democratization process of the people who today live under authoritarianism.
R. Vladimir Villegas says that the PAN's meddling in Venezuela is one of this conflict's causes.
ME: I’m so glad you have quoted him! Vladimir Villegas, Venezuela's former ambassador in Mexico, thank God, dedicated himself to supporting the activities of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s party. Obviously, Chávez's strategy in Mexico was to support a state populism similar to his own — that of Andrés Manuel -- and the media confirmed that.
R: These actions that your party will take, won't they affect relations [between the two countries] even more?
ME: To the contrary, we are interested in having good relations with citizens, with the people, not with authoritarian governments. Chávez is not Venezuela; Chávez is the authoritarian president of [the Venezuelans], and we are interested in a good relationship with them.
But the reality is that the PRD’s candidate kept his distance and defended the office of the presidency (but not Fox himself). In an interview this week with Televisa journalist Adela Micha, he said that “I have nothing to do with Chávez, absolutely nothing,” and assured that he has had no contact with Chávez since becoming governor of Mexico City. Also, if we look at both men’s origins, we see some very marked differences, such as Manuel Obrador’s pacifistic and center-left past and Chávez's military and leftwing education. There are also very pronounced similarities, in the emphasis both politicians give to fighting poverty and their opposition to neoliberalism.
"The business sector has expressed its rejection of populist, demagogic governments, and for that reason it has warned that it fears Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez's aims of influencing Mexico."
Or take the threats that Manuel Espino, president of Fox's National Action Party (PAN), uttered against the Venezuelan government:
Reporter: What actions would those be?
Manuel Espino: Hugo Chávez will find out soon enough.
R: Does this imply activism on the part of PAN supporters in Venezuela?
ME: It implies whatever is necessary, respecting the law and sovereignty of all nations, but supporting the democratization process of the people who today live under authoritarianism.
R. Vladimir Villegas says that the PAN's meddling in Venezuela is one of this conflict's causes.
ME: I’m so glad you have quoted him! Vladimir Villegas, Venezuela's former ambassador in Mexico, thank God, dedicated himself to supporting the activities of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s party. Obviously, Chávez's strategy in Mexico was to support a state populism similar to his own — that of Andrés Manuel -- and the media confirmed that.
R: These actions that your party will take, won't they affect relations [between the two countries] even more?
ME: To the contrary, we are interested in having good relations with citizens, with the people, not with authoritarian governments. Chávez is not Venezuela; Chávez is the authoritarian president of [the Venezuelans], and we are interested in a good relationship with them.
But the reality is that the PRD’s candidate kept his distance and defended the office of the presidency (but not Fox himself). In an interview this week with Televisa journalist Adela Micha, he said that “I have nothing to do with Chávez, absolutely nothing,” and assured that he has had no contact with Chávez since becoming governor of Mexico City. Also, if we look at both men’s origins, we see some very marked differences, such as Manuel Obrador’s pacifistic and center-left past and Chávez's military and leftwing education. There are also very pronounced similarities, in the emphasis both politicians give to fighting poverty and their opposition to neoliberalism.
Mitzvahpalooza!!
It was General Smedley Butler who once said "War is a Racket."
In light of the Bat Mitvah recently thrown by defense contractor David H. Brooks of DHB Industries for his daughter, it's glaringly obvious that Smedley Butler was RIGHT.
Entitled "Mitzvahpalooza," Mr. Brook's daughter's bat mitvah cost an estimated $10 million dollars. Appearing at "Mitzvahpalooza" were the following performers:
50 Cent
Don Henley and Joe Walsh of The Eagles
Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac
Tom Petty
Kenny G
Steven Tyler and Joe Perry of Aerosmith
DJ AM
Ciara
"I'm told that at one point Brooks leapt on the stage with Tyler and Perry, who responded with good grace when their paymaster demanded that his teenage nephew be permitted to sit in on drums. At another point, I'm told, Tyler theatrically wiped sweat off Brooks' forehead - and then dried his hand with a flourish."
While war profiteer David Brooks is throwing a decadent bat mitzvah for his daughter, a war rages on in Iraq. As "150 kids in attendance" were "impressed by their $1,000 gift bags, complete with digital cameras and the latest video iPod," four (4) westerners were kidnapped in Iraq today.
There is an orgy of war profiteering going on in America, from congressmen to defense contractors. Does anybody give a shit?
NOTE: DHB is the "leader in the development, manufacturing and distribution of innovative, technically advanced bullet and projectile resistant garments, bullet resistant and fragmentation vests, bomb projectile blankets, and related ballistic accessories and technologies for the United States Military and Law Enforcement Agencies"
In light of the Bat Mitvah recently thrown by defense contractor David H. Brooks of DHB Industries for his daughter, it's glaringly obvious that Smedley Butler was RIGHT.
Entitled "Mitzvahpalooza," Mr. Brook's daughter's bat mitvah cost an estimated $10 million dollars. Appearing at "Mitzvahpalooza" were the following performers:
50 Cent
Don Henley and Joe Walsh of The Eagles
Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac
Tom Petty
Kenny G
Steven Tyler and Joe Perry of Aerosmith
DJ AM
Ciara
"I'm told that at one point Brooks leapt on the stage with Tyler and Perry, who responded with good grace when their paymaster demanded that his teenage nephew be permitted to sit in on drums. At another point, I'm told, Tyler theatrically wiped sweat off Brooks' forehead - and then dried his hand with a flourish."
While war profiteer David Brooks is throwing a decadent bat mitzvah for his daughter, a war rages on in Iraq. As "150 kids in attendance" were "impressed by their $1,000 gift bags, complete with digital cameras and the latest video iPod," four (4) westerners were kidnapped in Iraq today.
There is an orgy of war profiteering going on in America, from congressmen to defense contractors. Does anybody give a shit?
NOTE: DHB is the "leader in the development, manufacturing and distribution of innovative, technically advanced bullet and projectile resistant garments, bullet resistant and fragmentation vests, bomb projectile blankets, and related ballistic accessories and technologies for the United States Military and Law Enforcement Agencies"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)